Left vs Left

[atlkvb]

I was was struck by a lot of the election post-mortem many on the Left are undergoing wondering how Hillary blew such a set up T-shot for her run to the White House. So many of them are blaming anything or everything other than their own failed policies, and the internal contradictions they often create so much so that they are simply reduced to arguing against their own policies. (Left vs Left)

VP Joe Biden was making one such election post mortem the other day complaining that Hillary "forgot" about reaching out to the middle-class, and he said in order for Dems to win again this must be their strategy. Only there is one problem with that analysis, in order to become "middle-class" you have to be on an upward economic trajectory that by necessity creates a "wealthy" class. Otherwise how would one know exactly where that "middle" class is, or what makes it so?

However under most Leftist ideology, "wealth" or wealth creation is anathema. They hate people who make lots of money or certainly more money than anyone else, which is why they punish achievement so often through their confiscatory taxation. Lefties want dependency, not wealth creation--so the hated or so called "evil rich" can never exist to create a "middle" class they claim to champion. Additionally, without wealth creation where does the revenue to fund programs for the "middle class" come from?

So what happens if the typical middle class aspirant endeavors to continue his economic climb up the financial ladder to become wealthy under Leftist ideology? He/she is immediately attacked or impugned as being "greedy" or "selfish" or refusing to pay his or her "fair share" of whatever additional income they're now capable of earning! To the Left, pursuit of wealth makes them the "enemy" and they now must be destroyed.

Message to the Left: "You cannot hope to win that which you are trying to defeat". If the Left thinks their basic economic message of income redistribution is a strategy to win the 'middle class', they have to stop calling people who want to rise above the middle "selfish". This is something they simply cannot do or allow to ever happen (wealth creation) because the day folks realize it's better to make their own money and keep it rather than wait for some Democrat politico to hand it out to them, is the day the Left loses it's very reason to exist or even be heard!

There are many many other examples of the Left arguing against itself trying to promote its policy, which I won't add to this particular post right now...but maybe later in subsequent posts as this thread develops. Suffice it to say, the Left has a problem and always will because its entire philosophy is filled with internal contradictions where they (Lefties) eventually end up arguing against themselves or what they claim to be for.


Unreal.

 

[roadtrasheer]

Never understood the hatred of rich .
I've never received a paycheck from a poor man ...... but people who have never worked a day in there life, people who was born into extreme wealth , they gag me just a little, no ..alot they gag my liver!

 

[Airport]

I was was struck by a lot of the election post-mortem many on the Left are undergoing wondering how Hillary blew such a set up T-shot for her run to the White House. So many of them are blaming anything or everything other than their own failed policies, and the internal contradictions they often create so much so that they are simply reduced to arguing against their own policies. (Left vs Left)

VP Joe Biden was making one such election post mortem the other day complaining Hillary "forgot" about reaching out to the middle-class, and he said in order for Dems to win again this must be their strategy. Only there is one problem with that analysis, in order to become "middle-class" you have to be on an upward economic trajectory that by necessity creates a "wealthy" class. Otherwise how would one know exactly where that "middle" class is, or what makes it so?

However under most Leftist ideology, "wealth" or wealth creation is anathema. They hate people who make lots of money or certainly more money than anyone else, which is why they punish achievement so often through their confiscatory taxation. Lefties want dependency, not wealth creation--so the hated or so called "evil rich" can never exist to create a "middle" class they claim to champion. Additionally, without wealth creation where does the revenue to fund programs for the "middle class" come from?

So what happens if the typical middle class aspirant endeavors to continue his economic climb up the financial ladder to become wealthy under Leftist ideology? He/she is immediately attacked or impugned as being "greedy" or "selfish" or refusing to pay his or her "fair share" of whatever additional income they're now capable of earning! To the Left, pursuit of wealth makes them the "enemy" and they now must be destroyed.

Message to the Left: "You cannot hope to win that which you are trying to defeat". If the Left thinks their basic economic message of income redistribution is a strategy to win the 'middle class', they have to stop calling people who want to rise above the middle "selfish". This is something they simply cannot do or allow to ever happen (wealth creation) because the day folks realize it's better to make their own money and keep it rather than wait for some Democrat politico to hand it out to them, is the day the Left loses it's very reason to exist or even be heard!

