jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (70 posts)

Bailouts are welfare for the rich.

  1. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 6 years ago

    Tell me, oh wise opponents of the tax cuts, why is letting rich people keep what they earn detrimental to the "greater good", but printing and putting billions of dollars in the hands of these uber-greedsters FOR the "greater good"? -- especially when these people lost money in the first place because of poor, reckless decisions?

    Reckless decision-making that was, mind you, encouraged by subsidies and special benefits, and made under the assumption that government would indeed bail them out were they ever to fall short.

    How can you be against wealthy people keeping their own money, but FOR wealthy people being handed money that was never theirs by the government at our expense?

    Hmmmmm...

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because some follow the left leaning mantra..."BUSINESS BAD GOVERNMENT GOOD" ??

      1. EPman profile image60
        EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Lol and they do so without realizing that big business and big government are often times in bed together.

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly. The Lobyist are killing us.

          Lobbies
          Unions
          Progressives
          "are killing the"
          United
          States

          Its LUPUS! Good lord we have an auto immune disease. We are literaly attacking ourselves.

          1. bgamall profile image85
            bgamallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Here is the deal CJ. In the 14th century, Banksters who became insolvent were hanged. While I am not for hanging, none of the big banksters have gone to jail. And here is the deal, until they do Americans cannot trust these banksters or the government.

    2. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Um, as far as I know most progressives opposed the bailouts. I certainly did.

      The stimulus package is a more complicated animal. Personally I would have preferred to see the revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the expansion of existing service programs that provide training and experience in exchange for working for the public good, but I also think a period of military or civil service should be mandatory for everyone, so I'm clearly biased. tongue

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        So, you would force the population to perform labor, sacrifice time, and expel energy,  regardless of their consent to do so?

        1. Flightkeeper profile image78
          Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's easy to see how communism happens.  It happens very slowly and all the while it's done with good intentions.  The next thing you know, you wake up and your life isn't yours anymore.

          1. Druid Dude profile image59
            Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds more like Homeland Security. Ever thought that the communistic model was actually the Iroquois Confederacy? Said to have been the model for the U.S.A. Everyone, going about sharing....How bizarre! Men and women on an equal footing guiding the tribe....Unnerving! Those less fortunate having their needs tended to....Burn the witches! Private, or even societal ownership of Earth being anti-thetical to the philosophy. Should all be thrown in prison. It is remarkable to me the way propaganda convinces some to strain upon a knat, while swallowing a proverbial camel. The materialistic ambition/greed driven capitalist system is a cold, cold, master. Just ask the multi-millions who are homeless and hungry here in the richest nation on the planet. But, this system is WAY preferable to actually helping your brothers. Wake up, and stop lying to yourselves about how great this System is. It sucks.

            1. Druid Dude profile image59
              Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Bailouts? Yeah, pass out hand over fist and then turn around and deny that same benefit to private citizens. Better yet, let's just pass the whole bill to them, don't forget to include lunch and at least three cocktails.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Just ask the multi-millions"

              More propaganda being spread, there are not millions of homeless.

              Keep your rants in the realm of reality.

              1. profile image0
                Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Based upon what? What the hell do you know? Did your ass come up with that response?

          2. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I once heard a story analogizing hog catching to communisim. Your comment reminded me of it.
            To capture free hogs simply place lots of corn on the ground. Once the hogs begin to show up on a regular schedule. Put up a single section of fence and continue to feed with liberal amounts of corn. Repeat the process of adding sections of fence and feeding until all the hogs are completely pinned in. Now you can feed the hogs anything you like and save all that corn for yourself. Not to mention having an easy source of BBQ... It kind of illustrates your point and the trap that is central planning.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image78
              Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, just have the government feed the population handouts and they will accept regulations.  It's creepy that there are so many who want to control the population so that it will do what they want it to do.  They don't see it as communism either, they'll call it fairness and helping the unfortunate.  And their concept of fairness is that everybody is the same.  Really, Animal Farm is slowly unfolding and very few realize it.

