Is the president whipping up class warfare?

1. 87

   livelongerposted 12 years ago

   What are your thoughts on this?
   
   "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary - and that's crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver, or less?"
   
   I have my own feelings on what the president said, but wanted to see what others thought.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      American Romanceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Love the "fair share" sentence!  The lower middle class and those considered by American standards "poor" should NEVER use the words FAIR SHARE! NON of them pay taxes anyway so what is really FAIR?

      replyreport
      1. 87

         livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         But bus drivers are working, and they pay more taxes than the ultra-rich. Is that fair? Maybe you dislike the president, but can't you concede that he's right here?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Can you think that you might be wrong?  I don't believe bus drivers pay more taxes than the rich.  do you have some documentation for that?

            replyreport
            1. 87

               livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Why don't you ask the source? I'm not nor have I ever been the POTUS.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  So you believe the president without wanting to see his documentation.  Why do you do that?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Ding ding ding.
                     
                     New level reached.

                     replyreport
                  2. 85

                     kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     It's just a short excerpt of a longer speech. Perhaps he offered the proof in the next paragraph.
                     
                     I think you should Google the quote to find out.

                     replyreport
      2. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ???Nobody who works for a wage or salary escapes paying taxes. Have you heard of federal income tax withholding? How about FICA? How about state sales and income taxes? Real estate taxes?
         
         President Obama isn't "whipping up class warfare." He doesn't need to the billionaires and incompetent, greedy CEOS, parasitic health insurance companies, for profit doctors and hospitals, hedge fund operators, not to mention the Wall Street crooks, have done a fine job of whipping up class warfare.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            2besureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Here! Here! Ralph!  Well said!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Same here! The whole "class warfare" business was made up by the right to start another fake controversy.  It's Amazing how the marching orders to use certain bogus accusations will go on for weeks or months.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  910chrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  We, the American public; have allowed this to happen.That's all there is to it.

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Made up by the right, Are you not pay Attention? Who are the OWS? who are they protesting? Who wants to raise taxes? THE LEFT

                  replyreport
         2. 73

            Barbara Kayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ralph, I completely agree. Hooray for you to speak out.

            replyreport
      3. 73

         Barbara Kayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         American Romance, Before my mother-in-law passed away, I did her taxes every year. She lived on a near minimum wage income and the government kept enough money every year to make me feel sick whenever I did them. Don't tell me the poor don't pay taxes. I felt like the government should have been helping her, not draining this much of her money.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Barbara,
            
            Not to stick up for AR, but 90% of the 50% that are not paying taxes are the low income earners. That's a fact. Also a fact, if your Mom-in-law was so low, she paid zero to 10%. Upper are paying 36%. I wrote an article on who the 15 are and taxes, you may want to check it out

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Upper income people aren't paying 36%. That's the maximum marginal rate. Their tax rules have more holes than a sieve.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Funny no one says that for those who really do not pay taxes  or for those who get tax money back they did not pay in.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, he's instigating class warfare.  Along with his agenda of banishing capitalism in general.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What did he say that was actually instigating class warfare? Do you think that millionaires should pay less taxes as a percentage of their income than bus drivers?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            He should be going after the fraudulent rich instead of all wealthy people.  Actually, he should be going after fraud, period, whether committed by the rich or the poor!  Sic 'em Eric Holder.  Oh. Wait.  Strike that.  Holder's not responsible enough to be sicced on anyone.  Gunwalker. Biased-against-State's rights.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I think he is talking more about the people who are corporations (and vice versa).

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  What's wrong with corporations?

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Can people marry corporations, or would that be an unholy abomination?

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        It would certainly be.... unhygienic...

                        replyreport
            2. 87

               livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               What are the fraudulent rich vs the non-fraudulent rich? Which group is using loopholes in order to get out of paying taxes?
               
               You still haven't said exactly what the president said in that quote above that you object to. You just went on an anti-Obama rant.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "You just went on an anti-Obama rant."
                  
                  Particularly ironic because, unless I am very much mistaken, that quote isn't even one of Obama's. I really wish I could see certain people's expressions when they Google the quote and learn who really said it...

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
         2. 60

            Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I would lick to see the documentation that rich are paying less than bus drivers.  Can you provide that?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It's called capital gains. Anyone with a lot of money in the market knows that.
               People are enjoying historically low capital gains taxes over the past twenty years or so.
               This is a fact and is probably the biggest contributor to wealth disparity in the nation.
               
               If I were a conservative I would want to fix things really soon. The worse it gets the worse the reactionary legislation will be.
               There will come a point where the public will no longer tolerate bought off politicians that do not represent their interests regardless of party.  Drastic reform to campaign finance and term limits will come.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You do understand that everyone can get into mutual funds and take advantage of those capital gains, don't you.  So the tax code is not the only cause of disparity. And if iot is the gret cause of disparity, whose fault is it?  Why the one's who wrote the law.  Do you hear the one's who wrote the law trying to change it dueto disparity?  Well maybe you should blame them rather than the wones who take advantage of the law?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Paying the same tax on one hundred thousand dollars and two billion is hardly fair.
                     Why do you defend wealth you don't have or couldn't dream of obtaining? Why does anyone for that matter?
                     Oh, I know because they bankroll crackpot agendas.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No, I believe that people who have earned their wealth are entitle to it.  That is why everyone works to provide his needs and desires.  It is only fair to let him keep the fruits of his labor.  If he does it legally and there is something wrong, it is the law that is wrong.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The entitled to their wealth, and responsible for higher taxes.  This is the cost of citizenship in this country. Nobody has to stay if they don't like it. But with the new tax laws, you can never run from the IRS wherever you go.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Then we should see that the Internal revenue code is abolished and a consumption tax of a flat tax replaces it.

                              replyreport
                        2. 80

                           2besureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Earning and gaining by deceit and trickery are two different things.  Can you spell Bernie Madoff just to name one of many?
                           
                           "It is only fair to let him keep the fruits of his labor."   
                           Have you forgotten about all the prominent southern families who got their wealth from the free labor of black slaves?
                           
                           Did slaves get to keep the fruit of their labor?
                           
                           It is never fair for anyone to gain by oppressing others; whether on Wall Street or the fields of the south!

