Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

There are people who claim to "care" for the poor who have a significant professional vested interest in keeping those people right where they are on the social/economic strata.

The people with the biggest interest in keeping the poor where they are at are the owners of big business. The poor supply an abundant supply of cheap labor that can be used and discarded when needed, an asset of immense value to the wealthy business interests. To affect this end, the conservative wealthy business interests oppose the minimum wage, oppose anything that requires them to provide anything of value to employees outside of wage (from health benefits to workplace safety, both of which eat into the bottom line), oppose laws that protect workers from discrimination and harassment, and they actively promote laws which enable some of the poor to freeload off of the hard work of other members of the poor - i.e. the right to freeload states. A key component, in fact, in keeping the underclass down is making it easier for members of the underclass to prey off of one another, and that is the sole purpose of anti-union legislation.

When I see those people challenging their constituents to raise their own standards and expectations, to stop making excuses and pointing the finger when they fail, to expect fathers to stay with their families, to create and enforce higher expectations on their children, to stop celebrating mediocrity and to sincerely aspire to improve their own lot in life, I'll believe that they truly "care" about them.

If that's what you want go see a preacher. The rest of us demand our elected officials actually do something rather than just standing up and telling us how it how great it would be if fathers never left their children and no one ever had to dig ditches for a living.

,

So, they're victims and need the government to fix things.

I couldn't have asked for a better example of my point.

.

You don't have a point.

 

[squeeze berry]

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

the poor have it as good as the middle income families 40 years ago bub

 

[Mr Natural]

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

the poor have it as good as the middle income families 40 years ago bub

Proof that The War on Poverty has been successful!

 

[kaz]

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

the poor have it as good as the middle income families 40 years ago bub

Proof that The War on Poverty has been successful!

Cool, accomplishing nothing is worth spending trillions on. Sadly liberals have that philosophy on many subjects, which is why we have so many trillions in national debt.

 

[DiamondDave]

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

After trillions spent on the "war on poverty," poverty rates are actually the same as when it started. Though now most of the "poor" have TV's, cars, the general American issues with obesity, ...

War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Illiteracy, and on and on. All are redundant and wasteful federal programs which should be carefully evaluated before signing into law.

Except that illegal drugs are against the law...

It is not against the law to be poor or illiterate...

The government is actually charged to enforce its laws..

Just imagine how much more efficient enforcement of law could happen if even 1/4 of the monies spent wrongfully on education and poverty at the federal level were taken after the elimination of those federal programs and put toward law enforcement.. all while still greatly cutting our spending

 

[Oldstyle]

If the Founders of this Nation were able to anticipate the kind of wealth its resources would one day be able to generate, mainly as the result of the Industrial Revolution, you may rest assured they would have included sanctions against excessive accumulation (hoarding) of wealth in the Constitution. As it was, several of those good gentlemen saw fit to denounce such accumulation even as it occurred within the relative measure of their contemporary economy:

(Excerpt)

1) The distrust of concentrated wealth was so great that, in an extreme sentiment, Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." One could not accumulate vast wealth, in the republican worldview, simply through one's own labors. In small-scale agrarian freeholder society, where laud ownership was more widely distributed among men of European ancestry, there was a "natural distribution of wealth." Farmers, artisans, and other workers reaped the "fruits of their own labor."

2) In 1776, artisans from Philadelphia put forward a provision for inclusion in the original state constitution of Pennsylvania. They advocated for a limit on the concentration of wealth. "An enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession of such Property."

TomPaine.com - Archives - The Very Soul Of A Republic

(Close)

James Madison had a few things to say about it as well:

(Excerpt)

Government, Madison wrote, should discourage the unnecessary accumulation of great wealth — especially “unmerited” fortunes derived from public patronage. Government based on republican ideals, he argued, should “by the silent operation of laws” work to “reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”

Above all, Madison wrote, government should act as an impartial umpire of the various interests that naturally compete in a free society. Madison respected the rights of property, but he understood that a moderate balance of wealth in society must be maintained. Self-government was not possible if the great mass of the people were impoverished.

Read more: Opinion: In the name of James Madison - Roger Hodge - POLITICO.com

(Close)

Your indictment of my "socialist leanings" ignores the uncharacteristically generous disposition of my kind of socialism, which allows for the accumulation of considerable wealth in the amount of twenty million dollars. While I do incline toward socialism in that I recognize and despise the inevitable effects of laissez faire capitalism, such as are emerging in our presently afflicted Economy, I am by no means a communist.

It doesn't call for academic letters in Economics to understand how hoarding of excessive amounts of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably bring about the kind of collapse which almost happened in 2008. But because there are no Constitutional proscriptions against such hoarding I believe that for the survival of America it is necessary to impose a reasonable limit on the methodical accumulation of personal assets.

As previously mentioned in this thread, circulation of a nation's wealth resource is as essential to the health of that nation's economy as circulation of its blood is to a living organism. The hoarding of money impedes circulation, the effects of which are plainly visible today.

