And wealth redistribution to the masses does the same - see the bankruptcy of Rome.

And of course the fact that this attempt - if it were successful - does absolutely nothing to deal with the problems we face as a nation - just doesn't get addressed.

Its a red herring - everyone look over here and we can debate "fairness" - while either answer still leaves us entirely broke. Not real bright....

Uh...ancient Rome is evidence for my side. Ancient Rome was a model of wealth inequality - still more equal than today's America though.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...rticle_forwdgt

Why is it in America's interest to persuade the rich to report less income?

You know, I see a dangerous trend here.It is a global trend that affects politicians from all over the political spectrum.

And that trend, by friends, is how every politician tries to say they are "just like me".

It sounds good in a slogan, but it is :damn: when you actually sit down and think about it.

No matter what country a politician is from, what ideology he supports, what office he is running for they always claim one thing: I am just like the rest of you.

This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard yet.

Why would any electorate allow a politician who claims to be mediocre to rule the country?
Would you trust me to run the country?;)

No? than why should you let a politician who is "just like me" to run the country?

This is horrible. I know people who will not settle for "average". They want the best, the best car, the best technology, the best test score, the best everything. Hell, even those who are content with "second best" still try to get the best we can get. Yet with politicians, not being "the best" is a good thing?

I am always baffled with it comes to this. When I'm stuck in french class, I wish I spoke fluent french. Yet apparently you a attack your political opponent for speaking french fluently?

I will be going into university next year, and of course I would love to make it into an top tier school. Yet politicians can use the fact that his/her opponent graduated from a top school to attack him/her?


what truly weird times we live in. The dumb leading the dumber:doh:

Boats need to be able to actually float in order for the tide to lift them. Filling the boats that do float with water from the ones that don't only puts all of them on the bottom.

Ancient Rome is NOT evidence for your side Mookie.....

The corn dispersion initially was Rome buying the corn and selling it at below market rate. As time progressed - it became a giveaway - that later grew out of hand. More and more and more began taking - while the wealth of Rome was sucked away in the process.

Gee - kind of like entitlement spending does to us now - Medicare and Medicaid, along with Social Security - were 43% of total GDP last year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_FY_2011.png

This doesn't even count the other entitlements the government funds, like welfare, food stamps, etc. I am not saying cut it off - but when you look at entitlement spending in total - pretend for a minute we didn't have any - and we would be in the black immediately.

In 2011 we took in 2.3 Trillion. Outlays were 3.6 Trillion. If you cut the outlay by ~35% - less than total entitlement spending - we would be in the black.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

Not saying that is a solution - its not. But raising taxes on those who already pay the lions share - especially spending this much time on something so inconsequential to the overall problem - is a diversionary tactic.

The fact that the left does not want to talk about the real issue - which is deficit spending (and no - "team r" isn't much better on that score) and instead wants to spend days talking about a tax hike that would fund all of 11 hours of the government - is patently absurd. It just goes to show they don't want to deal with the real issues.

To be fair the Roman Empire fell due to a number of reasons; not least among them being the decay of institutions put in place during the Roman Republic that were either swept aside or allowed to decay once Caesar siezed power. The Roman Empire became a far more militaristic and shortsighted version of the Republic it replaced; making for itself far too many enemies and was ultimately unable to defend the enormous territory that it has wrested from native inhabitants. Barbarian invasions crippled agricultrural production and wrecked local economies. The Roman citizen became less inclined to rally in support of the leaders that were more interested in their own ends that those of the people. And so by the Fourth Century AD the Roman Emperors had all but abandoned the 'Western Empire' and were not even using Rome as their capital. All that remained was a slow and agonizing death that would take centuries in coming.

To that end, the fall of Rome does not support either of your arguments.

So social security is a giveaway, and caring for our elderly are entitlements?

We have been paying into SS our whole lives. It is not an entitlement.

Maybe if congress can stop stealing it to dump into wars, it will not be seen as an entitlement to be taken away by the far righties.

I like you haplo, but you have a "screw the poor for being poor" vibe.

Not all poor are takers, some feel shame for having to do it.

On a side note, go ahead and kill SS, I want every penny back I put into it, since I started working at age 14, with inflationary interest. So does everyone else. (or is it in some Iraqi or pakistani pocket already?)

I don't know a lot about Medicare, but Social Security was supposed to be a zero-sum proposition.