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I knew race would work its way into this conversation somewhere along the line. There is no place for it here Period

                              replyreport
                     2. 61

                        American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        They do not pay the same, there is a 16% difference

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Capital gains

                           replyreport
            2. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hedge fund operators pay the 15% capital gains rate on their earnings. Bus drivers pay a higher percentage, especially when sales tax, SS tax and state and local taxes are taken into account. Did you happen to read Warren Buffett's comment on the injustice of him paying a lower rate than his secretary?  Probably not. It wasn't covered on Fox.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  So you conclude that bus drivers are paying a higher rate than a higher amount.  And you are also assuming that the capital gains is the only income that the rice have. Interesting.  You do understand that some stock dividends are included in ordinary income which would be taxed at the highest rate depending on the total income of the individual.  Do bus drivers have income taxed at the highest rates>?

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The hedge fund loophole is only one example of tax avoidance schemes that the rich avail themselves of. The person whose honest earnings come in the form of a paycheck doesn't have a chance.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Hey, everyone has a chance if he/she works at it.  You are being filled with class envy. So I guess the president is also fill with class envy.  This is the land of opportunity.

                        replyreport
               2. 61

                  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Ralph,
                  
                  True, but Capital gains has nothing to do with salaries

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Hedge fund operators are allowed capital gains treatment on their compensation which is not truly capital gains and which in any other organization would be considered ordinary income. What they get is their compensation for running the hedge fund. Allowing them capital gains treatment is one of the most egregious loopholes in the tax law.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Hedge funds operators pay capital gains taxes on the funds they invest is very true. But the commision they charge you does not fall under capital gains

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The article quoted and linked below explains the giant, unjustified hedge fund loophole which allows hedge fund operators' profits to be called "carried interest" and treated as capital gains rather than ordinary income.
                           
                           "Most of us who earn an income from work are subject to federal income taxes at progressive
                           rates, starting at 10 percent and going up to 35 percent for the very wealthiest. Private equity
                           fund managers are at the top of this wealthy group, but nevertheless pay only 15 percent —
                           the special low capital gains tax rate — on almost all of their compensation. This form of
                           wages, called “carried interest,” can run into the hundreds of millions or even in excess of a
                           billion dollars a year for individual fund managers.
                           How do we know that “carried interest” is compensation, and not capital gain? There are three
                           reasons:
                           1. The fund managers don’t invest their own money. Instead, in exchange for their financial
                           expertise, they simply get a share of the profits on what the fund’s investors put up. If, on the
                           other hand, the fund loses money, the managers can walk away without any cost.
                           2. So “carried interest” is much like executive stock options. When corporate executives get
                           stock options, it gives them the right to buy their companies’ stock at a fixed price. If the stock
                           goes up in value, the executives can cash in the options and pocket the difference. If the stock
                           doesn’t go up or declines, then the executives get nothing. But they never have a loss. And
                           when the stock does well, the executives pay both income taxes at the regular rates and
                           payroll taxes (usually just the 2.9% Medicare tax) on their earnings.
                           3. Private equity managers (sometimes) even admit that “carried interest” is compensation.
                           "In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with taking its
                           management partnership public, the Blackstone Group, a leading private equity firm, had this
                           to say about its activities (in order to avoid regulation under the Investment Act of 1940):
                           “We believe that we are engaged primarily in the business of providing asset
                           management and financial advisory services and not in the business of investing,
                           reinvesting or trading in securities.
                           “We also believe that the primary source of income from each of our
                           businesses is properly characterized as income earned in exchange for the
                           provision of services.
                           “We hold ourselves out as an asset management and financial advisory
                           firm and do not propose to engage primarily in the business of investing,
                           reinvesting or trading in securities.”
                           
                           
                           http://www.ctj.org/pdf/privateequity071907.pdf

                           replyreport
   3. 61

      GNelsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The wealthy have gotten wealthier the middle class has gotten poorer and the economy stinks because the consumers are not consuming.  The Bush tax cuts took money from the middle class and gave it to the rich to create jobs which caused the economy to get a lot worse.   Reverse that and put money back into the middle class pocket and the consumer will have money to spend which will create jobs to meet demand.  Right now the consumer demand is overseas and that is where the wealthy are creating jobs.  It really is not that complicated.  The wealthy win either way, but it would be good if American taxes created American jobs.

      replyreport
   4. 68

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Warren Buffett said his class is waging the class warfare, and is winning. He ought to know.

      replyreport
2. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   Yes, and he's imposing sanctions on Iran (pre-war activity), and he's now putting troops in Australia in case China attacks.
   
   oh well.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Evan, libertarians think people are just animals. Do you share this view?

      replyreport
3. 60

   yellowstone8750posted 12 years ago

   There is class warfare in this country, but Obama did not instigate it. It is inherent in capitalism.

   replyreport
4. 58

   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

   I don't think he's whipping up class warfare, but I do think he is taking advantage of the wave that began before OWS and is clearly gaining momentum.  Whether that's because of a leaning in that direction or because he is politicking, I'm not sure.
   
   The country was actually due for a proletarian revolution for decades and honestly, if Obama is intelligent he will throw in on the side of the poor/middle class.  Big business may have the money, but the poor have numbers.  History says that when the poor want revolution there is generally revolution. As voting power still resides in the masses, who would you pick to side with?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that it displays a certain prescience that today's Right simply will not give him credit for.
      
      The fact that the GOP has been able to cobble up a coalition of people, most of whom stand nothing to gain from their policies, is really remarkable. It remains to be seen for how long.

      replyreport
5. 62

   Hollie Thomasposted 12 years ago

   At least Obama recognizes that Africa is a continent.

   replyreport
6. 78

   marriedwithdebtposted 12 years ago

   What is so wrong with wanting investment income to be taxed the same as paycheck income?
   
   Why is it wrong that the poor pay a larger share of their income than most wealthy people?
   
   I'm not saying the rich should pay more, but why should they pay less.
   
   Trickle down economics has been a proven failure. Why are you all still clinging to it?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      American Romanceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      #1 investment income is money made from investment capital! Investment capital was ALLREADY TAXED when it was earned the first time!.........thats what is wrong with that one!
      
      Poor and most middle class DO NOT PAY TAXES! Show me any family of four that the major bread winner earns up to 50K a year and I"ll show you an income tax statement that says they get ALL taxes paid that year as a REFUND! This one is getting old from you ignorant libs!
      
      According to the IRS, pay attention my misguided friend I said the IRS, Ok we are clear right?  The IRS says the top 10 percent of wage earners in this country pay 90% yes NINETY PERCENT of all the income tax! I hope you spend the rest of your life remembering this and stop watching CNN!
      