There are many many other examples of the Left arguing against itself trying to promote its policy, which I won't add to this particular post right now...but maybe later in subsequent posts as this thread develops. Suffice it to say, the Left has a problem and always will because its entire philosophy is filled with internal contradictions where they (Lefties) eventually end up arguing against themselves or what they claim to be for.


Unreal.

There's enough people out there that can see the damage that liberalism does to a country. It takes away initiative to try and acheive more for yourself and your family. There's also enough people on both coasts to keep enough liberals in power to continue to do damage individual freedoms.

 

[atlkvb]

Never understood the hatred of rich .
I've never received a paycheck from a poor man ...... but people who have never worked a day in there life, people who was born into extreme wealth , they gag me just a little, no ..alot they gag my liver!

I think it gets very dangerous roadtrasheer "hating" anyone's path to wealth. For as many as you despise who either have inherited their wealth or had it just given to them, there are just as many who work their asses off creating it. The point is possession of or pursuit of wealth is something which should be encouraged not discouraged.

It is a fact not all can or will be wealthy. Some don't have the talent, others lack the desire. However punishing those who have either is not only wrong, but counter to the purpose of our economic system and even work itself. Why would a nation seek to discourage more of its citizens from becoming "wealthy"? Why would any worker or company not seek to increase that which they earn in terms of incomes?

The Left says pursuit of wealth causes economic "unfairness" and results in "inequality" among classes. However their prescription to remedy that kills the very goose that lays their Golden egg---money to redistribute to those who are not equal to others. Philosophically, it is simply impossible to determine who deserves any amount of 'wealth', so in the Left's ideology, "the rich" must be eliminated in order to assure no one has anything more than anyone else.

That is just wacky, and unworkable.

In effect, they argue against the very people they need to grow and expand their "middle class", and that's wealth producers, however or wherever those types come from.

 

[atlkvb]

True,

There's enough people out there that can see the damage that liberalism does to a country. It takes away initiative to try and acheive more for yourself and your family. There's also enough people on both coasts to keep enough liberals in power to continue to do damage individual freedoms.

But what I don't understand Airport is why so many folks believe this internal contradiction from the Left...they essentially say it's OK to give them power to take money away from anyone who makes significantly more than you so you can have more of what they've earned.

Where is that line drawn between the people the Left thinks have too much and those who they are promising to give more to?

 

[Boomboom521]

I was was struck by a lot of the election post-mortem many on the Left are undergoing wondering how Hillary blew such a set up T-shot for her run to the White House. So many of them are blaming anything or everything other than their own failed policies, and the internal contradictions they often create so much so that they are simply reduced to arguing against their own policies. (Left vs Left)

VP Joe Biden was making one such election post mortem the other day complaining Hillary "forgot" about reaching out to the middle-class, and he said in order for Dems to win again this must be their strategy. Only there is one problem with that analysis, in order to become "middle-class" you have to be on an upward economic trajectory that by necessity creates a "wealthy" class. Otherwise how would one know exactly where that "middle" class is, or what makes it so?

However under most Leftist ideology, "wealth" or wealth creation is anathema. They hate people who make lots of money or certainly more money than anyone else, which is why they punish achievement so often through their confiscatory taxation. Lefties want dependency, not wealth creation--so the hated or so called "evil rich" can never exist to create a "middle" class they claim to champion. Additionally, without wealth creation where does the revenue to fund programs for the "middle class" come from?

So what happens if the typical middle class aspirant endeavors to continue his economic climb up the financial ladder to become wealthy under Leftist ideology? He/she is immediately attacked or impugned as being "greedy" or "selfish" or refusing to pay his or her "fair share" of whatever additional income they're now capable of earning! To the Left, pursuit of wealth makes them the "enemy" and they now must be destroyed.

Message to the Left: "You cannot hope to win that which you are trying to defeat". If the Left thinks their basic economic message of income redistribution is a strategy to win the 'middle class', they have to stop calling people who want to rise above the middle "selfish". This is something they simply cannot do or allow to ever happen (wealth creation) because the day folks realize it's better to make their own money and keep it rather than wait for some Democrat politico to hand it out to them, is the day the Left loses it's very reason to exist or even be heard!

There are many many other examples of the Left arguing against itself trying to promote its policy, which I won't add to this particular post right now...but maybe later in subsequent posts as this thread develops. Suffice it to say, the Left has a problem and always will because its entire philosophy is filled with internal contradictions where they (Lefties) eventually end up arguing against themselves or what they claim to be for.


