The Question Conservatives Can't Answer

[gslack]

Aww, I made the little fella mad didn't I.... LOL must have hit a nerve somewhere to bring down the wrath of spam....

 

[kaz]

They paid 90% on every dollar over the first $100,000 half-a-century ago.
They pay 15% on every dollar today

No one should ever pay more then 10% of a dollar they earned to a government that didn't, so we're almost there.

Care to explain how you arrived at 10%?

A tithe seems pretty generous for the people even if the government's going to waste most of that

Are you saying 90% of government is superfluous?

Oh, more then that. But I'm willing to give them the 10% anyway, it's the price of living in a society.

What is government's part in creating money?
10%?
90%

Creating? zero. You won't understand that answer, you'll say oh, so you're an anarchist and you don't want a government? No, I didn't say that. That's not what you asked.

How long would you survive without 90% of government?

A lot longer then the government we have.

BTW, I didn't say I'd cut government by 90%, I said I'd limit taxes to 10%. Do you understand the difference?

 

[kaz]

Strolling-around, to a porn sound-track, is hardly considered any kind o' skill

Just so you know, I seriously doubt most people read your posts because you format them to make them very difficult to read. The few that I've slogged through yielded no content so I stopped.

 

[edthecynic]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

Earned it? LOL! Studies have proven a good 69% of the richest 2% in the nation inherited their wealth.

Yeah...they really worked hard for that, didn't they?

I suppose you can back up that statistic from a credible source?

Here's my source:

Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”

Most Wealthy Individuals Earned, Not Inherited, Their Wealth

Is it possible you misread that 69%? Interesting that it showed up in your post and in my source.

But however a person acquires the property they have, so long as it was acquired legally and ethically, should be nobody's business but theirs. We have a system of government that recognizes, protects, and defends the unalienable right to pursue happiness whether that is obtained through possession or in some other way. You have the right to accumulate as much wealth as you have ambition, ability, and desire to accumulate.

It does not allow any of us to violate anyody else's unalienable rights in order to make ourselves happy. You have no unalienable right to what anybody else has lawfully and ethically inherited, earned, won, or found, nor does anybody have unalienable right to what you possess or will earn.

Having a half a million to invest is hardly an honest definition for "wealthy." The truly wealthy are families like the Rockefellers, Mellons, DuPonts, etc.

 

[georgephillip]

"Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98 per cent” – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

What's your number for the Wall Street bailout?

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

The bank portion of TARP was about $250 billion, IIRC.
That's been paid back, at a profit to the Treasury.

What else do you include in the "Wall Street bailout"?

"Wall Street Bailout so far exceeds total cost of all US Wars"

Wall Street Bailout so far exceeds total cost of all US Wars | NowPublic Photo Archives

What percentage of the total bailout do you believe TARP represents?

More than Hank Paulson's retirement package?

 

[logical4u]

It was their money to begin with. They earned it.

Earned it? LOL! Studies have proven a good 69% of the richest 2% in the nation inherited their wealth.

Yeah...they really worked hard for that, didn't they?

Studies? Prove it.

In my book that works out to ..... .69 * 2 = 1.38% of the richest people inherited. That would leave 98.62% that earned it. Just sayin

 

[georgephillip]

What does the Constitution say about swindled homeowners and jobless workers?

Over the last four decades Joe 1% has been bribing Republicans AND Democrats to roll back protections that were put in place after the Great Depression to prevent the very policies that caused a 50% run up of the national debt between 2007 and this week's lifting of the debt ceiling.

The 50 million Americans who are losing their homes or the 20% of US workforce who can't find full time employment are probably defining self-defense a little differently than you and Joe. They might question the fairness of a $13 trillion bailout of the swindlers and thieves who inflated and collapsed a housing/credit bubble (there's Joe, again) while keeping the debt overhead in place for 98% of the population.

Do you think the rich are entitled to use government as a tool to become richer by shifting the tax burden off unearned income and onto wages and salaries?

Are the rich entitled to profit from accounting control fraud?

What's your deal?

When you stop crying and want to have a logical debate on this let me know. But seems to me all you want to do is blame someone for your misfortune.

The constitution only guarantees that you have the same freedoms as anyone else. What you do with those freedoms is up to you. And the tax burden is not on wages and salaries, nor is it on the average worker. Seriously most people who work a regular old run of the mill job do not pay taxes but get a refund of what they paid and if they have kids most likely a great many will get the refund plus a couple thousand they didn't earn. It's called EIC or earned income credit and most anyone with kids who has ever filed taxes has seen something on it. It basically means that if you have children or dependents and you didn't make above a certain amount, the government makes up some of the difference to you in a tax credit.

