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

[Contumacious]

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

The question is irrelevant.

The questions should be WHY the fuck do you support the parasites over the producers?

Why the fuck do you support class warfare?

Why can't all Americans support their government EQUALLY?

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Why is it impossible for you to grasp the fact that MANY folk (hopefully most) act on principle and don't check their bank balance before weighing in on political issues??

What I said is true. The "loot the rich" crowd is not gaining traction because they have a naive view of HOW that loot would be used "as charity". Or redistributed wealth. When in fact, I'm in no mood to ENCOURAGE californians to keep approving every Kooky Billion dollar bond issue that they can't afford.. REGARDLESS of whether I make 5 figures or 7 digits a year.. To do so would be the very definition of "Co-Dependency".. A rather non-productive psychologically weak position from which to REALLY help people...

 

[Foxfyre]

Our Fearless Leader has lately become enamored with quoting Ronald Reagan, usually out of context and often entirely distorting the 'gipper's' entire philosophy and intent.

Reagan would never have suggested that anyone should check their bank balance to see how a policy would affect them before knowing whether that policy was fair or unfair, productive or anti-productive. And Reagan would never have promoted total class warfare, class envy, and class consciousness that Fearless Leader has made his stock in trade. Reagan always promoted the Founders' philosophy that when people are free, nobody is permanently stuck in their circumstances and all should expect to improve their lot in life. By working for it. Not by having it given to them.

A tax policy is either fair to some and unfair to others or it isn't.
A tax policy either rewards/promotes lack of success and punishes/discourages success or it doesn't. Our motive is either to raise all boats or it is to punish those we most resent. We either see people as inferior and incapable of improving their circumstances or we know that all have the potential to benefit from increased opportunity.

If the less affluent among us wind up paying some taxes they don't currently have to pay, but a healthy, growing economy makes it far easier for them to lift themselves out of their current circumstances, how can anybody with a brain see that as a negative thing? If the more affluent among us wind up paying less in taxes but it is made much more attractive for them to risk their substantial assets and return them to the economy to the benefit of all, is that so unattractive to those who despise the rich that they won't see that as a good thing?

 

[MikeK]

We haven't seen income equality like this since the robber barons. Ignoring that is stupid.

For some it is simply stupid. For those who are not stupid it reflects an indoctrinated mindset which is analogous to that of Nazi neophytes. Their minds are made up and they refuse to be inconvenienced by contradictory facts.

(Excerpt)

The income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. soared 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, but the bottom 20 percent grew by just 18 percent, new government data shows.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study this week that compared real after-tax household income between 1979 and 2007, which were both after recessions and had similar overall economic activity.

Income More Than Doubles for Top 1 Percent From 1979 - ABC News

 

[MikeK]

We haven't seen income equality like this since the robber barons. Ignoring that is stupid.

Actually income equality is wider today than the robber baron days. Therefore, when there was very little government meddling in business, we had LESS income inequality, not more. Starting to see the picture here?

More importantly, please explain why income inequality is a bad thing. If a guy is smart, works hard, makes good decisions in launching a business to sell a product that the people want, he'll make good money. How is that bad for anyone else?

There is nothing wrong with income inequality provided the level of inequality is such that it does not create the kind of damaging effect we're seeing today.

There always have been upper and lower income classes in America but the only time the difference caused problems was during the Robber Baron era, which led to the Great Depression, and now. Something which is conveniently ignored by those who insist that lower income Americans are jealous of their upper income counterparts are the decades between the late 1940s and early 1980s, which were the most prosperous and productive years in our history. During that period, when fully one third of the working population was unionized and a thriving middle class had emerged, there were many millionaires and their number increased rapidly as our economy grew. But the incomes of the lower and middle classes grew in proportion, the population was generally contented and nobody paid any attention to the rich.

Today's middle class is considerably diminished. The lower income levels are no longer contented because they see what is happening and are paying attention to the rich -- whose income levels are no longer "upper" but are excessive. The situation has evolved from the states of rich and poor to those of excessive wealth and abject poverty with a rapidly diminishing middle ground.

 

[MikeK]

You are completely wrong, sir..and that is what I mean when I say that the democratic party is aware that people are foolish enough to fall for the "gop protect the wealthy" spin. See? Even you fell for it and you regurgitate it with such confidence...and you have no idea how silly they are making you look.

They were protecting YOUR future and everyones elses future as prospective business owners. They did not want to villify business owners nor did they want to put more of a strain on exiosting business owners in a time where hiring is at such a low.

I wonder how many people felt as you do BEFORE they started a business and now that they opwn a business UNDERSTAND why the GOP stands for what they stand for.