And it is broke. Social Security did at one point pay for itself, and the mony you put in was there for you when you retired. Congress could not steal it. The problem has nothing to do with wars. Congress is not allowed to touch Social Security. Unfortunately, SS is allowed to "loan" the money in the provision that it be repaid with interest. SS looks good because they are helping out, and Congress looks good because the National Debt is lowered by however much money they get. At least that's how it looks on paper, and the debt never manages to get repaid. You've paid into SS your whole life and the only money available is what others are paying in now. So what's in it for them, and when does the ponzi scheme collapse? And what happens when it does?

SS is already dead. The money you paid in is gone, and it's not the fault of "the rich", and it's not the fault of the Right, or of the Left. It's what Congress does, and we've let them get away with it for so long that it seems natural.

Be that as it may it is still a debt that the Federal Government owes the American people. If they don't pay it back then it removes any legitimacy they may have.

:rotfl2: Like that's ever gonna happen. :dead:

Wasn't laughing at you or your comment, just at the idea. I don't think they have any legitimacy at all, and the only reason it works is because people believe it.

Supposedly The Government owes the debt to itself, and then it owes it to the people. Unfortunately Congress will never pay SS back, and rather than even trying to pay the people, the Fed tells us it's what we owe, not them, and we believe them. Part of the problem is that back in 1935 benifits had to passed out right away, and to people who had never paid in, because there was no Social Security while they were working. The good news was that there were a lot more paying in than recieving benifits. Then in the '50s the Greatest Generation came home and started making babies, and lots of them. In the 1970 we believed in Zero Population Growth. That didn't really happen, but thanks to medicine, diet and better living there are more people on the recieving end than the paying, and funds are dwindling, not growing. Couple that with SS buying Treasury Bonds to shore up the other spending, and it's a wonderful house of cards just waiting for a big blow.

During the Big Bailout I asked where the money was coming from. Congress is so far in debt there is pretty much no hope of recovery, and SS is right there with them. Taxing the Rich at 99% wouldn't go five yards toward bailing out the Government, but it would leave them as broke as the rest of us and make a lot of people feel good about themselves. The problem isn't The Rich, it's The Congress, and the only way out of this is to take away their exorbitant salaries and benifits, and make it a public service, not a great career move. That wouldn't solve the debt either, but it might make them think of themselves as servants, not overlords, and it might make them actually do something to help the country rather than the handful of people who make them ever richer.

That is how I see it. We the people allow the government to collect that money in good faith.

In good faith, when that faith is gone, then we are gone. Everything we fought for, from independance on. Poof.

As well as our standing amongst nations.

Edit: I am not a rape the rich kind of guy, but am for elimination of loopholes that only the wealthy have access too, and a more uniform tax system based on total earnings over the course of the year, rather than on earned income (you know like fairness for blue collar guys) . Why should the trust fund baby playing with the stock market pay 15%, while I struggle with my bills and pay 30% plus?

(don't even get me started on NJs local taxes)

While I pretty much agree with you it must be noted that for every trust fund baby living the good life there are plenty of seniors living modestly on dividends too. Doubling their tax rate would screw them over pretty good.

I want my piece of the pie.

I was gunna go with the Bamster's pie speech, then I found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Tcp...feature=fvwrel

:haha:

See the problem is he's taxing billions, but he's spending trillions.

They need to pick a tax, pick a percentage that EVERYBODY pays, no deductions, no exeptions, and base the budget off that. Any spending over what they are taking in gets cut.

Sure, it would make tax lawyer go extinct, but who cares, they're lawyers.:haha:

Okay Great: here's my take

1. I don't hate the rich, but I don't feel they need the white glove treatment they currently get from the tax code. They are the income bracket who should get the least tax breaks, because frankly it's much more easy to live on 70% of 1,000,000 vs. 80% of 30,000 or so. The rich act like when the get taxed more and can't pay for their planes and Ferraris it's a catastrophic event, when really those items ate luxuries.

2. So? two wrongs make a right now? Just because GE worked the tax code does not mean the rich get to do it and write "well GE did it so I can too" in the margins of their Itemized tax forms that put them in an effectively lower bracket than the middle class.

4. source on the Muslim brotherhood thing? as far as ive read they gave it to the new elected government that had a majority of elected officials in the brotherhood...this IMO is just pointed journalism and is WAY different than actually giving money to a group...like the difference between giving money to the USA when it is controlled by a particular political party and giving money directly to a party. I read a couple news stories and the seemed to be blogs really trying to make it seem like a direct payout to the group...which seems dubious as to reality.

4. Again, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Warren should pay his taxes if it is determined he rightfully owes this amount of money.

honestly though all of you I would spend a day with in Chicago if we could. we have different views but are good people. I kinda wanna make a mini meet happen if possible

Pick a day. The best part about the subsim meets, they are mostly apolitical. :woot: