No, it's not. Although I don't see you bringing anything to the contrary. Praytell, what did happen to those that didn't have any family, and lost their retirement savings?
Yes, there is a lot of proof that you're wrong. For one, your choice of a totally non-comparable country in your comparison, which makes it completely invalid.
Horseshit. You brought up North Korea because you wanted to make some half-assed point. Had you actually been thinking, you'd have brought up one of the other first world nations that the US is actually comparable to that does have a large public sector.
I love the way the public schools have created so many kids with this kind of class envy and sense of entitlement.
Like yourself? Yeah, your posts are pretty amusing how you bend over backwards to explain why the rich are just plain better, and therefore shouldn't have to give back to society.
Oh, and without all those trucks moving stuff from where people PRODUCE stuff to your little urban paradise, you would run out of food in less than a week. So, by all means, tax them until nobody will drive them any more - and starve.
Because there are no local farms, right? Everything has to come from so far away.
You know damn well this isn't an argument in your favor.
And if you're driving an electric vehicle (with a nice big government subsidy or two), you're a free-loader.
You mean a vehicle that not only helps lessen our dependence on foreign energy, but does far, far, far less damage to the roads as a giant truck that increases our dependence on foreign energy is the freeloader? Tell me, how much is the gasoline lifestyle subsidized? How much in subsidies do oil companies receive?
Their being able to provide you the opportunity to use their capital is why you have a job.
So? Am I supposed to get down on my knees and blow them out of appreciation? Fuck no. Yes, that capital serves a purpose. No, I don't believe it is something so important that we all need to bend over backwards to appease them, especially on the backs of the poor, as the GOP wants to do.
This is absolute horseshit. Extremely regressive taxes, like the kind you are proposing, are the system that is immoral. Forcing the poor and middle class to bear the burden of taxation, while the rich get to play free, is what's immoral. And quite frankly, your idea that the taxes for the wealthy would be accounted for in your shitty regressive system is laughable when you consider the fact that the wealthy have been doing nothing but hoarding their wealth for the better part of the decade. Meaning it would not amount to shit under your system.
"Society" doesn't owe me a damn thing. And the reverse is true as well.
WRONG. Like it or not, being in this society has benefited you greatly. If you truly believe the opposite, then get rid of all your possessions, and go live somewhere where society has collapsed, and attempt to build yourself up again. If what you say is true, then it should be no problem to build yourself up to your current levels of prosperity in a short amount of time.
You are a dumbass. Yes, it applies to everyone. No, they're not picking up trash because they're too busy having to work for a living. The fact that they don't pay anything in income tax makes sense when you consider the fact that they ALREADY DON'T HAVE SHIT FOR INCOME.
And yet, it was the society here that allowed them to be able to make it. Do you honestly think that half of them would be a tenth as prosperous in a place like Somalia?
I would say that we should be focusing a LOT more on education.
I agree wholeheartedly on this. Too bad the GOP Tea Party is completely against it.
I actually agree quite a bit with the rest of your post, too. The biggest problem, however, is that it would require more spending, at a time when Congress is controlled by a group that is opposed to any spending based solely on ideology and their hatred of the President and desire to see him out of office.
I'd say Obama is way ahead of everyone on that front.
How dare he try to spread the economic pain around equally, rather than concentrate it all on the poor.
How the fuck can you even think he's ahead of everyone on the "class warfare" front? Especially when the GOP currently is the one that wants to concentrate all of the pain from this "deficit reduction" bullshit on the poor. Explain how that's not class warfare.
And the rest of your "get the poor to depend on government" is absolute bullshit. The reason that there are more people requiring government assistance now is because those assholes at the top fucked the economy over. Failing to recognize that makes your position completely invalid.
The stimulus bills. The billions spent, sorry borrowed, created what again? A whole lot of not much. And he wants to do it again. Many people point at how much debt that GW Bush made. They over look that Obama spent more in three years than Bush did in eight. Bush added to the debt. Obama doubled it. Not a good thing.
And you overlook the fact that W did it during times of economic prosperity. Obama did it in a time where the economy was in the shit, and spending was needed to stop it from falling even further.
So then you're suggesting that there's a point at which a person who was skilled becomes greedy instead for continuing to exihibit that which made him a success?
Considering half the justification for this shit is the idea that greed causes people to invest, and if they didn't have the greed incentive, they wouldn't do anything, yes.
To the extent that rich people make good choices as to what companies to invest in, their money benefits them AND the economy as a whole.
Yes, but is it beneficial enough to allow that to be so many people's only source of income? Or should it only be encouraged as a secondary income, while having an actual job?