      If Trickle down economics does not work then explain to all of us how trickle up economics works?  Has a poor person ever offered you a job? Do poor people cover the 50 million on welfare in this country?  Here is your last lesson in life about trickle down economics: Pretend I'm wealthy, I've owned a grocery store for 20 years and made a few bucks, Now I"m expanding, I purchase more land, hire contractors to build a building, I purchase new refrigerated trucks to haul more product, I purchase lighting, shelving, tons of different foods, I put in a meat market, then purchase cows from a local farmer to butcher, he uses the money to buy a larger stock trailer and pickup truck, the salesman who sold him those things uses the money to purchase a color TV, the ship captain who brought the TV over from China uses his money to buy new tires for his car, the tire salesman uses his money to make his home mortgage..........whew Im getting tired,  This is trickle down economics, when the economy is at a standstill there is NO ONE spending money, when everyone is poor then everyone suffers and no one consumes nor eats!    Please allow this to become a life lesson and not allow me to waste time!

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
      2. 78

         marriedwithdebtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You don't know what you are talking about. That is in reference to federal taxes. The poor pay plenty of other taxes. Your hostility greatly undermines your ability to be taken seriously. Take a deep breath...

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathleen Cochranposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Amen to the hostility.  That's where so many writers lose me.  You said it well MWD.

            replyreport
      3. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "Poor and most middle class DO NOT PAY TAXES!"
         
         That's not even close to the truth, especially for the middle class. But even the poor pay sales taxes, payroll taxes if they're employed, and real estate taxes if they own a home or rolled into their rent if they don't own a home.

         replyreport
7. 76

   910chrisposted 12 years ago

   We need to go back to the system of old. A simple flat tax. That is all we need to get us started back on the right track.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
8. 78

   marriedwithdebtposted 12 years ago

   @AmericanRomance
   
   You really need to check your foul mouth at the door. I'm sick of people like you who subscribe only to the Fox News debate style of shouting over others, name calling and ad hominem attacks.
   
   HubPages is a friendly place for writers. You are not contributing to that at all.
   
   In my opinion, when you resort to name calling, YOU HAVE LOST THE DEBATE.
   
   It does not matter if your points are valid.
   
   I looked at your page. You claim to be some Romantic Texas Jesus Poet. Your words on here do not convey that. Did your Grandson hijack your HP account?
   
   If you can't participate without calling people names, please go back to your romantic Jesus prairie fantasy and leave the debating to those who can.
   
   I hope your only this brave behind a keyboard.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      MWD,
      
      I know I am late to the game here but unless a post has been removed I do not see a post from AR that is foul mouth and name calling. In fact the only name calling I see is coming from you. Jesus Prairie Fantasy, really?
      
      I had to read his page because you said you did and thought I might find out there why you are attacking him, but you do not get it right. Nowhere does his page mention Texas or prairie, or even if he has a grandson. So while you claim to be sick, let me just tell you what makes me sick are the ones who cannot get anything correct then get out here and accuse people of name calling as they name call. You are right about one thing, there is no need for it here.
      
      I have written an article about the 1% and everyone who pays taxes and those who do not. I also link to another place where I wrote about what will happen when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. I recommend you read them, all the information in those articles comes from the IRS. I think you will be quite suprised about who is actually not paying taxes while being the biggest drag on the budget.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         marriedwithdebtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "This one is getting old from you ignorant libs!"
         
         If you missed that line, which was directed at me, I suggest you hit Ctrl-F and locate it that way.
         
         I know most people are too nice to call someone out for talking to them with disrespect.............but I'm not. I make no apologies for it.
         
         So if you are "sick of people who cannot get anything correct," are you sick of yourself?
         
         I sure do appreciate you weighing in though, American View, great work!
         
         (BTW - this forum is not for promoting your own Hubs)

         replyreport
         1. 61

            American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            MWD,
            
            I do not se a link promoting myself, I do not see a name of an article either. Mentioning I have written an article about the subject is fine. I made the mistake of putting links in when I was first on HP and was shown my error.
            
            As for being sick of myself, never happen. First, a persons opinion is never wrong. An opinion is not a fact. But when I make a statement of fact, it is backed by research and therefore it will not be wrong. Unlike others who just spout things that are not accurate, such as your statement of Texas, prairie, and grandson. None of that was where you said you read it.
            
            Lastly, AR reference was not directed at you. I have read many of his comments and he blankets all his comments to all liberal stances. Could he have left the word "ignorant "out and achieve the same goal, sure. But I do not think that would be his style.

            replyreport
9. 61

   prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago

   No, it is social justice!!

   replyreport
10. 0

    oldandwiseposted 12 years ago

    The concept of the wealthy building that grocery store and creating all those jobs is interesting. If in fact, they actually do that. Unfortunately most aren't building these businesses to create jobs. Instead, they are out sourcing to make more money. If that wasn't true, all the empty warehouses and shopping malls would be operating to full potential and everyone would have a job. People in manufacturing jobs could have a job for life and eventually retire. But is that happening? No. We've become a nation of service jobs for the most part. Prior to this administration we were led to believe the tax breaks for the wealthy would generate jobs. Again, it didn't. We need to create incentives to bring these companies back, not just let it continue. Perhaps levying a higher tax on imported goods? If high enough, perhaps the companies would fill our empty warehouses and shopping malls. Or maybe, no taxes on those companies for a period of time to entice them back. All I know is what we have in place now is not working and the working class is suffering. Maybe if the wealthiest of wealthies walked in our shoes for a month they would have a better understanding. Just my opinion.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well put.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Trickle down ,,,Doesn't work ,our 30 year experiment proves this.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Your user id says a lot about you. Ever consider changing it to "Successfulwithoutadoubt"?.

          replyreport
11. 85

    kerrygposted 12 years ago

    Another obvious incitement to class warfare. Talk about irresponsible!
    
    "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community... The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

    replyreport
12. 60

    Don Crowsonposted 12 years ago

    Trickle down does work. You cannot work for a poor man, he has no money to pay you.  You can work for those who can pay your salary. Otherwise, you are both in poverty. Those who have talent to provide a product or service that can be sold  receive the trickle down benefits of satisfied customers. Those who produce receive the benefits of thefruits of their labor. Give a man a fish and he enjoys one meal.  Teach him to fish and he becomes prosperous.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       What if a group of men buy the whole pond, every rod, all the bait, then higher more desperate people to fish? Then sell it at a lower rate than you could survive on?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Are you not saying that the world is lawless?  Are ther not laws to protect property rights? Well there should be, shouldn't there?

          replyreport
13. 59

    LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

    That will never happen in three of our lifetimes.
    There is no way a country with this many below the poverty line would ever stomach that.

    replyreport
14. 59

    LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

    But but rush limbaugh said it so it must be true. Then I heard it on hannity. Wait, what real news? Oh yeah I get that from o'reilly.

    replyreport
15. 66

    Tusitala Tomposted 12 years ago

    It has been postulated on many occassions that if all the people in a particular nation were to start off from scratch with, say, $1,000, within three or four years some would be penniless and others on the way to becoming millionaires.   But the original question referred to Class Warfare.
    