So unless you are among the super-rich who represent an emerging American aristocracy you obviously have been brainwashed by the kind of corporatist and plutocratic dogma as is typically put forth by the likes of such millionaire propagandists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. Believing what these people have to say will transform you into your own worst enemy.

I've got to honest with you, Mike...just when I think I've heard the most "out there" proposals coming from progressives someone comes along with something that is SO illogical that it blows my mind.

Let me explain to you what would happen if you were to limit the amount of wealth accumulation in this country to 20 million. You would have an exodus of capital and brain power from the US like nothing the world has ever seen. Anyone with large sums of capital or the ambitions of taking an innovative idea and growing it into a thriving business would leave the US for another country that didn't put a ceiling on wealth creation. We would lose so many jobs in such a short amount of time it would make this latest recession look like a walk in the park!

Seriously...do you even put a little thought into what you post here? Or is this something that you've heard somewhere and thought sounded intelligent? People like you scare me because I think we've actually got some of you RUNNING our country right now.

Place yourself on the list of those who are in need of education.

If your concern is with those who would seek to remove this Nation's wealth resources to another place, have you never heard of the expatriation tax? If not, read this: Expatriation Tax

This presently is a relatively small penalty. But if we Americans decide to put an end to the hoarding of our Nation's wealth resource rest assured this tax can be substantially increased.

Keep in mind this is a radical proposal. So don't burn your powerful brain out thinking of ways to impede it by applying existing pro-corporatist laws and regulations.

It's not a radical proposal, Mike...it's a silly proposal. People don't HAVE to start businesses in the United States. They can open them in other locales. If you put a cap on wealth at some arbitrary figure like 20 million then anyone worth more than that or anyone with a business idea that they think has the potential to earn more than that is going to take their capital and invest it elsewhere and your raising a tax on them isn't going to prevent that...it's going to accelerate it.

Try and use just a modicum of common sense...

 

[DiamondDave]

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

Yes.. our poor have it better than the poor of other places.. tv's, cell phones, cars, ac, etc... that does not take away from the FACT that using the standards you use for defining poor HERE, all the money thrown into poverty programs has done ZERO to reduce the poverty rate... the definition of wasteful spending for the sake of power

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

the poor have it as good as the middle income families 40 years ago bub

The poor have it better than the poor had it 40 years ago. The claim that they have it better than the middle class did 40 years ago is something I don't think you can demonstrate with any verifiable evidence and which may heavily depend on how you define "middle class" and "poor". If we define the middle class income as the median income, 40 years ago in 1971 that amount was $44,707 per household in 2011 dollars Median Household Income History in the United States. The poverty line for a family of 4 in 2011 was $22,350 and was $26170 for a family of 5. 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines So, certainly by the commonly used definitions of "middle class" and "poor" - the poor of 2011 most certainly do NOT have higher real income than the middle class in 1971.

 

[kaz]

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

Yes.. our poor have it better than the poor of other places.. tv's, cell phones, cars, ac, etc... that does not take away from the FACT that using the standards you use for defining poor HERE, all the money thrown into poverty programs has done ZERO to reduce the poverty rate... the definition of wasteful spending for the sake of power

The median family in the US is an evil one percenter ... of the world's population ...

Shouldn't we be taxing them to death instead of not taxing them since 50% of taxpayers pay zero taxes? And that's taxpayers, it doesn't count people who don't make enough to file. Yes, the average American is a greedy one percenter. Gives you a whole new perspective, doesn't it?

 

[kaz]

Just imagine how much more efficient enforcement of law could happen if even 1/4 of the monies spent wrongfully on education and poverty at the federal level were taken after the elimination of those federal programs and put toward law enforcement.. all while still greatly cutting our spending

Assuming you mean drug law enforcement, would it be? I always find it interesting how conservatives can't apply their own logic to their own policies when they just want something different. For example,

1) Conservatives claim to get business. Well, if you are successful with law enforcement, you reduce the availability to drugs. So what happens to the price of drugs? They go up. And what does that mean for suppliers? They are willing to work harder to get the higher profits available due to the artificially inflated marketplace prices. So what happens in this case? The most ruthless, murdering drug dealers are the most successful and due to ever increasing prices they threaten and kill more people more ruthlessly to get it. And if you open your eyes, you'll see that's happening now. Just like it happened with alcohol. Do you see how you're like the liberals in this? No learning from history, no logic, not even adhering to your own principles. You want it. That's why you do it.

2) Conservatives claim to want small government. Well, unless people do with their own bodies something conservatives object to.

When you combine those, you realize the solution is to deal with the consequence of drug use, not the availability. Because you just set off an endless cycle which can never be won, specifically because the inevitable consequence of every battle you win is to make your enemy in the next battle more ruthless.

Stop funding drug lords and you undercut organized crime in this country, destabilizing governments around the world.

Keep fighting it and you do those things ... and still have the drugs.

