When Have You Made Enough Money?

[The T]

So...you are torpedoing your own argument. On one hand>? It Isn't 'YOUR MONEY'...but then YOU [via the 'people'] can vote yourself Other people's money?

You are a walking fuckin' contradiction aren't you?

Afraid not my friend...

That is the way civilized societies work. You are a member of the society whether you like it or not. The society as a whole (We the people) gets to decide who contributes what and what is done with the money collected

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

That is Exactly what RW is stating. WE are in power, and WE are going to DO what we want. WE don't give a SHIT of your Liberty.

RW has outed himself out again as a Marxist/Statist Fool.

 

[The T]

Afraid not my friend...

That is the way civilized societies work. You are a member of the society whether you like it or not. The society as a whole (We the people) gets to decide who contributes what and what is done with the money collected

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

We work within a system of government that has been in place for over 225 years. We elect representatives to represent the will of "We the people". Those representatives enact laws within the context of the US Constitution with oversight by the Supreme Court.

You obviously have a problem with the United States system of government.

But yet you THINK it's perfectly OK to run roughshod over Liberty of Individuals.

You are a populist...Collectivist...Statist...Marxist Fool...Admit it.

 

[driveby]

I'm still waiting for a link not some sound bite. I knew you couldn't provide one

Come on driveby...its not that hard

Unless you are lying of course

How absolutely lame. "You gave me a soundbyte, not a link, so nothing happened! Na nah!"

Are you denying he said it, or just trying to find a way to dance around the fact that he did?

I'll make the same offer to you..

Provide a complete quote, in context, where Obama dictates how much money you can make...

I am still waiting

Gee, i can't find a link where Obama directly dictates how much money we should make. I also can't find any links stating he wants government to run healthcare, General Motors, or seize control of financial institutions. It's a god damn right wing conspiracy i tell ya !

 

[rightwinger]

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

We work within a system of government that has been in place for over 225 years. We elect representatives to represent the will of "We the people". Those representatives enact laws within the context of the US Constitution with oversight by the Supreme Court.

You obviously have a problem with the United States system of government.

But yet you THINK it's perfectly OK to run roughshod over Liberty of Individuals.

You are a populist...Collectivist...Statist...Marxist Fool...Admit it.

Far from it....Our elected Government is operating within the framework they were elected to do. Just like it has for 225 years.

If your Liberty is being run roughshod over......we have an entire court system in place to protect your rights. Be an American and use them if you think you have a legitimate case

 

[rightwinger]

How absolutely lame. "You gave me a soundbyte, not a link, so nothing happened! Na nah!"

Are you denying he said it, or just trying to find a way to dance around the fact that he did?

I'll make the same offer to you..

Provide a complete quote, in context, where Obama dictates how much money you can make...

I am still waiting

Gee, i can't find a link where Obama directly dictates how much money we should make. I also can't find any links stating he wants government to run healthcare, General Motors, or seize control of financial institutions. It's a god damn right wing conspiracy i tell ya !

Thats strange.....you had no problem saying Obama wants to dictate how much you can make. Are you admitting you just made it all up?

 

[driveby]

I'll make the same offer to you..

Provide a complete quote, in context, where Obama dictates how much money you can make...

I am still waiting

Gee, i can't find a link where Obama directly dictates how much money we should make. I also can't find any links stating he wants government to run healthcare, General Motors, or seize control of financial institutions. It's a god damn right wing conspiracy i tell ya !

Thats strange.....you had no problem saying Obama wants to dictate how much you can make. Are you admitting you just made it all up?

Nope, he said what he said, and it was off script, so it came from the heart .........

 

[rightwinger]

Gee, i can't find a link where Obama directly dictates how much money we should make. I also can't find any links stating he wants government to run healthcare, General Motors, or seize control of financial institutions. It's a god damn right wing conspiracy i tell ya !

Thats strange.....you had no problem saying Obama wants to dictate how much you can make. Are you admitting you just made it all up?

Nope, he said what he said, and it was off script, so it came from the heart .........

Its been over an hour now since i challenged you to back up your ridiculous statement with a full quote proving your point.

You have obviously, Googled it many times by now trying to find anything to prove you are right and save any semblance of credibility. The fact that you came up with nothing proves that President Obama never said what you claimed.

Thanks for playing

 

[Toro]

No.

 

[Againsheila]

Unless you're a stockholder in that company, what's it to you how they choose to manage their money?

No country can long sustain such a huge income gap. It was our great income gap that led to the great depression. It was France's income gap that led to their revolution. It was again, our income gap that led to the financial situation we are in again.....

Are we a country united, or a country divided? Apparently, we're divided. You believe that CEOs are separate from our country and have no responsibilities toward our country even though it's our country that provided them with their wealth.

Think, use some logic.

And now you're going to explain how it was our "great income gap" that led to the Great Depression, right? I'm not even going to dignify the ludicrous attempt to simplify the French Revolution into "an income gap" and compare it to modern-day America.

