New Reason to Raise Taxes on the Rich: ‘Patriotism’

[SUBMAN1]

And you guys mock me for saying the Democratic party is going Communism lately. If they are not, explain this for the laymen here?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/09/...ch-patriotism/

I'm waiting for your responses. We are going to have an in depth look at the underlying values of communism and what it stands for. Marx loves Biden, I tell you that! Robinhood at its finest here. In the past, they would have sugar coated this, but it seems the communist gloves are completely off these days and they think their are enough Socialists in this country to vote for them now!

The future USA? Communist Socialists Republic of the USA. Is that our future country name? Star Trek's 'Federation' is a dying dream I'd say with Biden a possible candidate.

-S

[JoeCorrado]

Time to do the right thing. Trickle down economics has failed and during the time that the failed experiment was conducted ON the middle class the wealthy have gotten wealthier while the poor got poorer, and more numerous and the middle class has been squeezed to the point of becoming an endangered species.

In other words- the rich did not trickle anything upon the middle class- instead they had their cup runneth over and then built a trench to assure that not a drop fell to the middle class.

If you don't feel like doing the right thing- the patriotic thing that the Republican party is always touting as it asks for more and more sacrifice by the have nots so that the haves can have it all- then how about you simply face the music and realize that it is time to reverse the flow- the transfer of wealth that was "trickle down economics" was the transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% of America into the coffers of the top 5% of America.

Don't do the patriotic thing, do the right thing and allow at least recognize and then ADMIT that the top 5% have benefited from a theft of huge proportions and they CONTINUE to do so. No sir, we couldn't step in and assist the homeowners as they were losing their homes- but now we will step in and rescue the banks who wrote the bad loans, foreclosed on the small people after they leached all they could from them, and now who now want US to bail them out by buying up all that worthless paper from them.

Oh, yeah... that's the patriotic thing to do, right?

Stop whining and do th right thing for America- you'll feel better for it and yes... you'll be a patriot too, just like the people who donate their time and effort everyday because that is all they have to give... the top 5% can take the easy way out and just pay their taxes without crying about it.

===

And pardon me, but isn't it the REPUBLICAN PARTY who is bailing out and buying up failed business' left and right? Let me see./... government owned bussiness... would that not be the communist way?

The DEMOCRATS are the ones always left to clean up the mess after the Republican Party leaves the country a wreck. Be glad that the party exists to balance the scales or there would have been a revolution long ago.

[SUBMAN1]

A communist statement completely.

How about this, if I feel its the right thing to do, I'll donate to a cause, preferably a church that will probably do the right thing with the money to help people in need.

How about this, you donate your entire check to me, and I will distribute it to whom I feel that needs it. Are you willing to do that? Really? You pay it! Lets see how you like it.

Rich people usually (98% of them) got rich by 'not' spending their entire paycheck on STUFF. imagine that. Paying a car payment into a mutual fund at $400 a month for 40 years nets you over $6 million. So since you save money instead of buying that shiny new car every 4 years, you should be taxed on it until you are dry? Is THAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING?

Think about it.

Only countries with truly free economies can have the majority of their population wealthy by the rest of the worlds standards. Look at socialism creep and what has been happening to the personal standard of living during that creep in the last 50 years. Do the math.

What is comes down to is either you are stupid at math, or want a government to hold your hand.


Biden is saying this - he is taxing envy. How else do you explain it? Pure Communism!

-S

PS. I am not done yet. I want to hear your arguments. Please give me time to respond though. I am very busy these days.

Yes, you are quite right. Everybody who isn't rich foolishly squanders their money. They should stop wasting money so they could be rich.

[Blacklight]

Yes, you are quite right. Everybody who isn't rich foolishly squanders their money. They should stop wasting money so they could be rich.

:rotfl:

Rush Limbauh was saying pretty much the same thing on the radio the other day. hehehe (what an idiot)

I FULLY and 100% agree with Obama's plan. I say go for it ! Let's tax the snot out of those rich bastards ! Heck.. a lot of them end up not paying taxes at all due to all the legal loopholes their high priced lawyers always find for them.