 

[Mac1958]

The people with the biggest interest in keeping the poor where they are at are the owners of big business. The poor supply an abundant supply of cheap labor that can be used and discarded when needed, an asset of immense value to the wealthy business interests. To affect this end, the conservative wealthy business interests oppose the minimum wage, oppose anything that requires them to provide anything of value to employees outside of wage (from health benefits to workplace safety, both of which eat into the bottom line), oppose laws that protect workers from discrimination and harassment, and they actively promote laws which enable some of the poor to freeload off of the hard work of other members of the poor - i.e. the right to freeload states. A key component, in fact, in keeping the underclass down is making it easier for members of the underclass to prey off of one another, and that is the sole purpose of anti-union legislation.
If that's what you want go see a preacher. The rest of us demand our elected officials actually do something rather than just standing up and telling us how it how great it would be if fathers never left their children and no one ever had to dig ditches for a living.

,

So, they're victims and need the government to fix things.

I couldn't have asked for a better example of my point.

.

You don't have a point.

Standard partisan denial. Only you have a point. Okay.

No problem, I'm used to it here.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

,

So, they're victims and need the government to fix things.

I couldn't have asked for a better example of my point.

.

You don't have a point.

Standard partisan denial. Only you have a point. Okay.

No problem, I'm used to it here.

.

You have no point. No solutions. Nothing. Only "gee whiz, wouldn't it be great if everything were great?"

 

[Mac1958]

You don't have a point.

Standard partisan denial. Only you have a point. Okay.

No problem, I'm used to it here.

.

You have no point. No solutions. Nothing. Only "gee whiz, wouldn't it be great if everything were great?"

Straw man arguments, more standard partisan stuff.

What is it with you people?



.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Standard partisan denial. Only you have a point. Okay.

No problem, I'm used to it here.

.

You have no point. No solutions. Nothing. Only "gee whiz, wouldn't it be great if everything were great?"

Straw man arguments, more standard partisan stuff.

What is it with you people?



.

Are you a robot?

 

[MikeK]

It's not a radical proposal, Mike...it's a silly proposal. People don't HAVE to start businesses in the United States. They can open them in other locales. If you put a cap on wealth at some arbitrary figure like 20 million then anyone worth more than that or anyone with a business idea that they think has the potential to earn more than that is going to take their capital and invest it elsewhere and your raising a tax on them isn't going to prevent that...it's going to accelerate it.

Try and use just a modicum of common sense...

You have a natural tendency for onanistic hypotheses but there is nothing substantive or even moderately entertaining in any of your empty, gloomy prognostications. So why not provide us with an example of how you would set about to create your greater than $20million fortune, either here in the U.S. or elsewhere. And please be specific so we can learn from your expertise: What kind of business? Where would you go? Etc.?

And it would be helpful to know if you already are among the $20million+ category.

 

[velvtacheeze]

When you can still live a very comfortable life despite higher taxes, that's when.

 

[velvtacheeze]

And what's this "earned" crap about anyway? The Koch's inherited their wealth. Trump was born into wealth. They didn't earn anything. And most of the rich that didn't inherit their wealth are probably overpaid anyway. Doctors have bloated salaries. Most businessmen do. They pay themselves too much, and pay their employees too little.

I reject the whole laughable notion that the rich are "earning" anything.

 

[jasonnfree]

Why are those who work for a living penalized, and those who don't rewarded?

You're living in the wrong country if you consider taxes to be a penalty.

You should consider it a privilege to live in such a great country, but nope...you see it as being penalized. Perhaps it's time you looked for another country that has no taxation and is more to your liking.

Taxes used to support legitimate functions of the Government is fine and supported.

Taxes used to support non-legitimate functions such as 99 weeks of unemployment and welfare.. Please show me where those are listed in the Constitution as functions of the Federal Government. Please don't embarrass yourself and say "The General Welfare Clause"...

It's listed in the same place in the constitution where it says we have to support Israel.

 

[jasonnfree]

And what's this "earned" crap about anyway? The Koch's inherited their wealth. Trump was born into wealth. They didn't earn anything. And most of the rich that didn't inherit their wealth are probably overpaid anyway. Doctors have bloated salaries. Most businessmen do. They pay themselves too much, and pay their employees too little.

I reject the whole laughable notion that the rich are "earning" anything.

Money's their god. The right wing/tea bag group on this board worships money and anybody that has it and they really don't care how the money was obtained. Better that children go hungry than to have a multibillionaire pay one more penny in taxes is what this bunch is about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And what's this "earned" crap about anyway? The Koch's inherited their wealth. Trump was born into wealth. They didn't earn anything. And most of the rich that didn't inherit their wealth are probably overpaid anyway. Doctors have bloated salaries. Most businessmen do. They pay themselves too much, and pay their employees too little.

I reject the whole laughable notion that the rich are "earning" anything.

Those who profit off the market aren't really earning anything, either. I've no problem with them doing it, but to characterize what is essentially a lottery as earning something is absurd.