              1. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Welcome to the GREAT SOCIETY!

        2. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's known as conscription. It existed in this country until 1973, so it's hardly without precedent, and it is still found among both democratic and non-democratic countries around the world.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I understand, I just do not agree with the majority's Rights over the individual.

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I guess you have "other priorities" than serving your country, just like our esteemed former vice president. Adds a certain irony to your avatar...

              1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                My priorities are my own, not to be established and forced upon my by coercion or force.  I am a Freeman!  I love my Country, I do not trust our Govt.

                The Rights of the Individual supersede that of the majority. We are currently fighting two wars with a volunteer military.

                Conscription is an act of a Tyrannical govt, it does not matter that the Country once did it.  There are a lot of things that this Nation has done that I consider atrocities.


                The American population is very charitable and Patriotic,  look how many volunteers show up at every emergency that arises.

              2. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Did our esteemed current President serve his county or did he have other priorities?

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I never understood how conscription was compatible with the entire no-involuntary service thing from the Constitution.

            y'know... slavery and all that.

            OH well, statists will think of something to argue for it, and everyone will just nod their heads.

      2. DonDWest profile image88
        DonDWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, Soviet styled work camps, how lovely!

    3. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If the bailouts, etc... were just for the rich, then we should tax the shit out of those 3600 or is it 39000 actual rich people, depending on what Democrat is interviewed.  Problem is, the numbers are wrong, way to small, and that is because our guvment chooses to let it fly that way.  If in fact less than 40K people in this country make over $200K a year, then the there would be no debate over taxes, Americans would overwhelmingly be on board for tax cuts for the actual rich. It is a farce that apparently no one has the balls to call out the guvment on.

      Schumers proposal to tax only those making a million dollars and up more, or rather, take back the Bush cuts on them, should have passed.

      TARP helped all of us, sadly it did help the truly rich much more, and sadly the truly rich are looking and salivating to get a pass because Democrats are so damn greedy they are actually going after the middle class, desite any of their rhetoric to the contrary.

      1. outrider2 profile image61
        outrider2posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If the government actually spent tax dollars wisely then most people would not have a problem with reasonable taxes. Since they don't most people balk at turning over their hard earned money to a bunch of busybodies in DC. How do you figure that TARP helped everyone? The truly rich are taking a pass? They pay over sixty percent of income tax already. Leading your life envious of what other people have is not healthy you should really worry about improving your own situation on your own and not whining about "rich people"

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ?? Read a little closer, I am not, and have never, whined about rich people not getting taxed enough.  The very definition of rich is retarded in this day and age, and grossly in need of redefining.  If either party was interested in compromise the SChumer proposal, if even for a couple years, should have created some agreement, it did not.  TARP helped us all by stemming further collapse of all of our retirement accounts, stemming further panic selling on the part of regular Americans, still choking on losses they may never have the balls to step in and try to recover from.

          1. outrider2 profile image61
            outrider2posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Speaking of rich, doesn't Schummer have a little coin? Why compromise, socialism doesn't work. Saved the collaspe of whose retirements accounts? You seem to know things and have the ability to predicate the future that is amazing! why is the definition of rich retarded, pray tell.

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Gee, thanks so much for your response, if you do not know what a retirement account is, and you do not know that middle class America lost a bundle in them, then there is not much more I can contribute to a discussion with you, accept to say, that I do believe socialism sucks, and that is the direction many in power wish to direct our great country.

              1. outrider2 profile image61
                outrider2posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                For someone who says Socialism sucks you sure do seem eager to have the government intervine a lot. Never said didnt know what a retirement acct. was just wanted to know whose was saved by TARP. Is that like "saved" jobs?

