RWs: you need to admit Hillary is right about the failure of trickle down economics

[Pumpkin Row]

You do better than that. You have made sure that the rich are very very rich and the rest of us are poor.

So how do you think more tax breaks for the rich are going to help the rest of us? Excessive breaks for them already caused the current situation.

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.

It's not giving them more money if the government just isn't stealing as much. Also, you seem to keep missing the part where the tax system is, again, only helping the largest businesses. You also don't seem to understand what 'fine' is. Businesses should be ALWAYS expanding, ALL the time, if businesses are doing better, more people are hired. Are you okay with people being unemployed? The more the government steps out of the way of our capitalist market, the better the economy gets.

You also continue to avoid my question. I'm not going to forget, so you may as well just admit that it doesn't.

 

[Little-Acorn]

RWs: you need to admit Hillary is right about the failure of trickle down economics


Of course we "need" to admit it. Because when you tell a lie, you have to repeat it over and over with nobody debunking it, for it to become the truth. That's what your guru Herr Goebbels says.

We're not the ones that need to admit it. We'd rather tell the truth - that the economic plans of the Regan era cause more prosperity to be unleashed, than any other President in living memory.

You're the ones who need us to "admit" it. Because there can be no deviation from the Democrat line - even by Republicans who know better.

 

[BULLDOG]

So how do you think more tax breaks for the rich are going to help the rest of us? Excessive breaks for them already caused the current situation.

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.

It's not giving them more money if the government just isn't stealing as much. Also, you seem to keep missing the part where the tax system is, again, only helping the largest businesses. You also don't seem to understand what 'fine' is. Businesses should be ALWAYS expanding, ALL the time, if businesses are doing better, more people are hired. Are you okay with people being unemployed? The more the government steps out of the way of our capitalist market, the better the economy gets.

You also continue to avoid my question. I'm not going to forget, so you may as well just admit that it doesn't.

You are so stuck on thinking trickle down works till you are incapable of recognizing reality. The corporations have record high profits. Lack of money is not the reason they aren't expanding, and giving them more tax breaks won't change that. They have received almost all of the increase in wealth for years without a corresponding increase in their responsibility to pay their fair share. Fairness demands they finally accept the cost that the middle class has carried for them for so long.

 

[BULLDOG]

RWs: you need to admit Hillary is right about the failure of trickle down economics


Of course we "need" to admit it. Because when you tell a lie, you have to repeat it over and over with nobody debunking it, for it to become the truth. That's what your guru Herr Goebbels says.

We're not the ones that need to admit it. We'd rather tell the truth - that the economic plans of the Regan era cause more prosperity to be unleashed, than any other President in living memory.

You're the ones who need us to "admit" it. Because there can be no deviation from the Democrat line - even by Republicans who know better.

Prosperity was released,but only the top percentage received most of it. It's time that the middle class was allowed to share in all that prosperity.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Except they didn't. You must actually know absolutely nothing about economics. How about instead of US explaining how having more money to spend on employees and business expansion encourages said employment and expansion, YOU tell US how having less money will encourage any amount of expansion and hiring?

Even further beyond that, I wouldn't expect anyone but a brain dead Liberal to think Hillary is actually offering to tax her corporate masters who are paying her to implement these policies. The "rich" YOU are referring to aren't the same "rich" that end up being taxed by these new policies, but their competitors, which is exactly why the Democrats love spouting this "tax the rich" drivel that mindless drones see fit to echo, because Hillary's corporate masters don't even pay taxes.

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.

It's not giving them more money if the government just isn't stealing as much. Also, you seem to keep missing the part where the tax system is, again, only helping the largest businesses. You also don't seem to understand what 'fine' is. Businesses should be ALWAYS expanding, ALL the time, if businesses are doing better, more people are hired. Are you okay with people being unemployed? The more the government steps out of the way of our capitalist market, the better the economy gets.

You also continue to avoid my question. I'm not going to forget, so you may as well just admit that it doesn't.

You are so stuck on thinking trickle down works till you are incapable of recognizing reality. The corporations have record high profits. Lack of money is not the reason they aren't expanding, and giving them more tax breaks won't change that. They have received almost all of the increase in wealth for years without a corresponding increase in their responsibility to pay their fair share. Fairness demands they finally accept the cost that the middle class has carried for them for so long.

