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

[eflatminor]

Maybe because nobody ever got a job from a poor person?

Wealthy individuals are a byproduct of a free and prosperous society. Deal with it.

Oh ok, perhaps you would care to explain the "byproduct" of middle eastern princes?

I said FREE and prosperous, like America is supposed to be, not "a totalitarian state ruled by despots floating on oil", as is the case with most Middle Eastern countries and the princes that rule there.

Did I really have to explain that difference? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

 

[Photonic]

Maybe because nobody ever got a job from a poor person?

Wealthy individuals are a byproduct of a free and prosperous society. Deal with it.

Oh ok, perhaps you would care to explain the "byproduct" of middle eastern princes?

I said FREE and prosperous, like America is supposed to be, not "a totalitarian state ruled by despots floating on oil", as is the case with most Middle Eastern countries and the princes that rule there.

Did I really have to explain that difference? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

My point, dear fellow, is that wealthy people are not a byproduct of a free and prosperous society.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh ok, perhaps you would care to explain the "byproduct" of middle eastern princes?

I said FREE and prosperous, like America is supposed to be, not "a totalitarian state ruled by despots floating on oil", as is the case with most Middle Eastern countries and the princes that rule there.

Did I really have to explain that difference? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

My point, dear fellow, is that wealthy people are not a byproduct of a free and prosperous society.

Please point to the wealthy people that you will find in a country with a totalitarian government. They are there, but they are all in government.

It is no accident that the bigger, more intrusive, more authoritarian our own federal government is, the more 1 percenters you find in the government.

 

[Photonic]

I said FREE and prosperous, like America is supposed to be, not "a totalitarian state ruled by despots floating on oil", as is the case with most Middle Eastern countries and the princes that rule there.

Did I really have to explain that difference? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

My point, dear fellow, is that wealthy people are not a byproduct of a free and prosperous society.

Please point to the wealthy people that you will find in a country with a totalitarian government. They are there, but they are all in government.

It is no accident that the bigger, more intrusive, more authoritarian our own federal government is, the more 1 percenters you find in the government.

You are completely correct.

Which makes it okay to demonize the 1% because they are effectively destroying the American way of life. They wield FAR more political power than they should and it's upsetting the balance and it's showing in our economy and massive separation between the wealthy and the poor in this country.

 

[Freedomlover]

Wow! Another socialist who lives on the liberal plantation. Talk about not being able to think for yourself. I feel soryy for you Midcan5. I want Americans, and America, to enjoy all the freedoms the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution guarantee us. I oppose all those who are willing to trade in those freedoms in order to gain from others what they themselves have not worked for, or those who use socialist policies to buy votes from those who are willing to sell their vote in order to gain power.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh ok, perhaps you would care to explain the "byproduct" of middle eastern princes?

I said FREE and prosperous, like America is supposed to be, not "a totalitarian state ruled by despots floating on oil", as is the case with most Middle Eastern countries and the princes that rule there.

Did I really have to explain that difference? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

My point, dear fellow, is that wealthy people are not a byproduct of a free and prosperous society.

You've made no point...you're only backtracking from your ridiculous comment with another ridiculous comment. Over the lifetime of the great American experiment, we have generally been the most free society with the most free markets. Consequently, we became the world's richest society, at all levels of wealth. This is why America's poor today are rich compared to the rest of the world and at the other end of the spectrum, we have a disproportionally high number of wealthy individuals for out population. With few exceptions (like free market embracing Dubai), the Middle Eastern princes and dictators are among the very few wealthy in their countries with everyone else living in true poverty. That's not the case in America where we have many wealthy individuals and true poverty is non existent. So, I'd agree with you but you're wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

...the 1% because they are effectively destroying the American way of life. They wield FAR more political power than they should and it's upsetting the balance and it's showing in our economy and massive separation between the wealthy and the poor in this country.

Of course, among the biggest donors to the Democrats are unions. So, are unions also wielding too much political power or are unions among the evil 1% too???