Unreal.

What is unreal, is that someone with a seemingly analytical mind has such a biased vision of liberalism and uses that bias to lump an entire party together. Does the right not have differences of opinion? I think I remember some infighting during the primaries....oh wait, AND during the campaign.

Democrats are devastated, and are naturally trying to understand what went wrong (no, the world doesn't need ANOTHER explanation from a conservative).

 

[roadtrasheer]

I think it gets very dangerous roadtrasheer "hating" anyone's path to wealth. For as many as you despise who either have inherited their wealth or had it just given to them, there are just as many who work their asses off creating it. The point is possession of or pursuit of wealth is something which should be encouraged not discouraged.

It is a fact not all can or will be wealthy. Some don't have the talent, others lack the desire. However punishing those who have either is not only wrong, but counter to the purpose of our economic system and even work itself. Why would a nation seek to discourage more of its citizens from becoming "wealthy"? Why would any worker or company not seek to increase that which they earn in terms of incomes?

The Left says pursuit of wealth causes economic "unfairness" and results in "inequality" among classes. However their prescription to remedy that kills the very goose that lays their Golden egg---money to redistribute to those who are not equal to others. Philosophically, it is simply impossible to determine who deserves any amount of 'wealth', so in the Left's ideology, "the rich" must be eliminated in order to assure no one has anything more than anyone else.

That is just wacky, and unworkable.

In effect, they argue against the very people they need to grow and expand their "middle class", and that's wealth producers, however or wherever those types come from.

I don't hate the born rich ..some gag me when they act like they earned it ..
" the greatest inequality is trying to make unequal things (people) equal"

 

[Boomboom521]

True,



But what I don't understand Airport is why so many folks believe this internal contradiction from the Left...they essentially say it's OK to give them power to take money away from anyone who makes significantly more than you so you can have more of what they've earned.

Where is that line drawn between the people the Left thinks have too much and those who they are promising to give more to?

The more money someone makes, the more benefits that person has in our society. Be honest, better homes mean better and safer neighborhoods with higher value. Rich people make money from their money (people on the poverty line can't take advantage of the housing market crash for example). Smaller benefits as well, healthier diet, frequent doctor and dentist visits, retirement equity, more vacations ALL equate to better health and happiness. WELL DESERVED BECAUSE MOST WEALTHY PEOPLE WORK VERY HARD. However, some on the left simply want more of a proportionally beneficial tax system. We need money! Money for infrastructure, money to curb crime, money for social security, money for schools, money for better healthcare options....privatization just enhances the benefits for the wealthy.

 

[atlkvb]

proportionally beneficial tax system.

OK then Boomer, how is this decided? Like I asked in my other post, where do you draw the line between those who have "too much" and then who decides how much isn't enough?

Already, under our current tax system, the so called "rich" pay the majority of the tax burden. Yet, they are constantly chastised on the Left for not paying their "fair share".

So I'm confused how this "proportionally beneficial tax system" you advocate would work and how the Left draws its lines between who pays and who doesn't?

 

[roadtrasheer]

We have plenty of funds coming in, we as a country need to live within our means.
Our politicians, left ,right & independent is screwing our guts out . Our greed is killing us. Stop giving money to everybody & their brother. A lot of welfare reform.
Alot of people need to learn the difference between a need & a want .

 

[atlkvb]

We need money! Money for infrastructure, money to curb crime, money for social security, money for schools, money for better healthcare options....privatization just enhances the benefits for the wealthy.

If all those things you mentioned Boomer naturally accrue to a society which generates or creates more wealth for its citizens, why then do you assume everyone would still need bigger Government offering or providing more of those things? For whom? (assuming most folks are too busy creating or pursuing their wealth)

 

[atlkvb]

better homes mean better and safer neighborhoods with higher value. Rich people make money from their money

Smaller benefits as well, healthier diet, frequent doctor and dentist visits, retirement equity, more vacations ALL equate to better health and happiness.

If these are all benefits to society of wealth creation and/or pursuit of it Boomer, who is not being served by them the more wealth is generated for more people pursuing it?

Why discourage that or try to eliminate it which is exactly what the Left does?

 

[atlkvb]

someone with a seemingly analytical mind has such a biased vision of liberalism

I am trying to understand Boomer what the point of it is? (Liberalism) If wealth is something the Left celebrates, why punish those who achieve it? If they really hate wealthy people, why don't they just admit it?