    Who interprets, and at what stage, that some are upper class, some middle, and some lowest?  This is an arbitary concept within the minds of men and women.  Extremely wealthy, comfortably well-off, and 'on the bones of his backside,' are all ideas which come from the amount of property, money et cetera which each -once again - arbitarily defined group posseses.  The 'Class' issue thing only muddies the waters.  Such terms are only labels.
    
    Going back to that original thought of all starting off equal.  Some people do not see themselves 'as their brother's keeper.'  Some do.  The wars of words that go on in The House of Representatives, the Sentae and such like are the disparities of opinion between these two views.   I guess it really gets down to how much we care for our fellow human beings, as where we lie between the two extremes.
    
    Frankly, I'm for more equality.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It's not even that I regard myself as "my brother's keeper," though there's certainly an element of that. There's also the purely practical consideration that societies with no social safety nets aren't libertarian utopias, they're third world countries, and I have no interest in living in a third world country.
       
       Just to name one example, going to school hungry on a regular basis affects school performance negatively. In the worst cases, it literally causes children to lose IQ points because their brains don't receive enough nourishment to support themselves and are unable to develop normally. As I see it, we can subsidize meals for these poor children and allow them the opportunity to develop normally like a rich or middle class kid, or we can let them starve and end up stuck with a permanent underclass that literally lacks the brain capacity to get a better education and a higher paying job. Conservatives like to talk about people who've pulled themselves up from poverty "by the bootstraps," but good luck doing that when your bootstraps are broken! What kind of "equal opportunity" is that?

       replyreport
16. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    Paul Krugman's 99.9 Plan
    
    If anything, however, the 99 percent slogan aims too low. A large fraction of the top 1 percent’s gains have actually gone to an even smaller group, the top 0.1 percent — the richest one-thousandth of the population.
    
    And while Democrats, by and large, want that super-elite to make at least some contribution to long-term deficit reduction, Republicans want to cut the super-elite’s taxes even as they slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the name of fiscal discipline....
    
    The recent Congressional Budget Office report on inequality didn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, did. According to that report, between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted, after-tax income of Americans in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. The equivalent number for the richest 0.1 percent rose 400 percent....
    
    For the most part, these huge gains reflected a dramatic rise in the super-elite’s share of pretax income. But there were also large tax cuts favoring the wealthy. In particular, taxes on capital gains are much lower than they were in 1979 — and the richest one-thousandth of Americans account for half of all income from capital gains.
    
    Given this history, why do Republicans advocate further tax cuts for the very rich even as they warn about deficits and demand drastic cuts in social insurance programs?
    
    Well, aside from shouts of “class warfare!” whenever such questions are raised, the usual answer is that the super-elite are “job creators” — that is, that they make a special contribution to the economy. So what you need to know is that this is bad economics. In fact, it would be bad economics even if America had the idealized, perfect market economy of conservative fantasies...
    
    For who are the 0.1 percent? Very few of them are Steve Jobs-type innovators; most of them are corporate bigwigs and financial wheeler-dealers. One recent analysis found that 43 percent of the super-elite are executives at nonfinancial companies, 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate. And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.
    
    Executive pay, which has skyrocketed over the past generation, is famously set by boards of directors appointed by the very people whose pay they determine; poorly performing C.E.O.’s still get lavish paychecks, and even failed and fired executives often receive millions as they go out the door...
    
    Meanwhile, the economic crisis showed that much of the apparent value created by modern finance was a mirage. As the Bank of England’s director for financial stability recently put it, seemingly high returns before the crisis simply reflected increased risk-taking — risk that was mostly borne not by the wheeler-dealers themselves but either by naïve investors or by taxpayers, who ended up holding the bag when it all went wrong. And as he waspishly noted, “If risk-making were a value-adding activity, Russian roulette players would contribute disproportionately to global welfare.”
    
    So should the 99.9 percent hate the 0.1 percent? No, not at all. But they should ignore all the propaganda about “job creators” and demand that the super-elite pay substantially more in taxes. 
    
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opini … ef=opinion

    replyreport
17. 59

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    Darwinian greed that spurs selfishness, petty resentment, they/us divisionism are age-old afflictions of humankind and are at the core of this hub's argument. 
    
    People will desperately cling to their illusions and delusions about "security."  Sadly, desperate fools, filled with fears and delusions tenaciously cling to their irrational and self-serving beliefs—even when it means the destruction of their own civilization. 
    
    There is a tsunami of anger and destruction headed our way and instead of trying to work together to change or even prepare for it,  people are buying gold and guns, distracting themselves with a morass of empty activities and praying to false idols with corrupted faith. 
    
    Two quotes to ponder by Reinhold Niebuhr . . .
    
    "Our age knows nothing but reaction, and leaps from one extreme to another."
    
    "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

    replyreport
    1. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       What is Darwinian greed?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          greed  (noun)
          
          intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.
          
          "Darwinian greed," as I mean it, is a greed that evolves solely for the survival of the fittest, allowing the "unfit" (those who aren't good and making money or profit) to die off and become extinct.
          
          Naturally the "fit," (those good at making a profit) can exploit the "unfit" — which becomes a form of economic injustice.
          
          Democracy is concerned with injustice, while Darwinian greed is not—it is a ruthless drive to make more money, gather more power and exploit every resource and opportunity, regardless of the consequences to others. 
          
          Ultimately, in a world of limited resources, it's like a cancer that eventually kills its own host.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Thanks, that's how I was interpreting it. I was just wondering if someone else had coined the term from a book or something.

             replyreport
    2. 60

       Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It's interestng that you say that greed is the problem.  After all the new-born is helpless and getrs all of the attention. Soon it becomes selfish and wants to claim every toy in the room.  If it is an only child, it cvontinues in the path of selfishness.  OTOH siblings in the home help the child to learn to share.
       
       Now, you are speaking of greed in the adults.So it is best that we define greed. My preference of definitions is desireing something for which one has not earned.  In that case, he may well steal, lie, cheat, or do any number of things to gain what he wants.  Guess what?  that definition describes both the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor.  It describes everyone who is self-centered to the point that he blames others for being greedy.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Please see my definition above, Don. 
          