Anyway, please explain how a rich person, say Steve Jobs, effectively destroyed the American way of life. A guy works hard, has good ideas, makes sacrifices to invest in a company, hires employees, sells a product for which there is significant demand and low and behold, he makes himself rich. How exactly is that bad for other American citizens?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not to mention that if you confiscated ALL that those 1% own--EVERYTHING--the government could run for about three weeks on that money. At the same time a great many scholarship funds, foundations, entreprenoural venture money, and think tanks would close down because they would no longer be funded. Numerous studies and research projects would have to close down. A great many American and world charities would be severely underfunded. Banks would have far less money available to loan to anybody, the stock market would nosedive, and tens of thousands of workers would be laid off because nobody would be buying the products they make. Many new science labs, museum exhibits, hospital wings, and support for the arts would not happen.

There is no sin or negative consequences for anybody becoming rich. However, the government, in an attempt to punish or penalize the rich, makes it much more difficult for others to become rich. Which is precisely what the Obama administration is doing and proposes to do more of.

You simply cannot hurt the rich without hurting the poor far more.

 

[Photonic]

...the 1% because they are effectively destroying the American way of life. They wield FAR more political power than they should and it's upsetting the balance and it's showing in our economy and massive separation between the wealthy and the poor in this country.

Of course, among the biggest donors to the Democrats are unions. So, are unions also wielding too much political power or are unions among the evil 1% too???

Anyway, please explain how a rich person, say Steve Jobs, effectively destroyed the American way of life. A guy works hard, has good ideas, makes sacrifices to invest in a company, hires employees, sells a product for which there is significant demand and low and behold, he makes himself rich. How exactly is that bad for other American citizens?

Ok, let me ask you this.

Should they have more say in how this country is run than any other citizen?

That is essentially what you are claiming.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Del, I was joking. The right constantly uses the word "confiscatory" when talking about taxes-their insistence on using these inflammatory words makes me laugh.

Ah, the powerful English skills of the left, a group that had trouble defining the word "is":

Confiscatory - : to seize as forfeited to the public treasury
2: to seize by or as if by authority

So basically, using the word to describe our tax system is merely descriptive (and accurate). If you're "inflamed" by its use, that's YOUR problem, not ours.

 

[eflatminor]

...the 1% because they are effectively destroying the American way of life. They wield FAR more political power than they should and it's upsetting the balance and it's showing in our economy and massive separation between the wealthy and the poor in this country.

Of course, among the biggest donors to the Democrats are unions. So, are unions also wielding too much political power or are unions among the evil 1% too???

Anyway, please explain how a rich person, say Steve Jobs, effectively destroyed the American way of life. A guy works hard, has good ideas, makes sacrifices to invest in a company, hires employees, sells a product for which there is significant demand and low and behold, he makes himself rich. How exactly is that bad for other American citizens?

Ok, let me ask you this.

Should they have more say in how this country is run than any other citizen?

That is essentially what you are claiming.

That is in NO WAY what I am claiming. Nice dodge there pal! Answer my question, or not, but don't falsely suggest I claimed something I did not.

To your question, I do not agree the rich "run this country". The cronyism that takes place from the rich, large corporations, and unions REQUIRES a politician on the other end of the equation. There are no loopholes, there are no tax breaks, there are no special deals for labor without a politician willing to meddle in business to the benefit of their contributors. Both parties are guilty of this.

Now, answer my question, if you can.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? You should ask those in my employ if I created a job. If entrepreneurs like myself do not create jobs, who does?

Demand creates jobs. The demands of the public for goods and services.

Oh my God...you couldn't be that stupid.

And what exactly do you think entrepreneurs are responding to? Follow closely now...If someone doesn't build a business to supply that demand, products don't magically appear. Someone has to risk capital to start the business...which includes employees...jobs...as well as the enriching of scores of advisers, lawyers, accountants, not to mention governmental regulatory agencies.

To say demand creates jobs and not entrepreneurs is blatantly ridiculous. It is akin to saying Oxygen creates jobs because without Oxygen, there would be no customers.

Grow up.

Also, that whole "demand creates jobs" ignores how many times the public has no idea they want something - and thus is not demanding it - until it's been invented and marketed. Were people demanding iPods and iPhones before they appeared?

 

[eflatminor]

Demand creates jobs. The demands of the public for goods and services.

Oh my God...you couldn't be that stupid.

And what exactly do you think entrepreneurs are responding to? Follow closely now...If someone doesn't build a business to supply that demand, products don't magically appear. Someone has to risk capital to start the business...which includes employees...jobs...as well as the enriching of scores of advisers, lawyers, accountants, not to mention governmental regulatory agencies.

To say demand creates jobs and not entrepreneurs is blatantly ridiculous. It is akin to saying Oxygen creates jobs because without Oxygen, there would be no customers.

Grow up.

Also, that whole "demand creates jobs" ignores how many times the public has no idea they want something - and thus is not demanding it - until it's been invented and marketed. Were people demanding iPods and iPhones before they appeared?

Stop with the logic and reason...you'll make their heads explode.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wow! Another socialist who lives on the liberal plantation. Talk about not being able to think for yourself. I feel soryy for you Midcan5. I want Americans, and America, to enjoy all the freedoms the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution guarantee us. I oppose all those who are willing to trade in those freedoms in order to gain from others what they themselves have not worked for, or those who use socialist policies to buy votes from those who are willing to sell their vote in order to gain power.

So..........how do you feel about elected officials signing over pledges to one single private citizen like Grover Norquist?

 

[SAT]

I never stated to "think" of the children, I'm suggesting you should not meddle in the lives of those yet to be born...as though you haven't fucked things up enough for the living. I want to live within my means, pay my own way in life and burden no one. Your type is quite the opposite.

Yes, you did. You wanted us to think of the debt that future generations will face. Please review your own posts. You got mixed up in your own rhetoric.

I am in favor of responsibility, unlike the GOP. Personal responsibility, civic responsibility, and government responsibility.

That means paying the bills, not turning off the lights and sitting in the dark because it's cheap.

Just because previous stimulus bills were also unconstitutional, that doesn't make this one suddenly legal...and yes, I've stood against such government meddling long before Obama.

And yet you offer no evidence of their unconstitutionality. Hmmmm....

 

[SAT]

[
That's a blatant misrepresentation of Smith and you damn well know it. He advocated the rich should pay a higher amount of tax revenue than the poor man, not a higher percentage.

More importantly and despite all your bitching about tax cuts for the rich, they wealthy in this country continue to pay an increasing percentage of the overall tax burden, whatever the rate, whatever the loophole. But of course, they got richer...and we can't have that!

It will NEVER be enough for you people.

So quoting Smith is misrepresenting him?

The wealthy have most of the money, and they make laws and policy to keep it that way. That's why they pay so much in taxes. To quote a great President, "That's not class warfare, it's MATH."

To your question, I do not agree the rich "run this country". The cronyism that takes place from the rich, large corporations, and unions REQUIRES a politician on the other end of the equation. There are no loopholes, there are no tax breaks, there are no special deals for labor without a politician willing to meddle in business to the benefit of their contributors. Both parties are guilty of this.

Now, answer my question, if you can.

Your explanation of cronyism doesn't mean that the rich don't have massive political influence in this country.

Also, that whole "demand creates jobs" ignores how many times the public has no idea they want something - and thus is not demanding it - until it's been invented and marketed. Were people demanding iPods and iPhones before they appeared?

C. People want better technology. Yes, the demand comes from consumers.

So..........how do you feel about elected officials signing over pledges to one single private citizen like Grover Norquist?

An excellent question.

 

[eflatminor]

I never stated to "think" of the children, I'm suggesting you should not meddle in the lives of those yet to be born...as though you haven't fucked things up enough for the living. I want to live within my means, pay my own way in life and burden no one. Your type is quite the opposite.