And I'll thank you not to ever again try to tell ME what I believe and don't believe, especially when you are so puerilely clueless about what that might even be. Next time, ASK me what I think, rather than attempting to attribute the argument you WISH you were opposing to me so that you can argue against it.

I apologize if I misread your post....you are the one who claimed the CEOs had every right to make whatever they were making regardless of the consequences, right?

The gilded age, do you remember that? Read a USA history book. We went from being a country of the uber wealthy and the uber poor to a country of poor overnight with the great depression. Then we had our own Tiennemen square masecure with the "bonus army".

I've been saying for more than 20 years that this next depression is coming. No country can long survive with such a large income gap. Believe what you will but when the people can not buy the products, the companies go out of business. Henry Ford learned the importance of paying a living wage to his workers when he instituted the first minimum wage in our country and his company increase overnight, thanks to his own workers being able to afford the products they were making.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm still waiting for a link not some sound bite. I knew you couldn't provide one

Come on driveby...its not that hard

Unless you are lying of course

How absolutely lame. "You gave me a soundbyte, not a link, so nothing happened! Na nah!"

Are you denying he said it, or just trying to find a way to dance around the fact that he did?

I'll make the same offer to you..

Provide a complete quote, in context, where Obama dictates how much money you can make...Do you have a problem in defending your point? Post the full quote, in context and we can discuss it

I am still waiting

So your argument really is, "he only said 'enough money', he didn't actually sign any laws setting limits, so there's nothing to talk about". That's really what you want to go with here, that it's okay for him to endorse the idea olf "enough money" as long as he's just talking.

Stick a fork in you. You're done. Get off my screen. You're finally too cowardly to be worthy of notice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gee, i can't find a link where Obama directly dictates how much money we should make. I also can't find any links stating he wants government to run healthcare, General Motors, or seize control of financial institutions. It's a god damn right wing conspiracy i tell ya !

Thats strange.....you had no problem saying Obama wants to dictate how much you can make. Are you admitting you just made it all up?

Nope, he said what he said, and it was off script, so it came from the heart .........

This is, hands-down, the most pitiful attempt at dodging and excuse-making by the left that I have been witness to since "depends what the meaning of 'is' is".

 

[Cecilie1200]

No country can long sustain such a huge income gap. It was our great income gap that led to the great depression. It was France's income gap that led to their revolution. It was again, our income gap that led to the financial situation we are in again.....

Are we a country united, or a country divided? Apparently, we're divided. You believe that CEOs are separate from our country and have no responsibilities toward our country even though it's our country that provided them with their wealth.

Think, use some logic.

And now you're going to explain how it was our "great income gap" that led to the Great Depression, right? I'm not even going to dignify the ludicrous attempt to simplify the French Revolution into "an income gap" and compare it to modern-day America.

And I'll thank you not to ever again try to tell ME what I believe and don't believe, especially when you are so puerilely clueless about what that might even be. Next time, ASK me what I think, rather than attempting to attribute the argument you WISH you were opposing to me so that you can argue against it.

I apologize if I misread your post....you are the one who claimed the CEOs had every right to make whatever they were making regardless of the consequences, right?

What I "claimed" was that companies have every right to PAY their CEOs whatever they want to, and unless you're a shareholder in that company, it's none of your damned business. And I'm still claiming it. And now I'm waiting for you to explain how I'm supposed to "use some sense" to get to the point where it BECOMES your business to tell companies how much to pay their executives without having any of YOUR money involved in it.

The gilded age, do you remember that? Read a USA history book. We went from being a country of the uber wealthy and the uber poor to a country of poor overnight with the great depression. Then we had our own Tiennemen square masecure with the "bonus army".

Wow, this so is not any sort of explanation as to how an "income gap" caused the Great Depression. In the future, please refrain from thinking the sentence "Read a history book" substitutes for an actual EXPLANATION of your "logic".

"We had lots of wealthy and lots of poor, and then we just had lots of poor" is not causation. While you're snottily advising people to "read a history book", perhaps YOU could read a dictionary and find out what causation is.

I've been saying for more than 20 years that this next depression is coming. No country can long survive with such a large income gap. Believe what you will but when the people can not buy the products, the companies go out of business. Henry Ford learned the importance of paying a living wage to his workers when he instituted the first minimum wage in our country and his company increase overnight, thanks to his own workers being able to afford the products they were making.

I might care more about your 20 years of predictions if you could even BEGIN to demonstrate that you have some sort of linear thought process on which to base said predictions. At the moment, though, you're just wasting my time pretending you've made some sort of big, definitive point proving your premise, when all you're doing is gasbagging.

Whenever you're ready to PROVE that income gaps are horrible and evil, rather than just stating and restating it, let me know.

 

[Gunny]

You'd think this is complicated. I EARN more to HAVE more. The key verb being "earn'. I don't bust my ass so some fuckwit can take what I have earned from me and hand it out to some slug who thinks poverty means he can't afford cable, DSL and a late model auto.

You losers that can't or won't get off your lazy, fat asses and earn your own shit are pussies. And NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say I have to subsidize you pansy-little-asses.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Thesis: Whether the government should determine if an individual or a corporation or any other entity has made enough money.