          However my response to your point is that you didn't push your thinking (about how you define greed and selfishness) far enough. 
          
          In a sense you are arguing for more regulation to protect us from our selfish and "self-centered" selves.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             No, I am saying the government has no business redistributing wealth.  That is not in the constitution.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                ??? The topic at issue is "class warfare" not redistribution of wealth.  Your resentment is not the issue here.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Same M.O on an evolution debate that conveniently turned to welfare for poor people.
                   Neocon subterfuge.

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      I simply responded to those who had already changed the argument to evolution and class warfare. Someone elsechange the topic before I responded to those posts. 
                      
                      And Neocon subterfuge is ant an a constructive argument.  It is simple name calling without evidence.

                      replyreport
                2. 60

                   Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   The redistribution of wealth is being used to placzte the victims of class warfare. It is the poor who are being taught to resent the wealth; therefore, redistribution is the solution for those who hate the wealthy.  Have you not noticed the phrase "Soak the rich.

                   replyreport
                   1. 65

                      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      You apparently haven't noticed, the redistribution of wealth in the past thirty years or so has been away from the poor and middle class to the greediest, richest Americans--corporate CEOS, Wall Street banksters, hedge fund operators, and to the trust fund multi-millionaires who inherited their wealth with no effort on their part except to avoid paying taxes.

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Shhhhhh. That don't like it when you bring that up.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            Hey, I just replied to his misinformation.

                            replyreport
                            1. 59

                               LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               I find you quite the interesting enigma as you say you were a teacher so you have benefited tremendously from the government and unions.
                               
                               You call the young generation lazy? Could you possibly think you have payed into the system enough to cover you retirement and medical benefits?
                               We pay now for it.
                               
                               What would happen if all the youth decided to stop paying for the elderly?
                               Why is that fair? What did you do for my son that when he is older he should pay for you?
                               Should we redistribute our wealth to you via FICA when it won't exist when I'm your age?
                               There is a book written on it but its name escapes me at the moment.
                               You have such a myopic skewed view it amazes me.

                               replyreport
                      2. 60

                         Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         So are you referring to Steve Jobs as one who inherited weal;th?  And are ou telling me that earned income tax credits that go to the poor are really going to the rich.  Are you at all familiar with the Internal Revenue code.  And do you not know that the board of directors set the compensation for CEOs.  And where does that money come from to pay him/her?  why it is from the consumers who are buying products. And they must be satisfied because they can return their products for a refund. So those rich greedy did some work to earn their money, didn't they?
                         
                         And I'm sure that BNill Gates sat on his ass and inherited all of his millions.  And there is Herman Cain and countless others who probably grew up in poverity and remained in poverty until they succeeded in make money by supplying a product or service that pwople wanted to buy.  How about Oprah Winfrey?  Did she inherit her millions?  And there are those sports stars who get paid a lot more.  Hey, they din't inherit their money? So why don't you get your mindset back into the real world.
                         
                         Either cry in self pity blaming others or go to work and become one of the rich.  The choice is yours.

                         replyreport
                         1. 52

                            gatsby32posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            Yes and the board of directors are generally placed by the very CEOs who are given compensation packages from them.  It's a strange, backwards system which rewards cronyism and inflated compensation packages, even when they fail spectacularly.  Even in well-established boards in long-running companies, an incoming CEO is often given several board spots to bring in his own cronies.
                            
                            The idea that the wealthy are made up of a bunch of innovators like Steve Jobs is a myth.  They're mostly CEOs and Wall Street types.  Heres a great recent article by Paul Krugman on this very issue:
                            We are the 99%

                            replyreport
                            1. 65

                               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               +++ So am I

                               replyreport
18. 94

    UnnamedHaraldposted 12 years ago

    The powerful and wealthy started class warfare more than twenty years ago in the shadows where they like to operate, but the working middle class is just figuring this out. There is also a significant number of working stiffs who don't want to bother the rich and powerful because they have delusions of crawling to the top of the heap themselves.

    replyreport
19. 59

    LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

    I love the term redistribute wealth.
    Like the government is going to take money from you and hand it over in a burlap bag with a dollar sign on it to some homeless person smoking a rock under a bridge.
    
    It's called taxes. You pay taxes. Do you pay money to a redistribute bureau? If you do then I guess a fool and his money are easily parted.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hey the rich pay taxes and the government has an earned income tax credit that goes to the poor.  Guess where the government got the money to pay that credit. Well ift passed through the department of redistribution, didn't it? So there is a burlap bag that is given to the poor. But the poor will be with us always, won't they?

       replyreport
20. 59

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    The term "class warfare" is a canard used to divert attention away from the mounting economic injustice and exploitation of the working class by ruthless profiteers—that is to say, a lot of greedy people who care more about money than humanity and more about profits than our democracy.
    
    The Occupy Wall Street crowd see and understand this.  It's starting to alarm big money and the power-elite who are now paying corporate media to demonize them (OWS).  We're heading for self-destruction, if people don't awaken from their complacency and self-absorptions. As in most movements, the young see the writing on the wall and not those who are comfortable on their couch or easy chair.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       So where do those people get their money?Gee, it must be from paying customers who desire to buy their products. And they must be providing jobsfor clerks and manufacturers and countless truck drivers.  and you tell me that OWS understands this?  You don't understand it, so how can they?
       
       The writing on the wall has alwyas been there.  the young have alwys been lazy and comoplained.  Socrates complained about the youth in his day. Sit down and cry or develop a skill so that you can be productive.  They young have been hoodwinked into beli8eving the world ows them qa living.  It doesn't.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Socrates didn't write The Republic, it's painfully obvious you have never read it.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             It's even more painfully obvious that you did not read my post.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Oh,,then tell me where Socrates said that about children.
                
                Since you don't know, you will google it and get the answer of The Republic
                
                Not only haven't you read it, you commit a far greater atrocity by using the quote out of context.
                
                Then again,
                That is the tool the right uses, misquoting.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   If you read your own post, you will discover that you said that Socrates never wqrote the Republic. You don't bother to read your own posts.  Why not?

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      I know he didn't  write it as I stated. You erroneously gave Socrates credit for saying it.
                      I'm sure you didn't even know it was from the republic because you wouldn't have credited Socrates to have writing it.
                      Coupled with the fact you took it out of context, Plato is rolling in his grave.

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         The quote is commonly attributed to Socrates, but apparently there is
                         no conclusive evidence that he actually said it. The Library of
                         Congress notes that this quote is "attributed to Socrates by Plato" in
                         a 1950's book the name of which escapes me.
                         