To put it another way, the more you claim that a particular rich person can sit back and let their money work for them, the more you invalidate your own argument that the government should take over the management of it.
Not in the least. For one, that really only benefits the rich person. It has some benefit to society, but not nearly as much as it does to the rich person. Meanwhile, social programs and infrastructure projects have a much greater benefit to society.
That said, I completely disagree with Obama's approach on this.
I completely agree with it. The GOP just wants to cut spending on "entitlements", which is code speak for "cut assistance programs that the poor depend on." They would have the entirety of the budget balance come from that, placing the entire burden on the poor. If that doesn't scream "Class Warfare," I don't know what does. Obama's plan tries to distribute the pain somewhat equally among all.
A high minimum tax which ignores charity not only discourages charity
There's very little actual evidence to back that statement up. You have "gut feelings," but almost nothing in the way of cold, hard data.
And any who lost those savings, because either the stock market went through a "correction" or because they had huge medical expenses to pay for were left to die in the street. Gee, things were sooooo much better then.
So basically, put the entire burden of balancing the budget on the poor? Because to follow through with your plan, you would have to make large cuts to assistance programs that many of the poor depend on. And cut just about NOTHING that affects the rich. Your plan is truly nothing but class warfare. The plan Obama laid out tries to spread the pain somewhat equally.
The poorest households in the US have a pretty good life when compared to most of the world.
So? Is that supposed to mean that their life still doesn't royally suck here? And don't bring up any shit about 3rd world countries. We're one of the most developed nations in the world. We're not supposed to have any of that shit, and comparing us to countries that do is completely disingenuous. Compare the life of the poor here in the US to say, Germany, Sweden, or Norway.
So we should just bend over and take it, while at the same time putting all the burden for this bullshit "deficit reduction" on the poor? The rich are largely the ones who wanted this shit, they can be the ones to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. Although I don't see you bringing anything to the contrary. Praytell, what did happen to those that didn't have any family, and lost their retirement savings?
Yes, there is a lot of proof that you're wrong. For one, your choice of a totally non-comparable country in your comparison, which makes it completely invalid.
Horseshit. You brought up North Korea because you wanted to make some half-assed point. Had you actually been thinking, you'd have brought up one of the other first world nations that the US is actually comparable to that does have a large public sector.
What kind of idiot brings up his print server in a discussion about desktops?
I love the way the public schools have created so many kids with this kind of class envy and sense of entitlement.
Like yourself? Yeah, your posts are pretty amusing how you bend over backwards to explain why the rich are just plain better, and therefore shouldn't have to give back to society.
Oh, and without all those trucks moving stuff from where people PRODUCE stuff to your little urban paradise, you would run out of food in less than a week. So, by all means, tax them until nobody will drive them any more - and starve.
Because there are no local farms, right? Everything has to come from so far away.
You know damn well this isn't an argument in your favor.
Do you use public transportation? Then you should pay even more in road taxes, since the average axle loading on buses is even higher...
And the costs are distributed among all those that use it, thus bringing the cost per person down.
And if you're driving an electric vehicle (with a nice big government subsidy or two), you're a free-loader.
You mean a vehicle that not only helps lessen our dependence on foreign energy, but does far, far, far less damage to the roads as a giant truck that increases our dependence on foreign energy is the freeloader? Tell me, how much is the gasoline lifestyle subsidized? How much in subsidies do oil companies receive?
Their being able to provide you the opportunity to use their capital is why you have a job.
So? Am I supposed to get down on my knees and blow them out of appreciation? Fuck no. Yes, that capital serves a purpose. No, I don't believe it is something so important that we all need to bend over backwards to appease them, especially on the backs of the poor, as the GOP wants to do.
This is absolute horseshit. Extremely regressive taxes, like the kind you are proposing, are the system that is immoral. Forcing the poor and middle class to bear the burden of taxation, while the rich get to play free, is what's immoral. And quite frankly, your idea that the taxes for the wealthy would be accounted for in your shitty regressive system is laughable when you consider the fact that the wealthy have been doing nothing but hoarding their wealth for the better part of the decade. Meaning it would not amount to shit under your system.
We get to decide, via our representatives, how much goes to the public coffers.
And that's what we're trying to decide, asshat.
"Society" doesn't owe me a damn thing. And the reverse is true as well.
WRONG. Like it or not, being in this society has benefited you greatly. If you truly believe the opposite, then get rid of all your possessions, and go live somewhere where society has collapsed, and attempt to build yourself up again. If what you say is true, then it should be no problem to build yourself up to your current levels of prosperity in a short amount of time.