Yes, you did. You wanted us to think of the debt that future generations will face. Please review your own posts. You got mixed up in your own rhetoric.

I am in favor of responsibility, unlike the GOP. Personal responsibility, civic responsibility, and government responsibility.

That means paying the bills, not turning off the lights and sitting in the dark because it's cheap.

Just because previous stimulus bills were also unconstitutional, that doesn't make this one suddenly legal...and yes, I've stood against such government meddling long before Obama.

And yet you offer no evidence of their unconstitutionality. Hmmmm....

You are incredibly disingenuous but you are correct that I stand against passing our debt to future generations. You seem okay with that. I think that's not only wrong, it's downright immoral...but that's your cross to bear.

Regarding the lack of constitutionality for stimulus, I offer the ultimate evidence: the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment. Read them. You will NOT find any authority for the federal government to engage in stimulus. That means such an endevour is not legal - that's how the law of the land works. The onus is on you to point out where such authority is authorized in the Constitution. Let us know how you do with that.

 

[eflatminor]

[
That's a blatant misrepresentation of Smith and you damn well know it. He advocated the rich should pay a higher amount of tax revenue than the poor man, not a higher percentage.

More importantly and despite all your bitching about tax cuts for the rich, they wealthy in this country continue to pay an increasing percentage of the overall tax burden, whatever the rate, whatever the loophole. But of course, they got richer...and we can't have that!

It will NEVER be enough for you people.

So quoting Smith is misrepresenting him?

The wealthy have most of the money, and they make laws and policy to keep it that way. That's why they pay so much in taxes. To quote a great President, "That's not class warfare, it's MATH."

To your question, I do not agree the rich "run this country". The cronyism that takes place from the rich, large corporations, and unions REQUIRES a politician on the other end of the equation. There are no loopholes, there are no tax breaks, there are no special deals for labor without a politician willing to meddle in business to the benefit of their contributors. Both parties are guilty of this.

Now, answer my question, if you can.

Your explanation of cronyism doesn't mean that the rich don't have massive political influence in this country.

1) Quoting Smith and then suggesting it means something that it clearly does not? Yes, that is called misrepresenting him. Deal with it.
2) You're still refusing to answer my question. What's the problem?
3) Anyone who contributes to meddling politicians can have a massive political influence. That includes rich people, corporations, or unions...hell, even failing solar panel companies can get in on the cronyism.

 

[SAT]

You are incredibly disingenuous but you are correct that I stand against passing our debt to future generations. You seem okay with that. I think that's not only wrong, it's downright immoral...but that's your cross to bear.

That shoe would be on your foot. You alternate between concern for future generations and sneering about others' concern for future generations. Now you're back to concern.

Regarding the lack of constitutionality for stimulus, I offer the ultimate evidence: the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment. Read them. You will NOT find any authority for the federal government to engage in stimulus. That means such an endevour is not legal - that's how the law of the land works. The onus is on you to point out where such authority is authorized in the Constitution. Let us know how you do with that.

Yeah, and the Air Force is unconstitutional, too. It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. And there's no way that the Congress has any authority to authorize spending...oh, wait....

Does it give you the slightest pause that no one has taken this issue to the courts?

 

[SAT]

1) Quoting Smith and then suggesting it means something that it clearly does not? Yes, that is called misrepresenting him. Deal with it.

This response seems to be faith based. Smith couldn't possibly say anything in favor of taxing the rich more....because I'm against that....

2) You're still refusing to answer my question. What's the problem?

Sorry. I will go back and look for what you mean.

3) Anyone who contributes to meddling politicians can have a massive political influence. That includes rich people, corporations, or unions...hell, even failing solar panel companies can get in on the cronyism.

Anyone can have influence on policy. The rich, because of campaign contributions, and now because of Citizens United, have an influence out of proportion to their numbers.

Get it?