                         The quote may have come from Plato's Republic Book 4, where Socrates
                         is quoted saying the following regarding things that he thinks have
                         been neglected: "I mean such things as these: ? when the young are to
                         be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by
                         standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what
                         garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair;
                         deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me? ? Yes."
                         
                         The Greek philosopher Plato studied under Socrates. Plato complained
                         about the youth of the day, also. "What is happening to our young
                         people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They
                         ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions.
                         Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?" I think this is
                         a direct quote, but can't find the reference at the moment.

                         replyreport
                         1. 59

                            LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            Nice you used the first google response to get your answer.
                            
                            Everyone knows Plato wrote the republic.  I hope you see the folly of getting information off forums.
                            I can even post the web address where you got your information from.
                            You literally plagiarized the first page google gave you in your response and are attempting to make it sound like you read the republic.
                            
                            You admittingly didn't even know who or where the quote came from you used, that's is what I took umbrage with.
                            That and taking it out of context.
                            
                            It strikes me as funny when people quote stuff they have never read or use it the wrong way.
                            
                            It's kind of like evangelicals bastardizing the second law of thermodynamics.

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               I read the Republic over 60 years ago.  I was, therfore, quoting incorrectly from memory.  However, there are many others who thought the same thing; otherise. there would nave been no need for the post I made that answered the question
                               
                               But of course, you never makemistakes. I cann tell that from the arrogance of your post.

                               replyreport
21. 59

    paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

    marker

    replyreport
22. 62

    JSChamsposted 12 years ago

    Oh most certainly he is whipping up class warfare. That's what he did last election, that's what he will do this election. He has nothing else to lean on.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       How do you whip up class warfare with record high unemployment?  By acknowledging it?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You don't know the answer to that one?  Well, you just don't pay attention. Do you not know that the Obama administration is the cause of record high unemployment?

          replyreport
23. 62

    JSChamsposted 12 years ago

    If they don't like record high unemployment they should do something about it besides pretend they aren't in charge.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       For example.....
       I keep wondering what happened to "Jobs, jobs, jobs" as the mantra of the GOP just a few short years ago.
       They ARE in charge.
       Where are the jobs?
       Does anyone believe jobs will magically appear the minute Cain or Romney or Gingrich or whoever the GOP designated puppet turns out to be becomes president?
       Ha ha ha ha.
       If we think it's bad now, just wait -- or fight the power.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Well, Obama has sent the jobs oveseas.  High taxes, more regulation, EPA, and not letting us drill in the gulf. Watch the news.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Oh, here we go.
             The EPA, the great job killer.
             Drill baby, drill.
             Perhaps the jobs are hiding under the ocean along with the fossil fuels that will keep Americans driving our V8s because we're Americans and polluting is the American way.
             
             Keep going. You've almost got this solved!

             replyreport
24. 62

    JSChamsposted 12 years ago

    It's really simple. Just do what they want and redistribute all the wealth. Of course who decides who gets what and how much? And what happens if those who get it don't think they got enough?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I addressed the retribution of wealth bogeyman a few posts up.
       
       I still can't find the legislation that gives your money to me, or the Bureau of Wealth Redistrubution.

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Wouldn't it be so cool if we could check off little boxes on our tax returns stating how we want our "wealth" redistributed?
          I, for example, would check off things like education,health care, women's and children's programs, infrastructure, EPA, and some other stuff. There's not a heck of a lot of wealth on my end to pass around, but what I owe in taxes I will gladly pony up for the greater good of America.
          
          But I would REFUSE to check off the box to use any of MY money to pay for Social Security benefits for any old fart who votes to take MY right to SS benefits away. Or for salaries for Congresspeople who abdicate their jobs.
          I would not check any boxes to give tax rebates to any companies who send American jobs overseas, thus making record profits but hurting our economy.
          
          Imagine if all of us had that ability and could exercise that right.
          That's what OWS is all about, Charlie Brown.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             If you start that petition I would be the first to sign it.
             However, I would totally add a box for science.
             We don't dream anymore.
             We don't build things to be the first, the biggest, fastest or the best.
             When they forced Obama to cut NASA funding I truly became disgusted with the GOP.
             I think there should be a bureau of math and science thats sole purpose is holding contests like DARPA does for robotics.
             We are falling behind.
             It saddens me.

             replyreport
       2. 62

          JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I see that. Now it would be nice if everyone was on the same page with you but there are leftists out there who want wealth confiscated from some. That's no secret or myth.

          replyreport
       3. 60

          Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Read the Internal Reveniue tax code.  You will find it all the way through.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Where?
             Where does it give your money to someone else?
             Your just making stuff up because you can't find  anything to support this rubbish.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Ever heard of the Earned income credit.  Ever heard of the credit for making your house energy efficient. Well, you may not get the benefits of those credits, but you can bet that your money pays for if you don't get the credits.  And there are many other instances that the government takes the wealth of the people and redistribute it.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   EIC are you kidding me?
                   Look at the money required for those.
                   I dare you to live on that income.
                   
                   People on that income dont take advantage of things like itemization.
                   I'm sure you do though.

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Hey, you jump to conclusions.  It is income redistribution.  Does there need to be a definite amount before you cound EIC, Medicad, food stamps./  How do you define income redistribution?  Maybe you think it requires large amounts to be redistributed/  It does not.

                      replyreport
                2. 65

                   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Everyone benefits from energy conservation. Try analyzing issues from more than your own individual personal viewpoint.

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      So what does conservation have to do with income redistribution.  Oh, thatks, they do pay fuel bills for some and not others.  I had forgotten that.

                      replyreport
                3. 65

                   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Don, are these the guys you're worried about?
                   "A Family's Billions, Artfully Sheltered"
                   
                   "For Mr. Lauder, an heir to the Estée Lauder fortune whose net worth is estimated at more than $3.1 billion, the evening went beyond social and cultural significance. As is often the case with his activities, just beneath the surface was a shrewd use of the United States tax code. By donating his art to his private foundation, Mr. Lauder has qualified for deductions worth tens of millions of dollars in federal income taxes over the years, savings that help defray the hundreds of millions he has spent creating one of New York City’s cultural gems.
                   
                   "The charitable deductions generated by Mr. Lauder — whose donations have aided causes as varied as hospitals and efforts to rebuild Jewish identity in Eastern Europe — are just one facet of a sophisticated tax strategy used to preserve a fortune that Forbes magazine says makes him the world’s 362nd wealthiest person. From offshore havens to a tax-sheltering stock deal so audacious that Congress later enacted a law forbidding the tactic, Mr. Lauder has for decades aggressively taken advantage of tax breaks that are useful only for the most affluent.
                   
