Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[MikeK]

[...]

But, since you say "...are hurting far more than the poor..."...do you realize that the group that the government claims are poor includes folks with a Jacuzzi?

[...]

I realize that in global terms being poor is a relative condition but please cite a credible example of the above.

By credible I don't mean someone who once was doing well but is unemployed, financially wiped out and is on the verge of being dispossessed.

I don't care how you choose to define poor, I'll use government data and the Census Bureau's measurement.

"Examining "Poverty" in America
In addition to the serious deficiencies of the Census Bureau's measurement of income, the government's view of what constitutes "poverty" would be surprising to most Americans. Government data on the possessions of officially poor households starkly contradict the general public understanding of what it means to be "poor."

Example: Nearly a third of all "poor" American households have microwave ovens.11

Example: Sixty-two percent of "poor" households own a car, truck or van. Fourteen percent own two or more cars.12

Example: According to government figures, over 22,000 "poor" households have a heated swimming pool or a Jacuzzi.13
How Poor are Americas Poor


Are you beginning to realize how manipulated the public...that would be you...have been by the Left?

I'm beginning to realize that your entire thesis appears to rest on a semantic error:

Of course the poor are always with us, as are the rich, and while what you've said above is certainly true and correct, what you see in that picture is not "poor." The correct word is impoverished and it is a relatively recent phenomenon -- as well as a goddam shame.

US tent cities highlight new realities as recession wears on | World news | guardian.co.uk

I assure you the people living in the tents have no jacuzzis. And they aren't "slackers." And there are many others who are living in cars and even more, even less fortunate, who are living on sidewalks and in parks and in hallways and cellars. Most of them were just like you and me before the rug was pulled out from under them by the schemes and scams of liberated Wall Street manipulators and the greed of deregulated corporatists who exported their jobs and wrecked the middle class economy.

I am not at all surprised when the half-wit participants in this forum seek to disseminate the kind of propaganda spewed by the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity. But you do surprise me and I wonder what your motive is. Because I know you know better.

 

[Lakhota]

Jon Stewart on ‘the Poors’: Fridges & Microwaves & TVs, Oh My! - Jack Palmer and Cathleen Falsani - God's Politics Blog

 

[MikeK]

I haven't had time to read the thread yet but I will answer the request in the title of the thread:

I support the wealthy because they are the ones who provide the jobs that allow me to BE in the middle class.

It is as simple as that.

Actually it's much simpler than that but the problem is Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or whomever is responsible for brainwashing you has complicated the issue. The truth is consumers, not the wealthy, are the ones who create jobs. Because if the consumers are not buying things there is no need for jobs regardless of the wealthy.

The wealthy are the cause of the problems we are having and it's because of their uncontrollable greed. They make higher profits by sending American jobs overseas, which puts American consumers out of work -- and so on. . . .

 

[Lakhota]

It does amaze me that the clowns on the right keep harping about the rich creating jobs - when it is in fact CONSUMERS who create jobs. Righties ignore historical facts like the following:

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don’t Lead To Job Growth

By Pat Garofalo

In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

More: CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth | ThinkProgress

 

[SAT]

When Democrats start talking about raising taxes on the wealthy--the middle class needs to run for cover.

For instance Obama's new jobs bill consists of raising taxes on the over 250K crowd-[/B]-(not just millionaires and billionaires.) The 250 to 500K crowd are millions of small businesse's in this country--that are the REAL job creators in this country.

Not necessarily. A lot of those people are employees, not employers.

Demand creates jobs. Keep repeating until you get it.

Obama want's to confiscate their money--so he can create SOME temporary government worker jobs. And of course, like before--when that money runs out--those jobs are terminated.

Some of the jobs are temporary. All construction is temporary. Be realistic. Buildings and bridges and roads are eventually completed.

Some of the money is going to sustain existing jobs. Vital jobs that the states cannot pay for, BECAUSE OF THE RECESSION. If those jobs are lost, the recession will be back.

The top 1% in this country pay 45% of the entire federal tax base of it. The top 10% which includes the 250K crowd--aka small business people pay 65% of the entire tax base of this country. This while we have 45% of this country (that in many cases--make a decent income) and because of mortgage interest deduction get out of paying any federal income tax.

Yes, the top one percent pay a lot of the taxes, because they have a lot of the money. That's how numbers work.

The 47% that don't pay federal income taxes pay other taxes-payroll, gasoline tax, property taxes, sales taxes.

Now you occupy whatever protesters--complain about jobs moving overseas--etc. etc. etc.--and if you keep this bull shit up--the wealthy in this country would have no problems what-so-ever taking their money with them to a foreign country--along with the tax base they contribute heavily too.

They did it in New Jersey--the rich left because of that state penalizing wealth--and they can certainly do it again. New Jersey lost 70 BILLION dollars of wealth in 5 years.