I'll tell you what.....you find me a clip of any GOP elected representative in EITHER house that has actually said that it is the WEALTHY that he or she wants to protect.

Bet you cant find one

And you find one convicted burglar who has publicly stated he's looking for a nice easy "score."

Bet you can't find one.

so, in other words, you agree that it has nothing to do with what the GOP says...it has to do with how the democrats spin what they say.

Or are you one of those people that truly believes the GOP only want to protect the wealthy?

I have absolutely no doubt of that. America has become a nation divided by money and the GOP is on the side of wealth. The Republican side of the Congress is controlled by Wall Street, bank and corporate lobbies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is nothing wrong with income inequality provided the level of inequality is such that it does not create the kind of damaging effect we're seeing today.

There always have been upper and lower income classes in America but the only time the difference caused problems was during the Robber Baron era, which led to the Great Depression, and now. Something which is conveniently ignored by those who insist that lower income Americans are jealous of their upper income counterparts are the decades between the late 1940s and early 1980s, which were the most prosperous and productive years in our history. During that period, when fully one third of the working population was unionized and a thriving middle class had emerged, there were many millionaires and their number increased rapidly as our economy grew. But the incomes of the lower and middle classes grew in proportion, the population was generally contented and nobody paid any attention to the rich.

Today's middle class is considerably diminished. The lower income levels are no longer contented because they see what is happening and are paying attention to the rich -- whose income levels are no longer "upper" but are excessive. The situation has evolved from the states of rich and poor to those of excessive wealth and abject poverty with a rapidly diminishing middle ground.

I curious; for all of you on the far left:

If you had a magic button that would reduce the income and overall wealth of everyone in the country by 20% - BUT would reduce the income and wealth of the top 1% wealthiest Americans by 80% - would you push it?

 

[jgarden]

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

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

I suspect that Republican/Tea Party supporters view the wealthy in much the same way that the majority in the Confederacy supported the right of plantation owners to keep slaves - even though relatively few Southerners owned slaves themselves.

The average Confederate supporter could identify with slave ownership as the accepted venue to achieve "The American Dream," just as the Republicans/Tea Party supporters believe that they too will someday defy the odds and elevate themselves to take their "rightful" place among the wealthy.

 

[chikenwing]

I have absolutely no doubt of that. America has become a nation divided by money and the GOP is on the side of wealth. The Republican side of the Congress is controlled by Wall Street, bank and corporate lobbys.

Ya try and give folks a chance,listen to what the say,then they post things like this.Programing is an effective and widly used tool.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mikey::

The income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. soared 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, but the bottom 20 percent grew by just 18 percent, new government data shows.

I checked the numbers.. These are exactly the same for NBA salaries and their front office counterparts. Is THAT a problem for you Mikey???

 

[flacaltenn]

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

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

I suspect that Republican/Tea Party supporters view the wealthy in much the same way that the majority in the Confederacy supported the right of plantation owners to keep slaves - even though relatively few Southerners owned slaves themselves.

The average Confederate supporter could identify with slave ownership as the accepted venue to achieve "The American Dream," just as the Republicans/Tea Party supporters believe that they too will someday defy the odds and elevate themselves to take their "rightful" place among the wealthy.

Wrong again Lefto--- I just don't believe that looting the rich is the solution to the wealth gap. You class warriors aren't gonna fix H.S. dropouts by handing them a check. Nor are you gonna fix computer illiteracy with a check. You have NO PLAN to find America a place in a 21st Global Economy.. You are virtually just whiners and beggars without a plan..

You can BELIEVE that a Govt which has stolen and squandered the Soc Sec Surplus for 25 years is capable of redistribution -- but you'd be a moron for believing that.

THAT'S why we're not buying it. Not because we have room in the house for a couple slaves..

 

[MikeK]

I would love to shake the hand of the fella trying to explain to those dumb freaks that they havne't a clue how good they have it. Even if poor in America, it's a whole lot better than most of the world, at least you have the option to work harder and better yourself. Although fewer and fewer are willing to put in the effort it takes to be successful thanks to the generous social programs.
Fuck, you can even sit on your ass in America and "deserve" a living.

Someone needs to explain to the Russian (and you) that what he lived under in the USSR was not Socialism but Stalinism and that contemporary Denmark, which is a Socialist nation, is known to be the happiest country in the world.
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

That ignorant Russian is a perfect example of the kind of brainwashed water carriers for the One Percent who are helping to ruin America. He really believes the stupid nonsense he tried to shove down the throats of those people.

Denmark also has a land area a little more than half that of the State of Kansas and a population that is about half that of metropolitan L.A. It also enjoys a very cohesive, ethnically 'pure' population with shared history and values and has recently rejected any efforts at multi-culturalism by telling its small Muslim population that they better expect to live as Danes or go elsewhere.