    4. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Basically, your understanding of the situation is flawed. The bailouts, proposed by Bush btw, was to prevent a run on the banks and secure the infrastructure of our financial institutions. If you don't secure the confidence in the banks, you cause a run, and the entire system collapses. This HAS happened, so it isn's speculation. The income tax debate is based upon personal income. Now the top 2% have the availability of tax shelters and a smorgasboard of tax deferrment scams to eliminate their percentage. The top 2 richest people in America paid 17% in pesonal income tax last year. How much did you pay? By continuing the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, you add almost $600billion to the deficit over 10 years. That is how much they are worth, and they aren't paying the proper amount to begin with. When you cut taxes for the middle and lower class, they spend it. The rich save it. That was proven over the last 20 years. It is a clear financial decision...if you do the math and stop playing ideologue, it is quite simple.

      1. EPman profile image60
        EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I respectfully disagree, tex.

        It is bad policy to secure confidence in banks in an economy where there is no REAL security (specifically because of the problems caused by central economic planning), so banks can, for example, keep lending standards low irrelevant of what the market actually dictates, continuing the distortions that got us in this very mess in the first place.

        True restoration to our economy can only be achieved by unhampered liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices. You do NOT help recovery by trying to prop up markets by printing money.

        And did I mention the subsequent devaluation of the dollar, caused by inflation?

        I am good enough at math to know that prosperity doesn't come from debt, nor is debt fixed by spending more.

        Rich people scamming the tax system is just more testament to the fact that tax brackets don't work. Letting people keep what they earn doesn't cost the government anything.

        It's like... my 16 year old daughter gets herself into debt because she buys too many pairs of shoes, and then tells me I'm adding to her debt by not giving her the money that I work for. Absurd.

        And again, you don't accumulate, nor do you fix, trillion dollar deficits with tax cuts. There are much bigger issues at play affecting our economy; issues that will plague us regardless of taxes for the top 2%. All I'm saying is that principally and ideologically it is a step in the right direction.

        Btw... I'm not a Re-pube-ican. I hated Bush.

        Texasbeta... seriously dude... you're distracting me from studying for my finals. It's crunch time, and I haven't read anything I was supposed to for the whole semester, so I gotta focus. Show some mercy lol

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Aw, EP!! You didn't take on Texas's claim about bank runs!!

          That was the perfect chance to demolish him by discussing fractional reserve banking, and how using a true money, a market based money - usually gold - is the only way to prevent bank runs and the business cycle!!

          oh well, good luck on the finals.

          1. EPman profile image60
            EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hahaha sorry to disappoint you.

            Evan, care to message me some suggested reading material that would expand my knowledge on these topics? Christmas is approaching and I'm looking for some books to add to my wish list.

            It would be appreciated.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              All reading material that I highly recommend are linked in my hubs. It'd take hours to write out a long list.

              If you have an iPod, you an get all of mises.org lectures out of the iTunes scholar thing - i recommend that.

              The absolute number one best book to read EVER is "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt - i link this in every hub I make. You can find a video of numerous other Austrian Scholars discussing it on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD28vNVovow  it's long but worth it.

              I liked Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable" - fantastic book which shows that things that everyone thinks are evil aren't actually that bad.

              Just about everything that has Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s name on it is golden (he has numerous videos you can find online). I haven't read his "religious stuff" yet. Maybe I will one day.

              "Libertarianism Today" is a great book - it just came out, I haven't read it all the way through.

              A fantastic argument that's 200 or so years old showing that "jobs" are not what we need in an economy: "http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html". Bastiat was awesome.

              I could go on for days - you should see my bookshelf. I don't want to plug my own hubs, but the lot of what I like is on my hubs. Feel free to not buy them through my links - I'm not trying to gain on this conversation: i only link the books because they rock.

              Books not related to Austrian Economics: "Gang Leader for a Day" by Sudhir Venkatesh, "Freakonomics" and "Superfreakonomics", and a great one "How to Lie with Statistics"

              -- I will message this to you so you won't miss it.

  2. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Because government says so big_smile

  3. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    They just show how being rich is good for you.

  4. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    Bailout stink but the government did them to save a lot of middle class jobs.  I'm thinking GM specifically here.

  5. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Maybe that they go to definite jobs not just some trickle down theory that doesn't work...