They certainly ask for their money (Hollywood Left). I don't understand why they hate rich people so much when most of them who are so don't send in a dime extra (in the form of any taxes) or give away whatever they inherit or earn the way they expect everyone else to?

Hell if I were a Lefty and hated "the rich" like most of them do, why would I even want to become one of 'em?

I don't see many on the Left who have wealth trying to get poor or even drop down to "middle class" for that matter!

Explain.

 

[Boomboom521]

OK then Boomer, how is this decided? Like I asked in my other post, where do you draw the line between those who have "too much" and then who decides how much isn't enough?

Already, under our current tax system, the so called "rich" pay the majority of the tax burden. Yet, they are constantly chastised on the Left for not paying their "fair share".

So I'm confused how this "proportionally beneficial tax system" you advocate would work and how the Left draws its lines between who pays and who doesn't?

Well I think the most obvious begins with corporate and business tax. Taxes that kill business, but are valid due to impacts businesses have on pollution, devastating effects on value in the housing market, cost of healthcare, lack of proper insurance coverage, etc.

So, the right isn't for that type of taxation are they? So, those people that make over say...$1m/yr should increase their share in the pot. Understand that most of the incredibly wealthy find avenues through corporate tax law to avoid paying their share. Trump practically admitted to this practice.

 

[Boomboom521]

I am trying to understand Boomer what the point of it is? (Liberalism) If wealth is something the Left celebrates, why punish those who achieve it? If they really hate wealthy people, why don't they just admit it?

They certainly ask for their money (Hollywood Left). I don't understand why they hate rich people so much when most of them who are so don't send in a dime extra (in the form of any taxes) or give away whatever they inherit or earn the way they expect everyone else to?

Hell if I were a Lefty and hated "the rich" like most of them do, why would I even want to become one of 'em?

I don't see many on the Left who have wealth trying to get poor or even drop down to "middle class" for that matter!

Explain.

It's not punishment. If someone making $150,000 / yr pays $60,000 in taxes....and someone making $1,500,000 / yr pays $700,000 in taxes, I think that's fair. But if someone that makes $60,000 / yr pays even $10,000 in taxes....to me that's not good for the nation. Growing the middle class (outside of putting money towards SMALL business, which I'm for)....means less taxes for those approaching middle class status and those in the middle class. It also increases the buying power of the population as well. To make up for those lost taxes....tax the uber wealthy, or at least prevent the tax loopholes that help them.

 

[atlkvb]

Well I think the most obvious begins with corporate and business tax. Taxes that kill business, but are valid due to impacts businesses have on pollution, devastating effects on value in the housing market, cost of healthcare, lack of proper insurance coverage, etc.

So, the right isn't for that type of taxation are they? So, those people that make over say...$1m/yr should increase their share in the pot. Understand that most of the incredibly wealthy find avenues through corporate tax law to avoid paying their share. Trump practically admitted to this practice.

First of all Boomboom521 it is pure fallacy on the Left that corporations pay taxes. They don't, their customers do. they pass on whatever tax increases they are socked with to their customers, and they do this usually in the form of higher prices or lower wages, or in some cases just taking the business or company somewhere else (or some other country) where those taxes are lower.

Then again, an internal contradiction on the Left I simply do not understand is why would you want to "kill" businesses that provide the incomes and ultimately whatever taxes you need to fund your social programs?

Arbitrarily setting confiscatory tax rates on any incomes over a Million simply encourages most folks to earn just enough under that amount to avoid paying them! Again, defeating the very purpose of the confiscatory tax to begin with.

Trumps wants tax simplification, reducing overall rates for both businesses and individuals, reducing or eliminating those loopholes you mentioned (ironically crafted by lobbyists to benefit mainly the wealthy...many of them Liberal) and he prefers higher wages paid to workers by companies who can operate profitably in America using American labor which generates the revenues we need to run the essential functions of Government without killing the business or taxpayers who produce that tax revenue.

 

[atlkvb]

It's not punishment. If someone making $150,000 / yr pays $60,000 in taxes....and someone making $1,500,000 / yr pays $700,000 in taxes, I think that's fair. But if someone that makes $60,000 / yr pays even $10,000 in taxes....to me that's not good for the nation. Growing the middle class (outside of putting money towards SMALL business, which I'm for)....means less taxes for those approaching middle class status and those in the middle class. It also increases the buying power of the population as well. To make up for those lost taxes....tax the uber wealthy, or at least prevent the tax loopholes that help them.