So it is sort of laughable to hold up Denmark as the illustration of what the USA should be. We were happier too when there were largely share basic values, no political correctness, no multi-culturalism that was expected to be accommodated by everybody else, no federal welfare system, etc. etc. etc. Want to wind the clock back to those times?

The point I wished to make is that Socialism is not the evil system the right wing pundits would like us to believe it is. And while it is impossible for the U.S. to fully emulate Denmark there are many Socialist policies which are essential to the purpose of controlling the voracious nature of laissez faire capitalism.

 

[eflatminor]

There always have been upper and lower income classes in America but the only time the difference caused problems was during the Robber Baron era, which led to the Great Depression

False assumption. The "Robber Baron era" may have preceded the great depression but it did not lead to it. What exactly did is a matter of debate, but don't speak like you know, because you don't.

There is no connection between income inequality and the overall economy or the status of the less-than-rich class. Everybody in America, at all levels of income, benefits from a free society with limited government interference and equal justice, which includes equitable taxation. This is why, despite all the efforts to socialize our country, the "poor" in America are rich compared to the world and why even the poorest born have a shot at something better.

 

[SAT]

Adam Smith on progressive taxation:

Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea of a progressive tax has garnered support from macro economists and political scientists of many different ideologies - ranging from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, although there are differences of opinion about the optimal level of progressivity. Some economists[14] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[15]

 

[SAT]

There always have been upper and lower income classes in America but the only time the difference caused problems was during the Robber Baron era, which led to the Great Depression

False assumption. The "Robber Baron era" may have preceded the great depression but it did not lead to it. What exactly did is a matter of debate, but don't speak like you know, because you don't.

There is no connection between income inequality and the overall economy or the status of the less-than-rich class. Everybody in America, at all levels of income, benefits from a free society with limited government interference and equal justice, which includes equitable taxation. This is why, despite all the efforts to socialize our country, the "poor" in America are rich compared to the world and why even the poorest born have a shot at something better.

Extreme wealth inequality is a problem for a democracy. What we've got right now is the rich paying for disproportionate political influence.

Part of what they're influencing is money spent on the things that help the poor escape poverty-education and transportation.

This is not good.

 

[Intense]

We haven't seen income equality like this since the robber barons. Ignoring that is stupid.

For some it is simply stupid. For those who are not stupid it reflects an indoctrinated mindset which is analogous to that of Nazi neophytes. Their minds are made up and they refuse to be inconvenienced by contradictory facts.

(Excerpt)

The income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. soared 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, but the bottom 20 percent grew by just 18 percent, new government data shows.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study this week that compared real after-tax household income between 1979 and 2007, which were both after recessions and had similar overall economic activity.

Income More Than Doubles for Top 1 Percent From 1979 - ABC News

What your Data shows is that that bottom 20% stuck on Food Stamps and Welfare need to make a greater effort.

 

[SAT]

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.

No, you don't send an email for nothing.

You pay for electricity and for internet service.

And as the PO says, you can't send somebody's medication via email.

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

United States Postal Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Postal Service (also known as USPS, the Post Office or U.S. Mail) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

The USPS traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, where Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general. The cabinet-level Post Office Department was created in 1792 from Franklin's operation and transformed into its current form in 1971 under the Postal Reorganization Act.

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. Revenue in the 2000s has been dropping sharply due to declining mail volume,[3] prompting the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit.[4]

 

[SAT]

What your Data shows is that that bottom 20% stuck on Food Stamps and Welfare need to make a greater effort.

And that will magically make the bottom 20% disappear, so that we only have the top 80% in a hundred?

I'm sure that there's a degree of merit in what you're saying. Everybody could try harder, the poor included. But right now there are far more applicants for jobs than there are jobs. And the problem is greatest among the less educated. You can try all you like, but you can't alter reality with your thoughts.

 

[MikeK]

Our country was strongest with a strong Middle Class. The income inequality we are experiencing is destroying the Middle Class...the ACTUAL "job creators".

The middle class creates jobs?

How many people do you employ?

The middle class represents a massive consumer base. Consumers buy things. Which is what creates jobs.

 

[SAT]

Our country was strongest with a strong Middle Class. The income inequality we are experiencing is destroying the Middle Class...the ACTUAL "job creators".

The middle class creates jobs?

How many people do you employ?

The middle class represents a massive consumer base. Consumers buy things. Which is what creates jobs.

Look, Ma! Somebody understands how an economy ACTUALLY WORKS!



We don't have to grovel and scrape and beg the "job creators" to create us some jobs, pretty please.

Demand creates jobs.

Not John Galt.