Then they can go. These threats are ridiculous.

I say don't let the door hit them in the ass.

Do you always clap for your own stupidity?

It was meant for yours. I have come to realize that the only people who are calling for others to pay higher taxes--are ones that don't pay any federal income tax themselves.

You are mistaken. Look at the polling support for tax increases on the upper income levels.

It must be the tribal imperative. What else could account for it? Wealth is wedded to right-wing politics which is why so many right-wing fanatics who probably will never pay off their credit card balances, own a new car or earn more than $50k exhibit blind, chauvinistic loyalty to usurious bankers who bleed them and to financial aristocrats who regard them as useful idiots. Right vs wrong has no meaning or importance to the tribal mindset. The enemy of their enemy is their friend -- even though that enemy is their enemy as well. They are the Gunga Dins of the One Percent and they will carry water for the rich until they die.

And they don't know it because they don't want to know it.

Yep.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I realize that in global terms being poor is a relative condition but please cite a credible example of the above.

By credible I don't mean someone who once was doing well but is unemployed, financially wiped out and is on the verge of being dispossessed.

I don't care how you choose to define poor, I'll use government data and the Census Bureau's measurement.

"Examining "Poverty" in America
In addition to the serious deficiencies of the Census Bureau's measurement of income, the government's view of what constitutes "poverty" would be surprising to most Americans. Government data on the possessions of officially poor households starkly contradict the general public understanding of what it means to be "poor."

Example: Nearly a third of all "poor" American households have microwave ovens.11

Example: Sixty-two percent of "poor" households own a car, truck or van. Fourteen percent own two or more cars.12

Example: According to government figures, over 22,000 "poor" households have a heated swimming pool or a Jacuzzi.13
How Poor are Americas Poor


Are you beginning to realize how manipulated the public...that would be you...have been by the Left?

I'm beginning to realize that your entire thesis appears to rest on a semantic error:

Of course the poor are always with us, as are the rich, and while what you've said above is certainly true and correct, what you see in that picture is not "poor." The correct word is impoverished and it is a relatively recent phenomenon -- as well as a goddam shame.

US tent cities highlight new realities as recession wears on | World news | guardian.co.uk

I assure you the people living in the tents have no jacuzzis. And they aren't "slackers." And there are many others who are living in cars and even more, even less fortunate, who are living on sidewalks and in parks and in hallways and cellars. Most of them were just like you and me before the rug was pulled out from under them by the schemes and scams of liberated Wall Street manipulators and the greed of deregulated corporatists who exported their jobs and wrecked the middle class economy.

I am not at all surprised when the half-wit participants in this forum seek to disseminate the kind of propaganda spewed by the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity. But you do surprise me and I wonder what your motive is. Because I know you know better.

Mikey...you're on the right track about there being different definitions of poor.

1.Leftist welfare policy is designed to keep the poor poor!
Proof? Sure...work is the way out....but the Left needs a constituency! Otherwise Marx is proven wrong...

1. Our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap


2. Leftist bureaucrats care not for the human collateral damage.

‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

a. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.

Mikey....in your local library....take a look at Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb." Check out chapter five....


BTW...the Occupy folks? Phony...."The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%). "
Douglas Schoen: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd - WSJ.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do tell.

Yeah, I'm not sure that Chomsky cared much for Adam Smith. (Noam was purely a Karl Marx kinda guy!)

Of course your claim that Smith supported progressive taxation is a complete fabrication. Soros uses the following as the justification for telling you this;

{"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." (Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)}

Now to any clear headed person, Smith is advocating a proportion, a percentage be fixed to ensure that all contribute.

This is a flat tax, quite the opposite of the claims by Moveon, KOS, HuffingGlue that you repeat.

Adam Smith was not purely Laissez Faire, but he was staunchly a market capitalist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can send a letter across country in 3 days for 44 cents.

I can send an email across the globe in seconds for nothing.

I get my registration within a week of making an online payment.

I get my registration within moment of making the payment through autoclub.

When I fly, I feel SAFER than I did when non citizens were checking bags for minimum wage. What's the problem?

Thank god that little old black lady was pulled from her wheel chair and and stripped searched, you know how ofter little old black ladies are involved in terrorism.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

That seems alittle low...

No worries, Obama is working diligently to vastly increase the amount owed by every person in the nation. If he got four more years, that could double!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, what a little suck up to the central planners you are! How pathetic. By the way, you are NOT freer than Americans that grew up before the Progressive era. And, we don't live in a Democracy. It's a Republic. God are you confused.

With liberty comes responsibility. For many, there is nothing more terrifying than being responsible for their own fate. As long as conditions can be blamed on something or someone other than themselves, there are those who would gladly submit to oppression and even slavery.