Again, you're ignoring that the record high profits are coming from the Establishment, which benefits from the Liberal policies Obama has been implementing to destroy smaller businesses. They have no expansion to take, because they're already global corporations, which is why the economy doesn't improve when policies benefit them. As I pointed out before, you have no idea how the economy works, that's why you've dodged my question three times in a row; You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and you don't want to admit it. Your corporate masters running the MSM haven't told you how to answer this question, because there is no answer to it that benefits their agenda.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

But you sure love your corporate welfare and crony capitalism

 

[BULLDOG]

Looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never worked the way you want. Businesses are doing great. Profit margins are better than ever. Business doesn't hire people or build new facilities just because the government gives them money. They do it because their market improves and they can sell more items.

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.

It's not giving them more money if the government just isn't stealing as much. Also, you seem to keep missing the part where the tax system is, again, only helping the largest businesses. You also don't seem to understand what 'fine' is. Businesses should be ALWAYS expanding, ALL the time, if businesses are doing better, more people are hired. Are you okay with people being unemployed? The more the government steps out of the way of our capitalist market, the better the economy gets.

You also continue to avoid my question. I'm not going to forget, so you may as well just admit that it doesn't.

You are so stuck on thinking trickle down works till you are incapable of recognizing reality. The corporations have record high profits. Lack of money is not the reason they aren't expanding, and giving them more tax breaks won't change that. They have received almost all of the increase in wealth for years without a corresponding increase in their responsibility to pay their fair share. Fairness demands they finally accept the cost that the middle class has carried for them for so long.

Again, you're ignoring that the record high profits are coming from the Establishment, which benefits from the Liberal policies Obama has been implementing to destroy smaller businesses. They have no expansion to take, because they're already global corporations, which is why the economy doesn't improve when policies benefit them. As I pointed out before, you have no idea how the economy works, that's why you've dodged my question three times in a row; You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and you don't want to admit it. Your corporate masters running the MSM haven't told you how to answer this question, because there is no answer to it that benefits their agenda.

Got it. You believe it's all run by some global groups and our economy isn't effected when policies benefit them. Why didn't you say you were a tinfoil hat devotee from the first? It would have saved me a lot of time.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

But you sure love your corporate welfare and crony capitalism

No idea where that came from, but no.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You must have missed half of my post. Actually, make that both halves. Not only did you not bother to answer my question, but you ignored the part where I pointed out to you that it helps only the top percentage of business, and this type of tax system is designed to only damage their competitors.

The fact is that you can't answer my question, because in no way does taxing a business cause it to expand. Does taxing your paycheck earn you more money?

You also clearly didn't read my post, because you stupidly came to the conclusion that I was advocating corporate welfare, when I said absolutely nothing about GIVING them money. Businesses thrive in an economy where there is a demand for their services, they hire people and expand because of that demand which they have to supply. It's not a question of whether or not they hire people, THEY MUST HIRE PEOPLE, it's not a question of whether or not businesses pay their employees enough, THEY MUST PAY THEM ENOUGH. Every human being that buys anything does so with currency, that currency comes from somewhere, in the vast majority of cases that somewhere is a job. If people are not paid 'enough', the demand drops, and so does the need for it to be supplied, and thus the profit for the supplier drops. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but to summarize: Businesses don't need the government at all, whatsoever, businesses exist to supply a demand, and thus can support themselves, and to supply that demand they hire people at a reasonable wage.

I'm sure you've heard this one: "Most hiring is done by small businesses"
The funniest part is that your corporate masters told you this, and are pretending they'll help the smaller 99% of businesses, and you believe them. You're electing their servant, and letting them control the tax code through her.

Yet you Democrats actually have the audacity to pretend every free-thinker in America is stupid. The sheer irony of your every thought is funny in the saddest way possible.

Yes, giving them more tax breaks is giving them more money. If corporate profits weren't at all time highs, you might have a point about encouraging them to spend more money, but they are doing fine. They will not hire or enlarge their businesses until their sales are increased to the point that they need to. Giving them more free money won't help anyone but their main stock holders. The main stock holders are already doing just fine.