Who do you think actually pays the taxes in this country? I mean serious taxes not the couple hundred or thousand or less most people pay. With everyone at or below poverty that have kids getting a EIC credit of a couple thousand or more each, and the single without kids or higher income ones paying nothing or at least very little, and the next level up paying only a couple hundred, where do you think all the money comes from? Not form any of those people thats for sure, it comes from the rest of the people the high middle, upper middle, and higher tax brackets.

Dude seriously I don't think you are getting the big picture here. Its not the 300+ million people paying taxes, most not only don't pay anything but some even get more than 2-3 times back what they put in on top getting that refunded.

If it's true the top 20% of American families hold 93% of the country's financial wealth with the top 1% controlling 43% of the money, it's only logical to ask why their tax rates are lower today than half-a-century ago.

Do you think it has anything to do with campaign contributions?

Where's the logic in US elites increasing their share of national income and wealth over the last ten years while the country lost 42,400 factories between 2001 and 2009. There's only been one country in history to lose more jobs in a single ten year period than the US lost between 2001 -'09, and that was the USSR during the last decade of its existence.

Apparently, you see a Constitutional justification for the current level of US inequality.

Care to share it?

Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98 per cent” – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

What's your number for the Wall Street bailout?

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

The bank portion of TARP was about $250 billion, IIRC.
That's been paid back, at a profit to the Treasury.

What else do you include in the "Wall Street bailout"?

"Wall Street Bailout so far exceeds total cost of all US Wars"

Wall Street Bailout so far exceeds total cost of all US Wars | NowPublic Photo Archives

What percentage of the total bailout do you believe TARP represents?

More than Hank Paulson's retirement package?

Wow! Scary quote.
Your link had no details.
Try again?

Any luck with Blodget's silly number?
Or have we given up on that one?

 

[gslack]

What does the Constitution say about swindled homeowners and jobless workers?

Over the last four decades Joe 1% has been bribing Republicans AND Democrats to roll back protections that were put in place after the Great Depression to prevent the very policies that caused a 50% run up of the national debt between 2007 and this week's lifting of the debt ceiling.

The 50 million Americans who are losing their homes or the 20% of US workforce who can't find full time employment are probably defining self-defense a little differently than you and Joe. They might question the fairness of a $13 trillion bailout of the swindlers and thieves who inflated and collapsed a housing/credit bubble (there's Joe, again) while keeping the debt overhead in place for 98% of the population.

Do you think the rich are entitled to use government as a tool to become richer by shifting the tax burden off unearned income and onto wages and salaries?

Are the rich entitled to profit from accounting control fraud?

What's your deal?

When you stop crying and want to have a logical debate on this let me know. But seems to me all you want to do is blame someone for your misfortune.

The constitution only guarantees that you have the same freedoms as anyone else. What you do with those freedoms is up to you. And the tax burden is not on wages and salaries, nor is it on the average worker. Seriously most people who work a regular old run of the mill job do not pay taxes but get a refund of what they paid and if they have kids most likely a great many will get the refund plus a couple thousand they didn't earn. It's called EIC or earned income credit and most anyone with kids who has ever filed taxes has seen something on it. It basically means that if you have children or dependents and you didn't make above a certain amount, the government makes up some of the difference to you in a tax credit.

Who do you think actually pays the taxes in this country? I mean serious taxes not the couple hundred or thousand or less most people pay. With everyone at or below poverty that have kids getting a EIC credit of a couple thousand or more each, and the single without kids or higher income ones paying nothing or at least very little, and the next level up paying only a couple hundred, where do you think all the money comes from? Not form any of those people thats for sure, it comes from the rest of the people the high middle, upper middle, and higher tax brackets.

Dude seriously I don't think you are getting the big picture here. Its not the 300+ million people paying taxes, most not only don't pay anything but some even get more than 2-3 times back what they put in on top getting that refunded.

If it's true the top 20% of American families hold 93% of the country's financial wealth with the top 1% controlling 43% of the money, it's only logical to ask why their tax rates are lower today than half-a-century ago.

Do you think it has anything to do with campaign contributions?

Where's the logic in US elites increasing their share of national income and wealth over the last ten years while the country lost 42,400 factories between 2001 and 2009. There's only been one country in history to lose more jobs in a single ten year period than the US lost between 2001 -'09, and that was the USSR during the last decade of its existence.

Apparently, you see a Constitutional justification for the current level of US inequality.

Care to share it?

Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance

Prove that claim I bolded and enlarged in your post..... Be warned I do not tolerate liars nor people who make extreme claims that are utterly false in every aspect... I will give a chance to back up the claim before I correct it...