    1. EPman profile image60
      EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, I must have overlooked the fact that central economic planning and government policy create jobs and prosperity.

      roll

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It works, it works better when business doesn't have to worry about a President who worships Karl Marx.

      Whats funny is now Obama says we face a double dip recession if we don't extend the current tax rates (see, not a cut) all of a sudden he likes Bush's ideas.

      Two years and this clown still gets away with this stuff.

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.

        So many fall for this idea. It's amazing. We associate the success of the former to the later. We attribute the failures of the former to the later. It's our obsession with instant gratification. In our current situation we are seeing someone continue the worst ideas of the former. Thats REALLY BAD.

        One can easily say that Reagan's "trickle down economy" helped make many millionaires(FROM NOTHING) through the tech boom. Which was fostered by Reagan. However the results of this boom were actually realized during the Clinton Administration. While Clinton did not squander the prosperity he had, he made some horrible decisions regarding trade. Decisions that are really  hurting us today.

  6. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "How can you be against wealthy people keeping their own money, but FOR wealthy people being handed money that was never theirs by the government at our expense?"

    They are one and the same.
    Why in HELL do they get it TWICE?

    1. EPman profile image60
      EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because tax cuts involve letting people keep what they have earned, whereas bailouts are the allocation of public funds into the hands of people who deserved to lose their money in the first place? -- because of bad decision making and inept policy?? -- bad policy that was carelessly initiated in the first place because of government subsidies, benefits, and the assumption that a bailout would be delivered if needed?????

      Dum dum dum dum dummmmm

      1. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You missed my point, dum dum dummmmm

        They already GOT the bail-outs.....they already got a tax-cut on $250,000 of their income. Why are we gonna give them a bonus on top of it?

        It was the Uber Rich Class who screwed us over, made the mistakes, and took the bail-out, now you want to give them YET more!

        1. Druid Dude profile image59
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sure. It's not our money...yes it is...no it's not. It's China's money. Oh, no it's not. True communism is locally centralized with rings at every upward level, each one is peopled with the "Elders" who have acquired an age, or evidenced advanced wisdom to lead. Our leaders are all amateurs, with varying levels of wisdom, who find themselves un-employed just when they've just completed the training program. At which point, they become "Elder Statesmen" who no one listens to anymore, and whose ability to effect true progress or evolution has been seriously curtailed.

        2. EPman profile image60
          EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Um... not every rich person got a bailout? -- only those in certain industries who made poor decisions and were faced with deserved consequences got one???

          To issue tax penalties to everyone who is rich -- just because the government (that you love) bailed out the wealthy who actually are corrupt -- is not fair.

          It's failed logic; expected from you, but nonetheless, a fail.

        3. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Give them more?  How do you give somebody money that was theirs to begin with?

          Pray tell?

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Because we subsidize it. That money they get a break on has to be made up by YOUR grandchildren....you know, the ones the Right is always harping on, unless it's money for their wealthy friends. Then they don't mind the grandkids picking up the tab.

            Where are you going to cut to make up for the 7000 billion that they will get back?
            Oh, and there ARE people who get a tax-increase with this deal....$20-40,000 earners.

            If you think a quarter mil is poor, what do you think of 20,000?
            They work. It's their money too. Why you want to take it from them, while billionaires get a high-five?

            Honestly, I can't believe the level of lowness America has sunk too.
            Wallowing in the mud pit, groveling around in all that  high-life, while your country falls apart around you.

            Patriotic? Try Self-Absorbed!

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We subsidize them??? Is that really what the pitch is??  Astounding.

              1. EPman profile image60
                EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Lol.

                Isn't it an absolute phenomenon?

              2. lovemychris profile image82
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (Hardcover)

                "One thing you can expect when you open a book by David Cay Johnston is narrative that reads like a drama unfolding except that the plot is present-day America and the story is how the wealthy are getting richer at the expense of the middle class. Hence the title "Free Lunch," where the wealthy steal it with government approval, are paid to take it or get it free, courtesy of the same who hands the bill over to us.