OK then Boomboom521, so under your example of taxing the "uber wealthy" what's my incentive to produce more than 1.5 million especially if I'm capable of that? Wouldn't I by definition want to avoid that huge extra bite on my personal taxes if you think I should pay double what someone else who makes less than me pays out of his lower income as a percentage of whatever that is?

10% of a Million is still more than 10% of 60,000. So why should the rates on my Million increase more just because I choose to make more? I'm still paying way more than the lower income earner, even with a rate that we both pay equally @ 10%?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Well I think the most obvious begins with corporate and business tax. Taxes that kill business, but are valid due to impacts businesses have on pollution, devastating effects on value in the housing market, cost of healthcare, lack of proper insurance coverage, etc.

So, the right isn't for that type of taxation are they? So, those people that make over say...$1m/yr should increase their share in the pot. Understand that most of the incredibly wealthy find avenues through corporate tax law to avoid paying their share. Trump practically admitted to this practice.

Nothing disgusts me more politically than when the left tries to claim the nonsense of the "fair share". What a crock of word play horseshit.

If it was "fair" we'd all pay the same percentage of income with exception being to those below and slightly above the poverty line. It's fair when we all have skin in the game. This notion that just because I can afford more means I should pay more is not fair. It's rationalizing the overall goal of growing gov't dependence.

Grow the base and the extra taxes will come. The left's approach provides zero incentive to grow Middle out.

 

[atlkvb]

the left's approach provides zero incentive to grow Middle out.

He's nailed it here. They're defeating their own objectives (growing the middle class in order to help them) by taxing the very wealth they need to create in order for there to even be a middle class!

It's just loopy!

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

OK then, so under your example of taxing the "uber wealthy" what's my incentive to produce more than 1.5 million especially if I'm capable of that? Wouldn't I by definition want to avoid that huge extra bite on my personal taxes if you think I should pay double what someone else who makes less than me pays out of his lower income s a percentage of whatever that is?

10% of a Million is still more than 10% of 60,000. So why should the rates on my Million increase more just because I choose to make more? I'm still paying way more than the lower income earner, even with a rate that we both pay equally @ 10%?

Anyone with money knows how to work the numbers.

 

[Boomboom521]

I am trying to understand Boomer what the point of it is? (Liberalism) If wealth is something the Left celebrates, why punish those who achieve it? If they really hate wealthy people, why don't they just admit it?

They certainly ask for their money (Hollywood Left). I don't understand why they hate rich people so much when most of them who are so don't send in a dime extra (in the form of any taxes) or give away whatever they inherit or earn the way they expect everyone else to?

Hell if I were a Lefty and hated "the rich" like most of them do, why would I even want to become one of 'em?

I don't see many on the Left who have wealth trying to get poor or even drop down to "middle class" for that matter!

Explain.

Believe me, I'm just as disgusted with a Brad Pitt as I am a Donald Trump. You can't force people to give to charities. You can't force extremely wealthy business owners to provide a great work environment with great benefits either. I don't think Brad Pitt should make $20m a movie....it's why I have to pay $25 now to take my wife to a movie. I don't think a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals should make $8m a year either....it's why I pay $80 to see a game and both are reasons my cable bill is half a car payment. But that's the free market. I teach HS, I get decent benefits and my pay is adequate, and I do what I do because I believe in it (and yes the views you might see me have on this db are NOT pushed by me in the classroom). I'm a stay at home dad right now because my wife makes better money, and we think it's best for our children. But a two income family where both make my salary, after child care....that's not substantial wealth being accumulated. With social security dying as an option for future retirement, and costs continuing to rise......somethings gotta give. Do we endanger family dynamics? Do we challenge the parameters of the free market system? Do we change our tax system?

Personally, I'm for a kind of corporate socialism, in which we blast tax corporations substantially. Educate consumers, and attempt a return to local, community, small business atmosphere. Walmarts shut down, and many small businesses pop up to service specialized areas of retail at a higher price, but more benefit to the community. Unfortunately like most of my ideas....they are idealistic dreamer bs that is dependent upon people making decisions that evaluate the greater good with every choice.

 

[atlkvb]

Anyone with money knows how to work the numbers.

Except the Left. They hate people who make lots of money or so they claim (unless they're one of 'em) then they are for every loophole they can find and use.