                   "The debate over whether to reduce tax shelters and preferences for the rich is one of the most volatile in Washington and will move to the presidential campaign, now that repeated attempts in Congress to strike a grand bargain over spending cuts and an overhaul of the tax code have failed.
                   
                   "A handful of billionaires like Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates have joined Democrats in calling for an elimination of the breaks, saying that the current system adds to the budget deficit, contributes to the widening income gap between the richest and the rest of society, and shifts the tax burden onto small businesses and the middle class. Republicans have resisted, saying the tax increases on the wealthy would harm the economy and cost jobs.
                   
                   "An examination of public documents involving Mr. Lauder’s companies, investments and charities offers a glimpse of the wide array of legal options for the world’s wealthiest citizens to avoid taxes both at home and abroad.
                   
                   "His vast holdings — which include hundreds of millions in stock, one of the world’s largest private collections of medieval armor, homes in Washington, D.C., and on Park Avenue as well as oceanfront mansions in Palm Beach and the Hamptons — are organized in a labyrinth of trusts, limited liability corporations and holding companies, some of which his lawyers acknowledge are intended for tax purposes. The cable television network he built in Central Europe, CME Enterprises, maintains an official headquarters in the tax haven of Bermuda, where it does not operate any stations.... more here:
                   
                   
                   
                   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/busin … hy.html?hp

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Clearly anyone who wants to make millions or billions must deal with the tax code.  doesn't i9t make sense that those who reguard tax as an expense would look for waysa to curt or avoid taxes.  Hey, they look for ways to cut every expense so that the revenue is increased.  That is what America is about.
                      
                      Furthermore, if those who have wealth build hospitals and othe charitable trusts, it is because they desire to do so. If they want to keep every dime they have, that too is their business.
                      
                      Does the government need to keep taxing and spending just because people have become wealthy?  Of course not.  the secret for any household or governt entity is to live within its means. To do otherwise is foolish.  Cut government spending sothat thay e=do not tax everyone into bankruptcy.

                      replyreport
                      1. 65

                         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         The government lately thanks to W. Bush has been spending more and taxing less. Still, schools, roads and bridges are in disrepair, schools are being privatized and public library branches are being closed and unemployment is somewhere between 9 & 20 percent depending how you count it. Meanwhile the rich are getting richer and the middle class and poor are getting poorer.
                         
                         There are too many loopholes that benefit the 1% but which aren't available to the middle class and poor.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            You need to look again.  Obama has spent more thatn Bush ever thought about spending. Schools, 5oads, and b5ridges are generally the responsibility of the states.  Has little to do wioth the federal government except for federal aid.  Libraries are being closed because the states or cities are not funding them  Nothing to do with federal money. Unemployment exists because employers do not need to hire people to do nothing.  They need a worker to producesomething and as l;ong as inventories remain high there is no need to hire workers.  In addition, Obama is sending most of the jobs oiver sees and American workers are left out in the  cold.  The reason the rich are getting richer is that they are still working.  the middle class and poor have lost their jobs because Obama sent them overseas.

                            replyreport
                            1. 52

                               gatsby32posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               Don, you are completely misinformed.  Bush increased national spending far more than Obama.  Its true that Obama's budget is larger than Bush's, because he was saddled with a lot of spending that couldn't be cut - particularly two wars.
                               
                               Take a look at this graphic for a comparison between Bush & Obama's spending:
                               Comparison of Bush & Obamas Spending
                               
                               I am sure it wont sway you, though.  You are a partisan who believes only the facts that support your argument.  I can honestly say that if Bush did a good job, or Obama did a bad one, in running our country - i would support Bush and disparage Obama.  Unfortunately for your deeply entrenched views, that hasn't been the reality.

                               replyreport
                               1. 60

                                  Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                  So I am partisan and you aren't?  Look at the deficits.  The first year of Obama deficit is larrger than the total of all of Bush deficits.  Explain thatwith partisanship. You obviously neglected to include the stimulus plan that Obama spent.  Hey, thatwas more that Iraq and Afghanstan cost.  Recheck you figures.  Obam is a big spender and he wants to spend more.

                                  replyreport
                            2. 65

                               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               Obama has been spending mostly on needed infrastructure and other domestic programs to prevent the Bush recession from turning into a depression. And on two needless, foolish costly wars, and on Bush tax cuts for the richistanis, the likes of the Estee Lauder heirs who never worked a day in their lives.

                               replyreport
                               1. 60

                                  Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                  So you really believe that Obama's stimulus is doing good,  Wow! Am I the Partisan?  No, it is obvious that you are. He is just like Clinton.  We have a 100,000 police financed for one year and leave the states holding the bag.  Face it, the administration knows nothing about economics.

                                  replyreport
                            3. 65

                               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               "Schools, 5oads, and b5ridges are generally the responsibility of the states."
                               
                               That's true These expenditures are usually the responsibility of the states. But stares are required to balance their budgets each year. They are cutting expenditures for all kinds of needed programs because of declining tax revenues due to the Bush recession. The state cuts deepen the recession. The state cuts have been offset to some extent by federal expenditures for infrastructure, extended unemployment benefits in some states and so forth in an effort to counter the recession. This is elementary economics. Suggest you read up on macro economics.

                               replyreport
                               1. 60

                                  Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                  When is Obama going to be responsible? And what did Bush do to cause the recession.  don't give me your partisan answers.

                                  replyreport
25. 62

    JSChamsposted 12 years ago

    @lookingforwalden     There is a study out where they showed if you took the wealth from the 300 top billionaires in the country you would still fall 300 billion short of eradicating the deficit. But by all means lets just tax the living bird poop out of everyone and provide everyone with whatever they want. Keep it up and you won't have to visit Greece to experience Greece.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I agree that just taxing people isn't the right solution.
       We need to do a lot of things to get back on track.
       
       I don't know what you know about engineering but we gave so much away for so long to the Chinese that we're are legitimately behind them in a lot of areas and in some places incapable of competing with them technologically now.
       
       Imagine that, America can't compete with another country technologically. That isn't the America I was brought up in and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get us back there with a few small caveats.

       replyreport
26. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Its called taxes.

    replyreport
27. 59

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    
    
    A man walked into a very high-tech bar. As he sat down on a stool he noticed that the bartender was a robot. The robot clicked to attention and asked, "Sir, what will you have?"
    
    The man thought a moment then replied? "A martini please."
    