Especially now, the way the economy is going, the lower classes NEED tax breaks. The wages of the lower classes (and by lower, I mean middle and below) are not rising along with costs for essentials. It's getting harder and harder for real lower class people to even keep jobs due to fuel costs alone. My sister is one of those people who ends up having to spend almost 40% of her pay on fuel cost just commuting to and from work. Heck.. for some people, it's getting to be.. "rent or my job" where to put that money. We NEED tax breaks for the lower classes now. The rich aren't feeling this pinch anywhere NEAR what the middle and lower are feeling because of all the classes, their wages ARE going up along with prices of essentials. That class is the only class that wages are increasing in. Says something doesn't it ?

Oh.. and this comment says it all:

I see… so the wealthy will wear a lapel pin, or put an American flag sticker on their bumper to express their patriotism, but god forbid the America to whom they owe their wealth asks for any real sacrifice. Pathetic.

Comment by Nick from North Carolina - September 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm

[UnderseaLcpl]

Taxing the rich, if such a thing could ever really be done, is not a solution.

For one thing, it fails to address the real problem, economic hardship caused in part by, and exacerbated by, government.
Secondly, when there is a recession, inevitably, the rich are the ones who get us out of it.

Those greedy fat-cats that we all love to hate are also major investors. When the economy inevitably faces a recession, they are the ones who start investing when the market bottoms out. They help companies get back on their feet. In turn, jobs are created, people earn money, they spend it on things, and the economy starts to go back uphill again. Why would you want to tax them more and make them less inclined to invest?

Why do we even care about how much of the wealth is held by the rich when the State holds more than all of them combined? The same State that supposedly defends us from the rich people who want to take advantage of us is basically run by those people.

The political elite are a lot more dangerous than the wealthy elite, especially when they are wealthy elite themselves.

The best way to provide relief for the middle and lower classes is to take an axe to government spending. Neither the Repubs or the Dems have a history of doing that.

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

The DEMOCRATS are the ones always left to clean up the mess after the Republican Party leaves the country a wreck.

Like they did after the market crash in '29? The entire country plunged into a ridiculous amount of debt and the beginning of an exponential trend towards bigger government? How did that help? How are their policies much different today?

Not that I support the Republicans either, I just think they mess things up more slowly. I think they tend to allow economically damaging collusion of business and government, and they aren't shy about blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on things that will fail spectacularly either.

Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here for a moment, looks very much like the Republicans have decided (read "White House") to take over private businesses that have gone (or were going to go) belly-up due to that lack of all those messy business regulations that the Republicans have been telling us were not really needed.

Did Obama get elected already, or are the Republicans in charge here? I was under the impression that Republicans always felt a 'hands-off' approach was good for business.

Am I missing a double standard here, or did the Republicans in the White House just head off in the "Nationalization of Private Industry" direction? Thought that's what the Democracts were always being blamed for.

EDIT: BTW, do we all get to go to the shareholder's meetings now?
After all, all of us taxpayers are now part owners, right?

Just asking, as a Devil's Advocate, mind you. Arrrrrrr (Pirate Day)

BTW, SOMEONE is going to have to foot the bill for all these bailouts, aren't they? Or do we just print more dollars to cover it?

My opinion on who does what:
1. Democracts = Tax and Spend.
2. Republicans = Borrow and Spend.

Common element here is that they BOTH spend.

The main difference is that Democracts believe in raising taxes to COVER the expenditures. Of course, if they win the White House, they'll HAVE to raise taxes in order to cover the Trillion dollar debt being run up by the current "PEOPLE IN POWER". That's ok, of course, because the Republicans can blame raising taxes on the Democracts, while the Democracts will be blaming the HUGE debt on the Republicans.

Dems will raise taxes to try to clear out this debit, and in either 4 or 8 years, Rep's will win the WH back because of all those high taxes which THEY can cut by cutting spending, etc.

And another cycle ensues........

Why isn't Lou Dobbs running for President? He seems to be the only guy with a clue.

Of course, once I become Evil Overlord of the World, things'll work much more smoothly.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate" here for a moment, looks very much like the Republicans have decided (read "White House") to take over private businesses that have gone (or were going to go) belly-up due to that lack of all those messy business regulations that the Republicans have been telling us were not really needed.

Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

This is true. Heck Pelosi was not taking any heat as the Democratically controlled Congress let this amount to a hill of trouble. Furthermore, her own daughter would not answer yes or no when question if Palin winning the VP slot would help women.

Anyway, the 95% of the middle class tax cuts sounds great on the surface. Tax those that make over $250,000.00 per year. This figures to about 80 trillion dollars. Obamas plans need about 150 trillion. Were does he propose to make up the difference?

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Anyway, the 95% of the middle class tax cuts sounds great on the surface. Tax those that make over $250,000.00 per year. This figures to about 80 trillion dollars. Obamas plans need about 150 trillion. Were does he propose to make up the difference?

He he, I understand he has shares in a bridge in Alaska that he'd like to sell, probably to someone in Brooklyn. :rotfl:

Originally Posted by August

Sorry to cut off the rest of your post but it is based on a flawed premise. The Administration does not decide any of this. They can propose things but it is Congress that provides bailouts (or not). Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

We must be in different worlds:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news...ion=2008091910

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday outlined a series of far-reaching steps - likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars - aimed at stemming a widening financial crisis that is roiling the financial markets and undermining confidence in the banking system.

"We must act now to protect our nation's economic health from serious risk," Bush said at a White House press conference. "There will be ample opportunity to discuss the origins of this problems. Now is the time to solve it."

"This is no time for partisanship," Bush added. "We need to move urgently needed legislation as quickly as possible without adding controversial provisions that could delay action."

Now, I could be wrong here, but unless Bush changed parties recently, that's the Republicans running this show.

Hate to say it, but this will leave the government with a HUGE debit.
Worth it? Some say yes, the alternative would have been worse.
Probably.

But the better solution would have been for better regulation to PREVENT this in the first place.

"An ounce of prevention...." as it were.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

We must be in different worlds:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news...ion=2008091910

Now, I could be wrong here, but unless Bush changed parties recently, that's the Republicans running this show.

Read it again Z. They're just talking about a proposal to Congress. Congress is free to tell them to get stuffed if they want to.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zayphod

Who was in charge of Congress when the earlier bailouts were proposed?
Who proposed them?
Who approved them?

Oops missed this first part

It depends on which ones you're talking about. The Chrysler bailout in 1979 for example was during a Democrat presidency and a Democrat controlled congress. The Dems controlled congress all through the Reagan and Bush Sr years and lost control iirc during Clintons second term. The Republicans controlled Congress from then until half way through Bush's 2nd term (2006).

Originally Posted by August

Oops missed this first part

It depends on which ones you're talking about. The Chrysler bailout in 1979 for example was during a Democrat presidency and a Democrat controlled congress. The Dems controlled congress all through the Reagan and Bush Sr years and lost control iirc during Clintons second term. The Republicans controlled Congress from then until half way through Bush's 2nd term (2006).

Understood.
Who was suggesting the Savings and Loan bailouts then?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last 2 years.

Almost correct.

Only one part has been controlled by the Democrats.

The Democrats have a 53% majority in the House of Representatives.

The Senate is tied at 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two independents.

For the purposes of determining the majority party for the purpose of assigning majority and minority positions, the rules of the Senate allow an independent to side with one side or another if they agree to caucus with the party. In this case it is Senator Lieberman.

However, this procedure of allowing an independent to caucus is not the same as a party having a majority in the Senate.

For all practical legislative purposes the Senate is tied 49-49-2

If the two independents would not agree to caucus with one of the parties, the rules of the Senate would then consider the Vice President (as the President of the Senate) and count the President of the Senate for the purposes of determining the majority party for selecting Senatorial offices. In this case, since Vice President Cheney is a Republican, the Senate would be considered to have a Republican majority.

However it is most important to know the difference between a majority party and a party with a majority. In the Senate the difference is important. This current Senate is one of the uncommon ones where one party is the majority party but does not have a majority.

This could only happen in the US.

There are many things that can be blamed on the Democratic Senators but being in the Majority for the past two years aint one of them.