 

[Boomboom521]

He's nailed it here. They're defeating their own objectives (growing the middle class in order to help them) by taxing the very wealth they need to create in order for there to even be a middle class!

It's just loopy!

I understand that vision. But I'm not sold on the trickle down being effective. It's been done before I'm pretty sure: didn't we see this practice in place from 2003-2007? I believe we suffered from a massive recession. Truth is, those with the wealth can't be trusted to do anything but benefit themselves, large businesses look at the bottom line on the balance sheet and nothing else. It's what they are supposed to do, right.

 

[Boomboom521]

We have plenty of funds coming in, we as a country need to live within our means.
Our politicians, left ,right & independent is screwing our guts out . Our greed is killing us. Stop giving money to everybody & their brother. A lot of welfare reform.
Alot of people need to learn the difference between a need & a want .

Good points here. I'm all for a more efficient government

 

[Boomboom521]

If these are all benefits to society of wealth creation and/or pursuit of it Boomer, who is not being served by them the more wealth is generated for more people pursuing it?

Why discourage that or try to eliminate it which is exactly what the Left does?

Again, it's not an attempt to kill the wealth or wealthy communities....it's an attempt to grow them.

 

[atlkvb]

Believe me, I'm just as disgusted with a Brad Pitt as I am a Donald Trump. You can't force people to give to charities. You can't force extremely wealthy business owners to provide a great work environment with great benefits either. I don't think Brad Pitt should make $20m a movie....it's why I have to pay $25 now to take my wife to a movie. I don't think a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals should make $8m a year either....it's why I pay $80 to see a game and both are reasons my cable bill is half a car payment. But that's the free market. I teach HS, I get decent benefits and my pay is adequate, and I do what I do because I believe in it (and yes the views you might see me have on this db are NOT pushed by me in the classroom). I'm a stay at home dad right now because my wife makes better money, and we think it's best for our children. But a two income family where both make my salary, after child care....that's not substantial wealth being accumulated. With social security dying as an option for future retirement, and costs continuing to rise......somethings gotta give. Do we endanger family dynamics? Do we challenge the parameters of the free market system? Do we change our tax system?

Personally, I'm for a kind of corporate socialism, in which we blast tax corporations substantially. Educate consumers, and attempt a return to local, community, small business atmosphere. Walmarts shut down, and many small businesses pop up to service specialized areas of retail at a higher price, but more benefit to the community. Unfortunately like most of my ideas....they are idealistic dreamer bs that is dependent upon people making decisions that evaluate the greater good with every choice.

If you would simply trust the free market boomboom521, and let folks making or earning their money decide how best to spend it, all of your other issues would settle themselves. Wage earners or producers are no different that you or I. In fact they are us, you and I are them.

I trust individuals, acting in their own self interest, to do what they ultimately believe is right. If we allow that type of Freedom which is protected under our Constitutional form of Government, I believe the American people are quite capable of both addressing and solving all of the other things you think we need a big overbearing Government to solve.

I don't disagree with many of your stated objectives, but I fundamentally disagree with your proscribed solutions.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

But a two income family where both make my salary, after child care....that's not substantial wealth being accumulated.

These were choices you made though right? You weren't forced into this salary disparity but were choices you made, correct?

I don't have issue providing safety nets for people who had hard times forced on them. That's fine, but there are plenty of people who are where they are because of choices they made and then cry foul because they aren't driving expensive cars and living in huge houses.

With that said, I understand it's harder for some than others based solely on where they start. The only way to solve that is working to put America and American's at the forefront of policy. The leftist idealogogy has proven over the last 8 years to not work. The stats clearly back that up. There are always opportunities to better yourself but it's not easy. It's hard work and your station in life is going to be based on how much effort you put into life.

 

[atlkvb]

Again, it's not an attempt to kill the wealth or wealthy communities....it's an attempt to grow them.

So then I ask again, how do you do that if you punish their achievements through their earning potential by taxing most of it away from them, or discouraging them from pursuing it (wealth) by threatening to tax it away from them or calling them "greedy" or "selfish" for pursuing it?

 

[atlkvb]

There are always opportunities to better yourself but it's not easy. It's hard work and your station in life is going to be based on how much effort you put into life.