It's not giving them more money if the government just isn't stealing as much. Also, you seem to keep missing the part where the tax system is, again, only helping the largest businesses. You also don't seem to understand what 'fine' is. Businesses should be ALWAYS expanding, ALL the time, if businesses are doing better, more people are hired. Are you okay with people being unemployed? The more the government steps out of the way of our capitalist market, the better the economy gets.

You also continue to avoid my question. I'm not going to forget, so you may as well just admit that it doesn't.

You are so stuck on thinking trickle down works till you are incapable of recognizing reality. The corporations have record high profits. Lack of money is not the reason they aren't expanding, and giving them more tax breaks won't change that. They have received almost all of the increase in wealth for years without a corresponding increase in their responsibility to pay their fair share. Fairness demands they finally accept the cost that the middle class has carried for them for so long.

Again, you're ignoring that the record high profits are coming from the Establishment, which benefits from the Liberal policies Obama has been implementing to destroy smaller businesses. They have no expansion to take, because they're already global corporations, which is why the economy doesn't improve when policies benefit them. As I pointed out before, you have no idea how the economy works, that's why you've dodged my question three times in a row; You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and you don't want to admit it. Your corporate masters running the MSM haven't told you how to answer this question, because there is no answer to it that benefits their agenda.

Got it. You believe it's all run by some global groups and our economy isn't effected when policies benefit them. Why didn't you say you were a tinfoil hat devotee from the first? It would have saved me a lot of time.

Pffft hahahaha. I was honestly expecting you to scoff and give up while calling me a "Tinfoil hat" significantly sooner, it's what uneducated people do to avoid debate.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

But you sure love your corporate welfare and crony capitalism

No idea where that came from, but no.

Yet that's exactly what you're supporting, which is what I spelled out for you over the course of three posts. Your kind is incapable of learning, though.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

But you sure love your corporate welfare and crony capitalism

No idea where that came from, but no.

Yet that's exactly what you're supporting, which is what I spelled out for you over the course of three posts. Your kind is incapable of learning, though.

Please list the corporate welfare you think I support.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

You need to admit she was Secy of State to the most trickle down economics President in American history.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your man Obama has played with interest rates and the money supply to keep Wall Street humming and keep the wealthiest 1% fat and happy, while the rest of us suffer. And you somehow still believe the Democrats are the party of the middle class. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

It's not the left pushing for more tax breaks for the rich.

But you sure love your corporate welfare and crony capitalism

No idea where that came from, but no.

Yet that's exactly what you're supporting, which is what I spelled out for you over the course of three posts. Your kind is incapable of learning, though.

Please list the corporate welfare you think I support.

Oh, not directly, but through the Establishment servants you're voting for~

Unless of course, you support 'green energy', in which case it's directly.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Prosperity was released,but only the top percentage received most of it.

Haven't been looking at the country's history, have we? That's what you get for getting your "facts" from Democrats.

 

[flacaltenn]

You also need to admit that she is right about the vital importance of strengthening the middle class. Consumer spending is the key to economic growth - not the hope that more investment is on the horizon if you cut the taxes on the top 1%.

Giving tax breaks to the top earners and corporations has been proven time and time again to be a poor stimulator of economic growth. Sure the idea sounds rational on paper, but put into practice it's a failure. Why? Because these top earners just keep the money they save rather than invest it. Investing is no longer a priority for them if they are already richer now than ever before. Corporate profits are also at an all time high. Moreover, more investment in supply is pointless if there isn't a level of demand to match it.

Bush's tax cuts for instance were deficit-creating nightmares. Job growth under Bush was pathetic and we had a Great Recession begin on his watch.

Kansas cut taxes on top earners and the state now has a huge deficit and a recession.

You don't create jobs by PROMOTING the salaries and benefits by EDICT from Washington. It might stimulate China's economy -- since everything we buy now comes from a pier in Long Beach.

For the middle class -- you REDUCE the regulation barriers to starting and owning businesses. Allow them to KNOCK off the bigger meaner corporations. But to do that -- AT SOME POINT -- the investment REQUIRED comes from Venture Capital or stockholders. And THAT is largely a decision of folks that INVEST in small biz by virtue of their market knowledge and their willingness to take RISK. RISK is a word that leftists do not understand.