This is why liberty is ever under assault, because there are many who take comfort in being told what to do, in following the herd. Decisions can be hard, and many do everything in their power to avoid having to make them, including submission to lords and masters.

The split between left and right is that the right seeks liberty above all, the left seeks to escape responsibility for their own fate.

 

[toxicmedia]

Uh, no. Carlson Tucker owns the DC and he's a dedicated Libertarian.

Whatever...Tucker Carlson leans to the right, and his site, The Daily Caller, is biased towards pseudo conservative viewpoints, and I don't know anyone who thinks he's neutral, or leans to the left.

Wrong. He leans neither left nor right, just like every other Libertarian. Limited government, maximum freedom and equal justice are not "right" or "left" leanings. Conservative and Liberal are simply different versions of big government and frankly, we dislike both. You need to read up on what it means to be a Libertarian.

Read up?........yeah right.

The Daily Caller was started by Carlson, and Neil Patel, a former Dick Cheney aide...it don't get more Republican than that. Also Alex Pappas, writer for the GOP friendly Washington Times, and he is a Republican, and he's known for Op-Eds that defend Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Jim Treacher also works for Carlson, and his blog is all about the Republican party.

There are pseudo Libertarians out there these days.....if you believe in creating laws that regulate social behavior....like outlawing abortion, drugs, gay marriage, or prositution, you are a pseudo Libertarian. If you think Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were good ideas and noble causes, you are a pseudo Libertarian. Many Republicans, and people who think they are Libertarians, will be voting Republican in 2012, and voted Republican in 2008, Carlson is probably one of them

 

[eflatminor]

Whatever...Tucker Carlson leans to the right, and his site, The Daily Caller, is biased towards pseudo conservative viewpoints, and I don't know anyone who thinks he's neutral, or leans to the left.

Wrong. He leans neither left nor right, just like every other Libertarian. Limited government, maximum freedom and equal justice are not "right" or "left" leanings. Conservative and Liberal are simply different versions of big government and frankly, we dislike both. You need to read up on what it means to be a Libertarian.

Read up?........yeah right.

The Daily Caller was started by Carlson, and Neil Patel, a former Dick Cheney aide...it don't get more Republican than that. Also Alex Pappas, writer for the GOP friendly Washington Times, and he is a Republican, and he's known for Op-Eds that defend Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Jim Treacher also works for Carlson, and his blog is all about the Republican party.

There are pseudo Libertarians out there these days.....if you believe in creating laws that regulate social behavior....like outlawing abortion, drugs, gay marriage, or prositution, you are a pseudo Libertarian. If you think Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were good ideas and noble causes, you are a pseudo Libertarian. Many Republicans, and people who think they are Libertarians, will be voting Republican in 2012, and voted Republican in 2008, Carlson is probably one of them

You are correct about some Republicans believing in regulating social behavior and of course many are pro occupation...I wouldn't even call them "pseudo" Libertarians but simply Conservatives. However, you no evidence that Tucker Carlson is one of them. I've been reading and listening to him for years and based on what I've seen, he's a true Libertarian. Truth is NEITHER of us knows what is in another man's heart.

 

[eflatminor]

Well, I'm currently having a look at the Articles of Confederation.

But in the mean time, we should ignore the law of the land. Great plan.

Hey, it works pretty well for Wall Street.

As well as for Bush, Obama and pretty much every other central planner in Washington.

 

[Utilitarian]

But in the mean time, we should ignore the law of the land. Great plan.

Hey, it works pretty well for Wall Street.

As well as for Bush, Obama and pretty much every other central planner in Washington.

This is true... If we had Ron Paul in there, he'd fix it all.

 

[eflatminor]

What's the problem?

Here's the problem:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

As of this moment, you owe $132,380 toward the debt we've accumulated for pay for all these "feel good" programs and "essential" wars and occupations. How will you be paying? Cash or check?

How much of that debt is two wars & Medicare Part D? Since when are the USPS, DMV and the TSA "feel good" services?

The USPS just delivered over 100,000 ballots to voters in my county. That DOES make me feel good.

Not nearly as much as Medicare and Medicade...but that's not the point. You call for all these "essential" services when you have NO FUCKING MONEY TO PAY FOR THEM. That's the point. What you fail to understand is that a free market could deliver your ballots and screen airline passengers far more efficiently and effectively than a government bureaucracy and would do so without further burdening future generations with debt. Your largess is sinking the future of this country and you don't give a shit...but hey, if it makes you feel good, well, screw the kids, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

A true libertarian wants no part of a strong central government that does anything more than provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning the welfare of ALL and not targeted groups, and secure the rights of the people so that they have complete freedom to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A true libertarian also supports the social contract that allows people to form the sort of societies they wish to have. And if they wish no prostitution, abortion clinics, adult bookstores, open saloons, gambling, neon signs, or littering in their community, they should have the right to have none of that in their community. They should not have the right, however, to dictate to the community on down the road how that community will implement their own social contract.