 

[SwingVoter]

Do you think it has anything to do with campaign contributions?

Yes, rich people are evil and should not be allowed to risk capital to make profits and then use those profits to hire people. Instead everyone should just be offered work with the EPA, DHS, or the Department of Education, which could be funded by the sale of government-issued magic beans. Only reason this is isn't happening is because Dick Cheney's oil buddies gave money to John Boehner's re-election campaign, and told him that magic beans would reduce the price of oil. They also stopped a measure that would have had the Social Security Administration take over ExxonMobil, and distribute the cash to poor black children in Detroit. So your emphasis on the middle class is misguided, because it's clear that everyone opposing the tax increase is racist.

 

[georgephillip]

When you stop crying and want to have a logical debate on this let me know. But seems to me all you want to do is blame someone for your misfortune.

The constitution only guarantees that you have the same freedoms as anyone else. What you do with those freedoms is up to you. And the tax burden is not on wages and salaries, nor is it on the average worker. Seriously most people who work a regular old run of the mill job do not pay taxes but get a refund of what they paid and if they have kids most likely a great many will get the refund plus a couple thousand they didn't earn. It's called EIC or earned income credit and most anyone with kids who has ever filed taxes has seen something on it. It basically means that if you have children or dependents and you didn't make above a certain amount, the government makes up some of the difference to you in a tax credit.

Who do you think actually pays the taxes in this country? I mean serious taxes not the couple hundred or thousand or less most people pay. With everyone at or below poverty that have kids getting a EIC credit of a couple thousand or more each, and the single without kids or higher income ones paying nothing or at least very little, and the next level up paying only a couple hundred, where do you think all the money comes from? Not form any of those people thats for sure, it comes from the rest of the people the high middle, upper middle, and higher tax brackets.

Dude seriously I don't think you are getting the big picture here. Its not the 300+ million people paying taxes, most not only don't pay anything but some even get more than 2-3 times back what they put in on top getting that refunded.

If it's true the top 20% of American families hold 93% of the country's financial wealth with the top 1% controlling 43% of the money, it's only logical to ask why their tax rates are lower today than half-a-century ago.

Do you think it has anything to do with campaign contributions?

Where's the logic in US elites increasing their share of national income and wealth over the last ten years while the country lost 42,400 factories between 2001 and 2009. There's only been one country in history to lose more jobs in a single ten year period than the US lost between 2001 -'09, and that was the USSR during the last decade of its existence.

Apparently, you see a Constitutional justification for the current level of US inequality.

Care to share it?

Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance

Prove that claim I bolded and enlarged in your post..... Be warned I do not tolerate liars nor people who make extreme claims that are utterly false in every aspect... I will give a chance to back up the claim before I correct it...

Why would I care what you "tolerate?"

 

[georgephillip]

Do you think it has anything to do with campaign contributions?

Yes, rich people are evil and should not be allowed to risk capital to make profits and then use those profits to hire people. Instead everyone should just be offered work with the EPA, DHS, or the Department of Education, which could be funded by the sale of government-issued magic beans. Only reason this is isn't happening is because Dick Cheney's oil buddies gave money to John Boehner's re-election campaign, and told him that magic beans would reduce the price of oil. They also stopped a measure that would have had the Social Security Administration take over ExxonMobil, and distribute the cash to poor black children in Detroit. So your emphasis on the middle class is misguided, because it's clear that everyone opposing the tax increase is racist.

Of course, rich parasites should be allowed to gamble to their heart's content in Wall Street's casino. All winnings belong only to the parasite while taxpayers cover all loses.

What effect did Dick the Draft Dodger's invasion of Iraq have on oil prices?

Who got rich(er)?
John Boehner?
Poor black children in Detroit?

Tan Man ate your magic beans and farted out ALEC, which proves again the role flatulence plays in DC marketing. If the government looted ExxonMobile to the same extent its pillage Social Security we could all enjoy watching John and Dick spend their "golden years" sleeping beneath a bridge somewhere.

Along with all the self-hating middle class trolls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, rich parasites should be allowed to gamble to their heart's content in Wall Street's casino. All winnings belong only to the parasite while taxpayers cover all loses.

The only losses I see taxpayers covering are Fannie and Freddie.
The Dems best friends.

 

[eflatminor]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

I suggest you read Ludwig Von Mises. "Liberalism, The Classical Tradition" is a good start. There you will see why your premise is so terribly flawed.

 

[georgephillip]

The bank portion of TARP was about $250 billion, IIRC.
That's been paid back, at a profit to the Treasury.

What else do you include in the "Wall Street bailout"?