When leftists demean folks who "make money by having money" that are demeaning the investment engine that DRIVES start-ups and enables them to knock off out of touch corporations. The start-up rate in this country PEAKED in the late 90s and has gone to zero.. Along with our entire supply chain of manufacturing for most industries. Unless you get that entrepreneurial engine back --- we are sincerely doomed.

And messing with folks "comfortable" with redistribution from others just is gonna kill us faster.

 

[Boss]

Is there a magic ratio when the riches start trickling down?
What percentage of a country's wealth needs to be controlled by what percentage of the population before everybody's in clover?
At the moment, in the US, around 25% of household wealth is held by 0.1% of families.
How much more wealth should they be given control of before the cream starts flowing down?
No one seems to have a plan.

You're living in a fantasy world where wealth is finite and only a certain amount exists. Wealth is CREATED. It doesn't matter how much happens to be at the top at any given time... that's a good thing... we prosper in a system that allows us to obtain that kind of wealth... MANY countries aren't so fortunate, and you seem to want to emulate them.

The "cream" doesn't just start magically flowing down and showering your lazy ass with wealth... that's a Utopian fantasy you're having... snap out of it and join us in the real world. Get off your duff and CREATE some wealth of your own... you can do that here. There is absolutely no reason you can't be one of those 0.1% who control 25% of the wealth... you have that opportunity in this country.

Sitting there being a smug little smart ass who doesn't understand he is promoting Marxism is detrimental to the country and everything we have going for us. Look, you don't like the 0.1% who have 25% of the wealth? Well create something they want! Provide a service that benefits them! Capture some of that wealth for yourself! What do you think... they sit around gazing at their piles of money all the time? What sort of gratification do you think they get from that?

So you want either an Oligarchy or a Corporatocracy. Which is it?

I don't want either. I want a free country like we've had for 250 years. I don't want to see it turned into a Socialist country by absolute morons and pinheads who don't know what they're doing.

You people don't even understand the target of your own angst. This Big Corporation boogieman you're all whining about is the creation of Big Government. Specifically, Big Government peddling influence that it shouldn't have. The free market takes care of big greedy corporations. People stop doing business with them in favor of less greedy smaller corporations and they go under. With Big Government, they're deemed "too big to fail" and bailed out. Your enemy should be Big Government, but all you want to do is press for MORE Big Government!

 

[BluesLegend]

You leftwits forget Obama already raised taxes on the rich.

 

[idb]

Is there a magic ratio when the riches start trickling down?
What percentage of a country's wealth needs to be controlled by what percentage of the population before everybody's in clover?
At the moment, in the US, around 25% of household wealth is held by 0.1% of families.
How much more wealth should they be given control of before the cream starts flowing down?
No one seems to have a plan.

You're living in a fantasy world where wealth is finite and only a certain amount exists. Wealth is CREATED. It doesn't matter how much happens to be at the top at any given time... that's a good thing... we prosper in a system that allows us to obtain that kind of wealth... MANY countries aren't so fortunate, and you seem to want to emulate them.

The "cream" doesn't just start magically flowing down and showering your lazy ass with wealth... that's a Utopian fantasy you're having... snap out of it and join us in the real world. Get off your duff and CREATE some wealth of your own... you can do that here. There is absolutely no reason you can't be one of those 0.1% who control 25% of the wealth... you have that opportunity in this country.

Sitting there being a smug little smart ass who doesn't understand he is promoting Marxism is detrimental to the country and everything we have going for us. Look, you don't like the 0.1% who have 25% of the wealth? Well create something they want! Provide a service that benefits them! Capture some of that wealth for yourself! What do you think... they sit around gazing at their piles of money all the time? What sort of gratification do you think they get from that?

So, you're saying that wealthy people don't create millions and millions of beautiful jobs...and it's not true that the wealthier they are the more jobs they produce?
I thought that was the point of reducing the tax burden on wealthy people.

 

[Blackrook]

The economy has been stagnant for eight years under Obama and I'm ready for something new. Hillary Clinton will be four more years of the same, so I will not be voting for that. And seriously, I don't see how raising taxes is going to help the economy, that's a really difficult argument to make.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right wingers will never admit that. If they did, they wouldn't be right wingers any more.

Tell me, why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?

Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years