                Johnston provides chapter after fascinating chapter of how government at all levels offers break after break which is consistently picked up by Average Joe Taxpayer. Such "bounties" include:

                ·    Misuse of eminent domain, which is supposed to mean appropriating land for the common good such as a new highway or airport. Now it is used to support developers who wish to profit at the expense of the homeowner.

                ·    Tax breaks. Not only do companies such as Wal-Mart, Cabela, or Bass Pro insist on property tax breaks that decimate the local economy rather than improve it, but they might even insist on keeping the sales tax. Communities may not see a return on their investment for decades.

                ·    Government intervention in the form of legislation that may even benefit large companies at the expense of the citizen such as "free-market" energy as espoused by Ken Lay that eventually cost Californians exorbitant charges for no additional electricity generated.

                ·    Kids who take student loans are finding out that what they thought was a loan at six percent suddenly became eighteen percent guaranteeing that they will pay far more than they borrowed for years to come, and the lender is guaranteed no risk.

                ·    Our government is also lavishing subsidies onto for-profit health care companies that consistently look for ways to deny claims. No subsidies go to nonprofit health systems even though studies show they offer superior care.

                ·    The grand prize, which is our current administration in the form of George W. Bush who sponsored a drug plan for seniors that was worked on (behind closed doors) by Billy Tauzin (R), Max Baucus (D), and John Breaux (D). These "representatives of the people" guaranteed that Adam Smith's dictum of seeking the lowest possible price would be ignored. Their bill guaranteed that our government would not be allowed to negotiate the price of drugs for its citizens even though it would make purchases in bulk.

                In each of the above, there has not only been collusion by companies and industries, but also a feckless government that has given its blessing with collusion of its own, subsidies, and bluster of threats to investigate wrong-doing, with investigations that never quite materialize.

                Having read his previous work "Perfectly Legal" I was eager to get my hands on this book, and I was not disappointed. In twenty-seven chapters that span the length of less than 300 pages, you will discover how industry and government have actually worked to first deceive, then gouge the average hard-working taxpayer.

                If this book cannot stir the most politically apathetic into action, nothing will.

                Maybe they'll just have to see the bill first."

                *****

                Maybe you should read it.

            2. EPman profile image60
              EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No. You subsidize expenses. Letting people keep what's theirs is not an expense. It doesn't cost anything.

              "Hey! What do you mean you won't give me 50 bucks?! You're costing me too damn much!"



              Not if you reduce government and cut spending, which is the whole point of the argument, and the main objective.



              Trillion dollar deficits are what politicians are addressing when they use the grandchildren rhetoric. You do not make or break these deficits with tax cuts.

            3. BillyDRitchie profile image60
              BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Um, actually, I'm in favor of tax cuts for everybody, as in no more than 20% of anybody's income going to the government, and the government taking steps to eliminate wasteful spending on worthless projects.

              When you start punishing achievement, you remove the incentive to be successful.

              Or does that make too much sense?

              1. lovemychris profile image82
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It makes no sense. They got a tax cut on $250,000 dollars of their income. That wasn't enough for them. It's not "punishing achievement", it's glorifying greed.

                1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                  BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Remind me again how wanting to keep more of what you rightfully earned constitutes "greed"....this should be fascinating....

        4. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They didn't "get" bail-outs, they just didn't have their wealth stolen.

          Having a lower tax rate isn't "a bail-out", it's just "being robbed less"

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So how come the less well-off can be "robbed" more?

            And is it "robbing" to charge a fee-for-services?

            Are you saying you get nothing from gvt?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't argue they SHOULD be robbed, I'm just arguing that we should limit the robbing as much as possible.

              Don't try to bog me down in a "why does X get robbed more than Y?" nonsense. I don't want anyone to be robbed from. And if Y gets robbed less than X, then I'm happy at least that Y isn't being robbed!

              You're taking the "If I get robbed on the street by a mugger, then he should have to mug EVERYONE on the street". You get mugged, then you help that mugger rob everyone else? That makes no sense.