"Wall Street Bailout so far exceeds total cost of all US Wars"

Wall Street Bailout so far exceeds total cost of all US Wars | NowPublic Photo Archives

What percentage of the total bailout do you believe TARP represents?

More than Hank Paulson's retirement package?

Wow! Scary quote.
Your link had no details.
Try again?

Any luck with Blodget's silly number?
Or have we given up on that one?

Any luck refuting "Blodget's silly number?"

"But it turns out that that $700 billion (TARP) is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.

"According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.

"The Bloomberg reporters have been following that money. Alison Stewart spoke with one, Bob Ivry, to talk about the true cost to the taxpayer of the Wall Street bailout."

The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know

Come back?

 

[georgephillip]

Of course, rich parasites should be allowed to gamble to their heart's content in Wall Street's casino. All winnings belong only to the parasite while taxpayers cover all loses.

The only losses I see taxpayers covering are Fannie and Freddie.
The Dems best friends.

Mark Pittman had much better eyesight than you do.
Maybe he still does?

"A former police-beat reporter who joined Bloomberg News in 1997, Pittman wrote stories in 2007 predicting the collapse of the banking system.

"That year, he won the Gerald Loeb Award from the UCLA Anderson School of Management, the highest accolade in financial journalism, for 'Wall Street’s Faustian Bargain,' a series of articles on the breakdown of the U.S. mortgage industry..."

Look harder.

Mark Pittman, Reporter Who Challenged Fed Secrecy, Dies at 52 - Bloomberg

 

[Foxfyre]

So some here resent the super rich and think the government should confiscate much more of their wealth. It does not matter how the super rich acquired their wealth though most, like Bill Gates, started with little more than a good idea, a willingness to take risks, and a work ethic that got them through the lean years, and built their financial empires from the ground up. And now it seems that some would say that they shouldn't be allowed to have all that wealth. Most especially they complain about huge salaries paid to CEOs that run big corporations.

I rarely ever, however, hear the same people complain about mega million dollar salaries paid to movie stars, sports figures, or recording artists. And those people aren't big consumers of raw materials and provide only a limited amount of jobs for others.

So if wealth redistribution is necessary in order to be fair, how much of wealth from those kinds of people should the government be allowed to confiscate?

 

[georgephillip]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

I suggest you read Ludwig Von Mises. "Liberalism, The Classical Tradition" is a good start. There you will see why your premise is so terribly flawed.

If Mises believed "that money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles", how do you think he would answer Bucheit's question:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?"

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

 

[eflatminor]

"The following fact was sent to numerous conservative pundits, politicians, and profit-seekers:

"Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments.

"If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.

"And a question was posed:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?

"This question was not posed in sarcasm.

"A factual answer is genuinely sought.

"It seems unlikely that 1% of the population worked three times harder than the rest of us, or contributed three times as much to American productivity.

"Money earned from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments is not productive income."

Any takers, Cons?

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

I suggest you read Ludwig Von Mises. "Liberalism, The Classical Tradition" is a good start. There you will see why your premise is so terribly flawed.

If Mises believed "that money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles", how do you think he would answer Bucheit's question:

"In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?"

The Question Conservatives Can't Answer | Common Dreams

Get the book, read it yourself. He answers your question in Chapter 1, page 12. "The Inequality of Wealth and Income". Honestly, it's worth it.

 

[georgephillip]

So some here resent the super rich and think the government should confiscate much more of their wealth. It does not matter how the super rich acquired their wealth though most, like Bill Gates, started with little more than a good idea, a willingness to take risks, and a work ethic that got them through the lean years, and built their financial empires from the ground up. And now it seems that some would say that they shouldn't be allowed to have all that wealth. Most especially they complain about huge salaries paid to CEOs that run big corporations.

I rarely ever, however, hear the same people complain about mega million dollar salaries paid to movie stars, sports figures, or recording artists. And those people aren't big consumers of raw materials and provide only a limited amount of jobs for others.

So if wealth redistribution is necessary in order to be fair, how much of wealth from those kinds of people should the government be allowed to confiscate?

First, I believe we have to discriminate between earned and unearned income.

Athletes for all their arrogance and ignorance compete on a truly level playing field.
My feeling is their earned income should be taxed at one rate, and whatever amount they put into hedge funds at a much higher rate.

As far as the other millionaires you mentioned are concerned, Robert Reich has suggested adding several new tax brackets to those already existing.

Incomes between $500,000 - $5,000,000 would pay a 50% rate.
Incomes between $5,000,000 - $15,000,000 would pay at 60%.
Incomes over $15,000,000 would pay 70%.

As always the devil is in the details, but it's hard for me to justify the richest among us continuing to prosper while "austerity" is put in play for everyone else.