To forbid social contract is not libertarian and is just as authoritarian as the central government who would forbid freedoms to everybody.

The American experiment was intended for the people to have their rights secured and then otherwise be left alone to organize whatever sort of societies they wished to have and govern themselves however they saw fit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How much of that debt is two wars & Medicare Part D? Since when are the USPS, DMV and the TSA "feel good" services?

The USPS just delivered over 100,000 ballots to voters in my county. That DOES make me feel good.

Anyone holding up the post office as an example of government success is full on out of their mind.

{“The Postal Service is at the brink of default,” Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned at a Senate hearing. “Our situation is urgent. Congressional action is needed immediately to avoid this default.”

John Berry, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Management, said the White House plans to release a proposal that aids the postal service as part of a $1.5 trillion deficit-reduction package that President Obama will submit to Congress.

Faced with flagging revenues and high workforce costs, the Postal Service is projected to post a $9 billion deficit on the year and could miss a $5.5 billion payment on retiree benefits at the end of this month. Arguing that the service suffers from a “restrictive business model,” Donahoe said that Congress needs to pass legislation that would make the independent agency more like “a private-sector business.”}

Postal Service Default: Postmaster General Pleads For Congressional Action As Bankruptcy Looms

No wonder you voted for Barack Obama.....

 

[Avatar4321]

That seems alittle low...

No worries, Obama is working diligently to vastly increase the amount owed by every person in the nation. If he got four more years, that could double!

No. Im not worried about that at all. I just could have sworn it was closer to $400,000 a person a year or so ago.

 

[toxicmedia]

Wrong. He leans neither left nor right, just like every other Libertarian. Limited government, maximum freedom and equal justice are not "right" or "left" leanings. Conservative and Liberal are simply different versions of big government and frankly, we dislike both. You need to read up on what it means to be a Libertarian.

Read up?........yeah right.

The Daily Caller was started by Carlson, and Neil Patel, a former Dick Cheney aide...it don't get more Republican than that. Also Alex Pappas, writer for the GOP friendly Washington Times, and he is a Republican, and he's known for Op-Eds that defend Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Jim Treacher also works for Carlson, and his blog is all about the Republican party.

There are pseudo Libertarians out there these days.....if you believe in creating laws that regulate social behavior....like outlawing abortion, drugs, gay marriage, or prositution, you are a pseudo Libertarian. If you think Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were good ideas and noble causes, you are a pseudo Libertarian. Many Republicans, and people who think they are Libertarians, will be voting Republican in 2012, and voted Republican in 2008, Carlson is probably one of them

You are correct about some Republicans believing in regulating social behavior and of course many are pro occupation...I wouldn't even call them "pseudo" Libertarians but simply Conservatives. However, you no evidence that Tucker Carlson is one of them. I've been reading and listening to him for years and based on what I've seen, he's a true Libertarian. Truth is NEITHER of us knows what is in another man's heart.

You're right...I don't know what's in his heart...but everything I've ver heard from him sounds like what Republicans say. I've never heard him advocate true social Libertarianism.

Maybe I'll just try to read more, as you previously suggested...and of course I scoffed at

but this whole subject came up because Political Chick offered the Daily Caller as a cite to support her notion that The Brookings Insitute is a center left think tank. As a rule...I do not consider a web site manned by Republicans, part time Libertarians, and other right leaning folks to be a credible source for a judgement on whether or not Brookings is biased. The fact is...I've read Brookings material for years, and see them going every which way....the only time I hear allegations of bias, are when they come out with information Republicans don't like.

 

[MikeK]

Do you understand the bailing out water is NOT as efficient as FIXING the leak?

From the right-wing propaganda machine to your ears and, now, to our eyes.

That would be a pretty good analogy if it made sense but it presents fixing and bailing as an either/or situation when in fact both actions are equally necessary.

The STATES each have their own problems. And I'm sure as heck not interested in supporting leftist paradises like LA and San Fran and Chicago in their spendthrift ways? This is not a solution to the economy. It WILL NOT make the private sector stronger. It will give the states the same "too big to fail" status that a misdirected leftist Congress WANTS to give to Wall Street giants and car companies. Besides, I doubt that the OWS protesters are gonna be happy with redistributing your pirate booty to JUST public servants. It does not address the general problem of welfare inequality. In fact -- it addresses very little than bandage on a major wound..

In order to respond appropriately to your criticism of proposed tax increases it is necessary to understand your financial status. Are you among those whose income level and/or net worth will be subject to a tax increase? Or are you among those who barely make ends meet but who are compelled by some psychological quirk to carry water for the category of elites who ultimately regard you as a useful idiot?

Which side are you on?