Again 100% correct. No policy, no handout, no program can do for you what you must first be willing and ultimately are able to do for yourself. Guarantees of success only come when you decide how hard you are willing to work for them. No Government program or effort to take away from one who produces in order for you to have an easier path to whatever they have produced can work. It helps no one.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

It's what they are supposed to do, right.

Right. However, I’m not sure what you’re talking about concerning trickle down under GWB. GWB was Keynesian--same as BHO.

Truth is self-interest is the check and balance of a capitalist society. Yet the most altruistic nation in the history of the planet is the world’s most capitalist state.

 

[WVPATX]

An excellent example of Socialism/Communism at work at a public University:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ...

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.


Today, as of 2014, the following represents who pays the bills:

Tax Year 2014
Percentages Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $465,626 39.48%
Top 5% $188,996 59.97%
Top 10% $133,445 70.88%
Top 25% $77,714 86.78%

The top 1 percent pay nearly 40% of all income taxes. The top 25% pay over 85% of all income taxes. And the libs want even more. I am not not even counting the death tax which destroys small businesses, farms and the like.

My grandparents came to this country in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They wanted a better life for their families. My father was born in the early 1900's and had to drop out of high school when his uncle was killed in a coal mining accident. His first job loading coal paid $.10 cents per ton. But my grandparents bought a 120 acre farm in Rosemont, WV. They mined their own coal and sold it thought the community. All the men worked and the family lived a good, but modest living.

My father left Rosement when a got a job at Union Carbide where he worked for 38 years. We had 6 children. My father rarely took vacations. His vacations were time spent in the family garden or upgrading our home. He and his brother built our home, except for electrical and plumbing work. He got a loan for $12K to build the house. He couldn't stand debt (grew up during the depression) and paid it off after only 10 years. He never bought anything he could not pay cash for.

He saved and saved and saved. Why? To send all 6 of his children to college. For a better life. He did not bemoan the wealthy. He did not hate the rich. He wanted his kids to have that chance for success as well. It's called the American dream. If he were alive today, he would be proud that his dream came true and all the hard work and sacrifice was worth it. I know he would never have taken a government handout. That's what men are supposed to do, take care of their families regardless of how menial the job was.

We have lost much of this work ethic in America. We have so many thinking they are owed something or want what others have. Thus, Bernie, Elizabeth and Hillary wanting much, much higher tax rates.

JFK during his inauguration said the famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.". The Dems have come a long way from that sentiment. JFK also lowered taxes dramatically to stimulate the. economy. He would not recognize the Dem party today.

In this country, regardless of color, hard work, dedication, discipline, education, and desire are the means to success. Want some proof? The highest earners in this country are not WHITE! They are ASIAN. You may not become Bill Gates, but you can make a very good living. And who knows, you may become the next Bill Gates. He represent a role model for all of us to aspire to. He gives us a reason to work harder, think straighter, take risks, and achieve. The rewards can and most likely will be outstanding.

If we move further left economically, we will. lose what has made America great. If we provide more hand outs rather than hand ups, we will fail. Humans are inherently lazy and when given the choice they will take less if it means no work. We can't give in to that ideology. It has destroyed nation all over the world.

 

[Boomboom521]

These were choices you made though right? You weren't forced into this salary disparity but were choices you made, correct?

I don't have issue providing safety nets for people who had hard times forced on them. That's fine, but there are plenty of people who are where they are because of choices they made and then cry foul because they aren't driving expensive cars and living in huge houses.

With that said, I understand it's harder for some than others based solely on where they start. The only way to solve that is working to put America and American's at the forefront of policy. The leftist idealogogy has proven over the last 8 years to not work. The stats clearly back that up. There are always opportunities to better yourself but it's not easy. It's hard work and your station in life is going to be based on how much effort you put into life.

I understand your mindset, there are WAY TOO MANY taking advantage of programs and benefits provided by the government, and an overall entitlement sentiment from generations coming of age. I did choose to teach, but don't you want teachers that care and are effective. Same with police, fire, etc... we want people to make choices not completely based on money. Fathers aren't there for children in order to accumulate substantial wealth....what's best for that child? These are not areas the government can regulate. We can try to balance (NO, NOT COMMUNISM) the landscape. We can help make someone earning $60,000 / yr feel more comfortable.

 

[Boomboom521]

These were choices you made though right? You weren't forced into this salary disparity but were choices you made, correct?

I don't have issue providing safety nets for people who had hard times forced on them. That's fine, but there are plenty of people who are where they are because of choices they made and then cry foul because they aren't driving expensive cars and living in huge houses.