You are a dumbass. Yes, it applies to everyone. No, they're not picking up trash because they're too busy having to work for a living. The fact that they don't pay anything in income tax makes sense when you consider the fact that they ALREADY DON'T HAVE SHIT FOR INCOME.
No, they don't. The rest of us make our money by the sweat of our brow. They make their money on the sweat of other's brows.
And yet, it was the society here that allowed them to be able to make it. Do you honestly think that half of them would be a tenth as prosperous in a place like Somalia?
I would say that we should be focusing a LOT more on education.
I agree wholeheartedly on this. Too bad the GOP Tea Party is completely against it.
I actually agree quite a bit with the rest of your post, too. The biggest problem, however, is that it would require more spending, at a time when Congress is controlled by a group that is opposed to any spending based solely on ideology and their hatred of the President and desire to see him out of office.
I'd say Obama is way ahead of everyone on that front.
How dare he try to spread the economic pain around equally, rather than concentrate it all on the poor.
How the fuck can you even think he's ahead of everyone on the "class warfare" front? Especially when the GOP currently is the one that wants to concentrate all of the pain from this "deficit reduction" bullshit on the poor. Explain how that's not class warfare.
And the rest of your "get the poor to depend on government" is absolute bullshit. The reason that there are more people requiring government assistance now is because those assholes at the top fucked the economy over. Failing to recognize that makes your position completely invalid.
The stimulus bills. The billions spent, sorry borrowed, created what again? A whole lot of not much. And he wants to do it again. Many people point at how much debt that GW Bush made. They over look that Obama spent more in three years than Bush did in eight. Bush added to the debt. Obama doubled it. Not a good thing.
And you overlook the fact that W did it during times of economic prosperity. Obama did it in a time where the economy was in the shit, and spending was needed to stop it from falling even further.
So then you're suggesting that there's a point at which a person who was skilled becomes greedy instead for continuing to exihibit that which made him a success?
Considering half the justification for this shit is the idea that greed causes people to invest, and if they didn't have the greed incentive, they wouldn't do anything, yes.
To the extent that rich people make good choices as to what companies to invest in, their money benefits them AND the economy as a whole.
Yes, but is it beneficial enough to allow that to be so many people's only source of income? Or should it only be encouraged as a secondary income, while having an actual job?
To put it another way, the more you claim that a particular rich person can sit back and let their money work for them, the more you invalidate your own argument that the government should take over the management of it.
Not in the least. For one, that really only benefits the rich person. It has some benefit to society, but not nearly as much as it does to the rich person. Meanwhile, social programs and infrastructure projects have a much greater benefit to society.
That said, I completely disagree with Obama's approach on this.
I completely agree with it. The GOP just wants to cut spending on "entitlements", which is code speak for "cut assistance programs that the poor depend on." They would have the entirety of the budget balance come from that, placing the entire burden on the poor. If that doesn't scream "Class Warfare," I don't know what does. Obama's plan tries to distribute the pain somewhat equally among all.
A high minimum tax which ignores charity not only discourages charity
There's very little actual evidence to back that statement up. You have "gut feelings," but almost nothing in the way of cold, hard data.
Our grandparents saved money for retirement.
And any who lost those savings, because either the stock market went through a "correction" or because they had huge medical expenses to pay for were left to die in the street. Gee, things were sooooo much better then.
So basically, put the entire burden of balancing the budget on the poor? Because to follow through with your plan, you would have to make large cuts to assistance programs that many of the poor depend on. And cut just about NOTHING that affects the rich. Your plan is truly nothing but class warfare. The plan Obama laid out tries to spread the pain somewhat equally.
Yes, but if you look at the budget, typically military/defense spending is going to be one of the top 3 categories.
The poorest households in the US have a pretty good life when compared to most of the world.
So? Is that supposed to mean that their life still doesn't royally suck here? And don't bring up any shit about 3rd world countries. We're one of the most developed nations in the world. We're not supposed to have any of that shit, and comparing us to countries that do is completely disingenuous. Compare the life of the poor here in the US to say, Germany, Sweden, or Norway.
Low-wage and just above (service and labor jobs) are plentiful, very low unemployment there.
Someone obviously hasn't been paying attention these past couple of years.
True, but living in North Korea sucks
Only an idiot would bring up North Korea in this context, ignoring all the first world nations that prove him wrong.
So we should just bend over and take it, while at the same time putting all the burden for this bullshit "deficit reduction" on the poor? The rich are largely the ones who wanted this shit, they can be the ones to pay for it.