  7. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    Back to the topic of the forum post. It's not welfare. It's a government endorsement of a private business with taxpayer money. It's wildly illegal. It can't be Constitutional.

  8. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    The very wealthy dont even have their money in the U.S anyway ,so no use getting ya knickers in a twist smile

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      The United States does not operate with money.

      We have worthless federal reserve notes.

  9. profile image0
    luabuposted 6 years ago

    bailouts from China
         =
    pay back time

  10. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Here is another example of tax payers subsidizing greed:

    "Andrew Maguire is a former Goldman Sachs trader. He went public in April 2010 with assertions of market manipulation by J.P. Morgan and HSBC of the gold and silver markets. The U.S.A.'s Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and The Commodities Futures Trade Commission are conducting civil and criminal probes steming from a New York Post article concerning Maguire's allegations. Maguire said "JPMorgan acts as an agent for the Federal Reserve; they act to halt the rise of gold and silver against the US dollar. JPMorgan is insulated from potential losses (on their short positions) by the Fed and/or the US taxpayer."

    I'll repeat that:
    JPMorgan is insulated from potential losses (on their short positions) by the Fed and/or the US taxpayer.


    Regarding keeping what you earn:
    We all work and pay into this country.
    As is is now, people who earn less are contributing more in percentage of their incomes than their extremely wealthy counterparts.
    Gvt policies have favored the Uber-rich for 30 years or more. Socialism for Corporate America.
    It has not been a"shared prosperity". It has been prosperity vs pain.

    JUST even it up.
    Remove the cap on FICA....we are home free! After all, a person earning $100,000 must pay FICA on all of it.
    Someone with 3 billion dollars pays FICA on $103,000 of it only. Because they tax labor over inheritance/investment/MONEY. That is madness! And policy geared quite unfairly towards the wealthy.

    The fore-fathers came here to ESCAPE this kind of Feudalism.

    Didn't Jefferson value labor over inheritance? What happened? It's bass-ackwards.

  11. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Jefferson warned against "An Aristocracy of Wealth"....well hello....it's here!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jefferson warned me about grass - but I don't care because grass isn't a threat.

  12. lovemychris profile image82
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "I don't argue they SHOULD be robbed, I'm just arguing that we should limit the robbing as much as possible."

    I get robbed every time I buy something. They choose how much it is worth--what gives them that right?

    I defintely get robbed by my electric company, but there's not much choice in that.....nor the propane.....nor the gasoline......nor the rent.....nor the food.....nor anything that they rob me of my money for.

    And no one ever cares how much they gouge me. no no no....because it's all about their profit, not my well-being.
    The gvt cares for my well-being. At least it would if you got the business/profit interest out of it.

    Pure/Clean gvt of the people....not the corporations. That's what I want.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      THEY don't choose how much something is worth - you BOTH do.

      If you choose not to buy something, then the price goes down because the thing isn't worth what the seller thought it was. And if the prices never go down, and no one buys the item, then clearly the seller is dumb.

      You clearly don't understand how prices are generated. Here are some links.

      http://mises.org/daily/4901
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h36Dni1ZPX0
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 249105321#
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 545911326#
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 270476009#

      Most of the videos are by Joseph Salerno - a good guy who explains things very well.

      You aren't getting robbed because you clearly agree to pay the money. Listen to yourself: "I deserve electricity for a price lower than what I am completely willing to pay in every way!"

      I fear that my efforts to show you the light will always be met with a black hole.

      1. lovemychris profile image82
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The black hole is the money we pay into things that could easily be provided for less.
        The profit motive is RUINING America!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          governments don't work for profits, yet you complain about those things "provided" by government very frequently on these forums.

          1. lovemychris profile image82
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Electricity, food, gasoline, propane, rent...provided by gvt?

            YOU complain about gvt. Not me.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't have enough time to track it down, but you've complained about wars, you've complained about money being dished out to companies.

              And yet the government doesn't work for profits, and it pays for these things.

              You have to see the connection here!

 
working