With that said, I understand it's harder for some than others based solely on where they start. The only way to solve that is working to put America and American's at the forefront of policy. The leftist idealogogy has proven over the last 8 years to not work. The stats clearly back that up. There are always opportunities to better yourself but it's not easy. It's hard work and your station in life is going to be based on how much effort you put into life.

The economy grew under Obama's policies, just not very fast.

 

[atlkvb]

Right. However, I’m not sure what you’re talking about concerning trickle down under GWB. GWB was Keynesian--same as BHO.

Truth is self-interest is the check and balance of a capitalist society. Yet the most altruistic nation in the history of the planet is the world’s most capitalist state.

Government by definition cannot provide all things to all people, be all things to all people, or expect all things from all people. Only a free Capitalist society can be that answer to all the things all the people want, need, or desire because only a Capitalist society rewards the efforts for those activities people decide are the most worthwhile pursuing or having.

This is a fundamental position the Left hates, because they want to decide all of that for us, using the power of the Government to force us into submission or to agree to what they have decided we all need or should want or should desire.

So I ask, who put them in charge?

 

[atlkvb]

The economy grew under Obama's policies, just not very fast.

Not because of them Boomboom521, in spite of them.

 

[WVPATX]

I understand that vision. But I'm not sold on the trickle down being effective. It's been done before I'm pretty sure: didn't we see this practice in place from 2003-2007? I believe we suffered from a massive recession. Truth is, those with the wealth can't be trusted to do anything but benefit themselves, large businesses look at the bottom line on the balance sheet and nothing else. It's what they are supposed to do, right.

You honestly don't know much about finance. The wealthy do many things. They buy stuff, which is taxed. They own many mansions which are taxed. The same with planes and yachts. Libs tried to tax yacht makers and found that it nearly destroyed the yacht business and all those jobs. More importantly, they invest. They invest in stocks, bonds, new businesses, etc. That is called capital formation and is essential if we are to grow our economy. For you see, the money they invest can go to start up companies, or both small and large companies that can use that capital to expand and create jobs. They also give large amounts to charity. Why do you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet set up their charitable giving privately. Because they know they will make better decisions than giving the money to the government when they pass.

The alternative is high taxes, confiscation of money and then the government uses that money to fund the government largess and then passes out the remaining money to those they feel can benefit. It is government picking the winners and the losers which they are terrible at. The problem is they give money to groups that ensure votes for them, not based on what's best for the country. They give money which is wasted due to lack of follow up. They waste an enormous amount of money.

 

[Boomboom521]

Right. However, I’m not sure what you’re talking about concerning trickle down under GWB. GWB was Keynesian--same as BHO.

Truth is self-interest is the check and balance of a capitalist society. Yet the most altruistic nation in the history of the planet is the world’s most capitalist state.

Im for free market, I actually for less government, im surely for decreased spending, but I'm NOT for praising businesses and providing them the same freedoms that citizens enjoy.

 

[Boomboom521]

You honestly don't know much about finance. The wealthy do many things. They buy stuff, which is taxed. They own many mansions which are taxed. The same with planes and yachts. Libs tried to tax yacht makers and found that it nearly destroyed the yacht business and all those jobs. More importantly, they invest. They invest in stocks, bonds, new businesses, etc. That is called capital formation and is essential if we are to grow our economy. For you see, the money they invest can go to start up companies, or both small and large companies that can use that capital to expand and create jobs. They also give large amounts to charity. Why do you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet set up their charitable giving privately. Because they know they will make better decisions than giving the money to the government when they pass.

The alternative is high taxes, confiscation of money and then the government uses that money to fund the government largess and then passes out the remaining money to those they feel can benefit. It is government picking the winners and the losers which they are terrible at. The problem is they give money to groups that ensure votes for them, not based on what's best for the country. They give money which is wasted due to lack of follow up. They waste an enormous amount of money.

Again, I'm NOT for killing or even redistributing wealth. I am for killing corporations, and redistributing the burden of poverty.

Just some idealistic blathering flavor I'm becoming known for...

 

[WVPATX]

The economy grew under Obama's policies, just not very fast.

The worst economic performance of any President since Hoover.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

the same freedoms that citizens enjoy.

How do you remain constitutional and curb businesses’ freedoms without curbing the freedoms of those who run the businesses?