Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The goal is to make the poor having more.
stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
It's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.What a stupid fricken thread
What is "fair share"...Just a number will do.
None of you will touch it.
Have you read the thread?
The right incentives..Yes, for starters, all able bodied persons should be required to work in order to receive benefits. Low or no cost tuition can be arranged should the recipient desire technical or trade training. The requirement is in order to receive the discounted or no cost training, the recipient must PASS all courses.The goal is to make the poor having more.
stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
No, you will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings
3) tax the rich to pay for it
it's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.i keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"
but when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.
Anyways, i thought i'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?
conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
what a stupid fricken thread
What is "fair share"...just a number will do.
None of you will touch it.
Pot meet kettle.Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?
In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
Seems you are projecting. This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact. You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad. That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
Pot meet kettle.Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?
In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
Seems you are projecting. This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact. You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad. That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
Try independent thought, it is far more healthy.
Pot meet kettle.In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
Seems you are projecting. This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact. You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad. That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
Try independent thought, it is far more healthy.
You should give it a try first, and you should also follow a conversation from it's beginning to understand how it has progressed.
All recipients will submit to random drug screenings using urine and hair samples.
Failure to submit will result in suspension of benefits until the drug screen is administered or the recipient can show cause as to the reason the test was refused.
Your side sees these requirements as 'cruel'.
Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.
Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow
The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
, fewer new jobs, fewer benefits. Why? Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.
That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.
That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
The goal is to make the poor having more.
stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
No, it will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings (for example, you earn $10 an hour, IRS adds $5 to your paycheck)
3) tax the rich to pay for it
Mean? Grow up..People who are clean of drugs feel better about themselves.All recipients will submit to random drug screenings using urine and hair samples.
Failure to submit will result in suspension of benefits until the drug screen is administered or the recipient can show cause as to the reason the test was refused.
Your side sees these requirements as 'cruel'.
Because they are cruel. You want the low income earners to start feeling good about themselves, but you insist on treating them as low life criminals. There is nothing logical about it, you advocate such policies only because you are a mean bastard.
Nobody on the left advocates policies the lead to the dependency. But in an economy that creates an ever bigger income inequality (meaning less good paying jobs), it's the government responsibility to make even a poor paying job worth having.
And you can't achieve that that by forcing people to submit to a drug screening.
Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow
The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.
That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
Ah yes. You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
stop giving them free education, health care, housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
No, it will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings (for example, you earn $10 an hour, IRS adds $5 to your paycheck)
3) tax the rich to pay for it
"the government" can match? You mean the taxpayers...
Hey look, if you keep taxing the job creators and investors, they will bury their money, stop creating jobs and of course the next thing is inbound revenue to the federal government will slow.
BTW, NO ONE deserves to live tax free.
Mean? Grow up..People who are clean of drugs feel better about themselves.
The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
Ah yes. You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.
The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated.
Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.
But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.
Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration?
By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?
Walter Williams
If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.
Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?
Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
Hostess as an example:
Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.
Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.
No. Regulated capitalism, which is our system, does the best for the most. There is no other system like it on Earth.The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
Ah yes. You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.
Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.
Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?
Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States
Top 1% Bottom: 99%
1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Ah yes. You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
No dear. Capitalism is NOT a means to the well-being of the people