    The robot clicked a couple of times and mixed the best martini the man had ever had.
    
    The robot then asked, "Sir, what is your IQ?" The man answered "Oh, about 164."
    
    The robot then proceeded to discuss the theory of relativity,
    inter-stellar space travel, the latest medical breakthroughs, etc...
    
    The man was most impressed. He left the bar but thought he would try a different tack. He returned and took a seat. Again the robot clicked and asked what he would have? "A martini please."
    
    Again it was superb. The robot again asked "What is your IQ sir?"
    
    This time the man answered, "Oh about 100". So the robot started discussing NASCAR racing, the latest basketball scores, and what to expect the Dodgers to do this week end.
    
    The guy had to try it one more time. So he left, returned and took a stool.... Again a martini, and the question, "What is your IQ?" This time the man drawled out " Uh...... bout 50".
    
    The robot clicked then leaned close and very slowly asked,
    
    
    "A-r-e...
    
    y-o-u-r...
    
    p-e-o-p-l-e...
    
    r-e-a-l-l-y
    
    g-o-i-n-g...
    
    t-o...
    
    n-o-m-i-n-a-t-e...
    
    R-i-c-k....P-e-r-r-y?

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       +1

       replyreport
    2. 59

       LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       LOL, that's a good one!
       
       Did you make that up or did you get it from somewhere.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          A friend sent it in an email.

          replyreport
28. 59

    LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

    A little learning is a dangerous thing. Pope.
    He speaks to me from beyond the grave.

    replyreport
29. 62

    JSChamsposted 12 years ago

    @ WaldenW H O forced Obama to cut NASA? I have a hub about that,  When the head of NASA comes out and states that their main focus is better relations with the Muslim nations don't go pinning that on the GOP because you have to know better.

    replyreport
30. 59

    LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

    My whole point of this is to expose how people use google to get facts from forums and Wikipedia and  in turn use that as real facts.
    
    This is what the far right does. They get news from obscure blogs and next thing you know herr rush is using it as gospel.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well, I learned from Obama himself that we have 57 states and that Hawaii is in Asia.  Are those the real facts?  Sure sounded like him when I heard what sounded like his voice.  So where does the left get their real facts.  BTW a face is real or is isn't a fact.  You are bneing redundant.

       replyreport
31. 57

    quatrainposted 12 years ago

    Sad to say that he is, but can't deny it. Obama has made repeated statements that the "rich" ought to pay their fair share, as though they are not, when the top 1% is already paying over 40% of all taxes. We al;ready have teh seocnd highest corporate tax rate and one of the highest indivdiual tax rates. How much of our hard-earned dollars are we supposed to give up to the Tax Man abyways? Kind of thwarts individual initative doesn't it? And, it's not as though the government has been spending our hard-earned tax dollars wisely (Solyndra, Fannie Mae, etc)?

    replyreport
    1. 52

       gatsby32posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "One of the highest individual tax rates"?  Thats completely untrue.  Compared to whom exactly, Myanmar?  According to this graph from 2005, we are among the lowest:
       Income Taxes by Country
       
       In fact, when you compare the current tax rates for the wealthy with US historical tax rates, its at the lowest level since the 1930s.  See the chart here:
       Historical US Tax Rates
       
       Why?  Because Reagan & then Bush lowered, lowered, and lowered the tax rates on the wealthy.  Never in the history of the US have we had low tax rates during a time of war.  And we are currently fighting two. 
       
       Stop blaming Obama for Republican policies.

       replyreport
32. 59

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    
    
    
    
    

    replyreport
33. 59

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    Lest we forget . . .
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well, you do the math.   According to the figures that you find here:
       
       http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
       
       you will discover that the national debt was a little over 10 trilion.  Now that means that the deficits have been added throughout all of the previous administrations.  So if you can explain how Obama has increased 16% when these figures show that it was an increase of 40%of the total debt since 1776, I will congratulate you? Obama's first year deficit was greater that all ot the deficits of Bush for eight years.  Explain that one, please.
       
       Your source is the office of the Democratic leader.  ROTHLMAO

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          By the time Obama took office, he inherited Bush's two unpaid-for wars, as well as the Bush tax cuts—a triple wammy and most of the 40% of the debt you are on the floor laughing about. 
          
          Don, you're thinking is as rigid, crotchety and feeble as your attitude.   
          
          

          replyreport
       2. 68

          bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The recession fell into Obama's lap. The spending was done by Bush. The tax receipts declined under Obama, plus he spent to keep police and firemen on board. That is slowing. Hope you are happy Don dude.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             I am happy to know that you are living in the past and not keeping up woith the real news.  thanks for making excuses for your hero.  You follow the party mantra rather than doing your own thinking.  Who spent the stimulus./  What funded Salanera?  Hey you just don't pay attention

             replyreport
             1. 78

                marriedwithdebtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                What is Salanera? Do you mean Solyndra? Are you even doing your own thinking?
                
                I would bet one hundred dollars that you only heard "Salanera" on Rush Limbaugh, which is why you only know a vaguely close phonetic representation of the truth.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Well, shall I tell you where to send the $100.  I have use the company in letters to the editor as well as other internet posts.  Hey, I didn't check the spelling this time, but I am famil.iar with the company.  And so are you.  It was Obama who intentionally waste our tax dollars. 
                   
                   And I am an independent thinker. I do listen to Rush, but I don't believe everything he says.  And I would really be hurting if I believed everything Obama say.  We have 57 states and Hawaii is in Asia. But you obvilusoly beleive he has the answers.  Hey, I've been saying for years that we cannot spend ourselve into prosperity.  But that doesn't keep the irresponsible from trying.
                   
                   Hey, I am married without debt. I learned a long time ago that you cannot get out of debt if you cannot displine yourself in spending.  The government doesn't know that.

                   replyreport
             2. 68

                bgamallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                He is not my hero. He is just the least worst of two terrible parties that are screwing us.

                replyreport
34. 59

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Don Crowsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       As most people know, the budget submitted by Obama was far more that the budgets submitted by Bush. Check it out.  And you are right that both parties are screwing us but Obama is the least intelligent of all presidents ever to hold that office.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Good grief, Don, you don't even understand the meaning of the cartoon—no wonder you've been rolled by the right-wing demagogues. 
          
          The elephant is the one with the shovel and the one who obviously dug the pit (the debt) and now he's about to hit the donkey over the head with the shovel causing him to fall in so the donkey will get blamed for it.
          
          The GOP and its propaganda echo-machine has scapegoated Obama and charged dupes like you to blame him for what Bush has done.

          replyreport