Obama to Wall Street: “I do think at some point, you have made enough money.”
Breitbart.tv Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’

Rebuttal via Thomas Sowell:

. . . .The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters. . . .
. . . .Ida Tarbell's famous muckraking book, "History of the Standard Oil Company," said that Rockefeller "should have been satisfied" with the money he had acquired by 1870, implying greed in his continued efforts to increase the size and profitability of Standard Oil. But would the public have been better off or worse off if Rockefeller had retired in 1870?

One of the crucial facts left out of Ida Tarbell's book was that Rockefeller's improvements in the oil industry brought down the price of oil to a fraction of what it had been before.

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

So what do you think? Should there be a limit on how much money somebody is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? If not, why?

The power of silence

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cENuoFw-C0]YouTube - Beck Two minutes silence[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

So...you are torpedoing your own argument. On one hand>? It Isn't 'YOUR MONEY'...but then YOU [via the 'people'] can vote yourself Other people's money?

You are a walking fuckin' contradiction aren't you?

Afraid not my friend...

That is the way civilized societies work. You are a member of the society whether you like it or not. The society as a whole (We the people) gets to decide who contributes what and what is done with the money collected

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

 

[WillowTree]

Afraid not my friend...

That is the way civilized societies work. You are a member of the society whether you like it or not. The society as a whole (We the people) gets to decide who contributes what and what is done with the money collected

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

yep,, that's the problem right now, the 50% of us who pay our federal taxes are beginning to resent the 50% who leech, then to have the main guy stand there and say "at some point you've earned enough" just doesn't sit well. So maybe in November we can get the good guys back in the house and senate. I hope the demonrats still love that 51 vote simple majority.. payback time is coming on down the pike.

 

[rightwinger]

How absolutely lame. "You gave me a soundbyte, not a link, so nothing happened! Na nah!"

Are you denying he said it, or just trying to find a way to dance around the fact that he did?

I'll make the same offer to you..

Provide a complete quote, in context, where Obama dictates how much money you can make...Do you have a problem in defending your point? Post the full quote, in context and we can discuss it

I am still waiting

So your argument really is, "he only said 'enough money', he didn't actually sign any laws setting limits, so there's nothing to talk about". That's really what you want to go with here, that it's okay for him to endorse the idea olf "enough money" as long as he's just talking.

Stick a fork in you. You're done. Get off my screen. You're finally too cowardly to be worthy of notice.

Once again you have failed miserably. When asked to provide a single complete quote where Obama stated the government should dictate how much people should earn, you along with your buddies could not do so.
Why not just admit that you were exaggerating or being deceptive to prove your point

Provide the complete quote, in context, and we can discuss it

 

[rightwinger]

You'd think this is complicated. I EARN more to HAVE more. The key verb being "earn'. I don't bust my ass so some fuckwit can take what I have earned from me and hand it out to some slug who thinks poverty means he can't afford cable, DSL and a late model auto.

You losers that can't or won't get off your lazy, fat asses and earn your own shit are pussies. And NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say I have to subsidize you pansy-little-asses.

You do not EARN in a vacuum. You EARN as part of a society which is entitled to establish standards of what you are required to contribute. As part of this society, you are entitled to elect people who best represent your interests. The Constitution, if you bother to read more than the second amendment, allows Congress to levy taxes.

I don't feel sorry that those representatives who at one time supported your positions have been voted out of office. We now have a government representing the will of the people, if you are not happy you are free to elect those who better support your positions.

Its great to be an American isn't it?

 

[Cuyo]

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

yep,, that's the problem right now, the 50% of us who pay our federal taxes are beginning to resent the 50% who leech, then to have the main guy stand there and say "at some point you've earned enough" just doesn't sit well. So maybe in November we can get the good guys back in the house and senate. I hope the demonrats still love that 51 vote simple majority.. payback time is coming on down the pike.

It's 38%, largely female-headed households, and the zero-liability is due overwhelmingly to the $1000 per child Bush tax credits.

Of zero filers:
75% will earn less than $20k; 98% less than $40k.
78% are under 45; 36% are under 25.

I hope nobody here ever has to experience being a head of household earning less than $20k, with children.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

yep,, that's the problem right now, the 50% of us who pay our federal taxes are beginning to resent the 50% who leech, then to have the main guy stand there and say "at some point you've earned enough" just doesn't sit well. So maybe in November we can get the good guys back in the house and senate. I hope the demonrats still love that 51 vote simple majority.. payback time is coming on down the pike.

So logically you would support letting the Bush tax cuts expire, since they are primarily responsible for the significant increase in households paying no taxes.

It's been quite enlightening in the past couple months to see the anti-tax crowd lamenting that lower income Americans don't pay enough taxes.

Can anyone direct me to the Republican tax plan that would alleviate that problem, while also placating those who say their federal income taxes are too high? That would be, specifically,

a plan that will lower taxes for the upper income half and raise taxes on the lower income half of American households.

That's what conservatives all over (I hear) seem to want. Who's going to give that to you?