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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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

Plutocracy. I name it that time and again.

In all the West, societies are run on spendings that are beyond what they can afford, but probably nowheere else this trend is as exessive as in the US. Also, in no other Western countries, private persons cared so little for saving money and put it aside, which is said to tend against zero for the avergae consumer in the US and is one of the causes for the crash of the mortgage market. And inside Wetsern socieities, distribution patterns of the wealth that gets created by the nation'S economy, are questionable, as are the spendings of the state himself, too. All this is not unique for america, it is trends you see in all the West (and the industrialised Asian nations as well, and in South america). but man of these symptoms I see nowhere practices as exessively as in the US.

Therefore it seems not america is the problem allowing these things to happen, but the system itself. America is just the most obvious symptom.

For the immidiate future, I have some suggestion for a major cure:

1. decision makers and managers must be held legally liable for their performqance, and they must compensate with their private property if they do damage. It cannot be that they raise their income even when a company is declining, and get payed for another full year after they got fired by being talked out of the position, and risk nothing when failing and doing damage. Managers should lead by example setting, and they should be as responsible as the single worker is held respnisble. But when Joe Average messes up some minor thing, he opften is at risk to loose his job, but when a boss fails, he gets complimented out (if that), and even gets a golden handshake. That is obscene.

2. Hedge fonds and comparable constuctions must be forbiddden.

3. Financial investement fonds of any kind must be regulated in that way that it is being made impossible that they just may do so to financially cripple a healthy victim, then leave it behind and take the cream with them. This is major criminal behavior in my book, and qualifies as fraud, and it also qualifies for something one could call "treachery against the nation and the public good." It is practicing like the Mafia, and economists and bankers doing so must be considered gangsters.

4. The economic goal of unlimited growth must be replaced with a less psychopathologic goal, that is dynamic stability (there are always microfluctuations), sustainability, and a working balance of "taking not more than one gives back, or naturally gets replaced". Assumed unlimited growth of property prices was what created the mortage crisis, and the same assumptions makes nations spend more than what they can afford, and being badly prepared, usually, for times of economic stagnation. Nowhere in the world you'll find something, anything, that always points upwards and moves upward only, that simply is a megalomaniac hallucination.

5. Goods and items that a country can produce in comparable quality itself, should not be traded around the world. Trade should focus on exchnage of products and items that the receiver does not have or cannot produce himself. Just common sense, I would say. - Trading military equipment, military technology and weapons of warfare must be banned and forbidden. Violation of this law must be deterred by implementing death sentence.

6. As little state regulation as possible, but as much as is needed to guard public good against economy's egoism. That makes a strict separation between politics and economcs vital and inevitable. the people is not there to serve the interest of the economy, but the economy is there to fulfill the needs of the people. Of course, we do not have that separation, indeed what we have is a weave or a sleaze that can't be disentangled anymore - consider that to be one major reason for the problems we have. Having a public mandate and being member of a board of directors do not work well together, it creates a conflict of interests. That includes the time before and after holding public offices. Which means that a family engaged in economics should be banned from working in politics. - The suicidal ammount of lobbyism we have today, also needs to be killed. Lobbyism may be fine for the ordeirng company, but when it is lobbying against public interest, it becomes a crime against public good.

7. We must understand that the public good and the natural environment puts limit's to individual freedoms. That includes the freedom to have the free maximum choice. Being able not to choose between 300 different car models, but just between 30, is okay and no crime against humanity or a crusade against freedom.

8. Technical improvements with one item category that a company invented, and that are for the public good and the ecological advantage as well, must become obligatory for rivalling companies within a given time frame. In Japan, the hightech business already has implemented that as a rule, and it serves them damn well and raises their general technological standard. After that, wanting to choose the inferior option comopares to do damage to the public good. Eliminating the freedom to choose for that damage is aceptable and a limitation of personal freedom that must not be made big fuss of. Personal freedom ends where one starts to damage the freedom or legitimate interests of others.

And here I start to stray off, so.... eject....

My general suggestion is that both the environmental and the market issues cannot be solved by just pressing a button here or fixing a loose thing there. We need to realise that we are in need of such an ammount of simultaneous, mutually depending fixings that we can talk of a more or less replacement of the system itself. A market model that bases on egoism, just gives you that: general egoism everywhere. Ain't that a logical consequence!?

And unregulated liberal market? Well, the current crisis w ehave - is the direct, logcail result of just that philosophy. It simply does not work as intended. It is as unreasonable as a philosphy of a state-run economy with five-year plans. the latter shows it'S deficits relatively fast. The first takes more time, but does as much damage as well. Both must be considered to be of equal destructiveness, but unfolding on different time scales.

I do not expect my suggestions to happen. And that's why I see grim future prospects ahead for the coming generations, even even for the current ones. The future in reality will see the fusion of companies and their taking over of power from politics, politics as a separate class and process simply dissappearing in them. We already are in the process of such a transformation, with the EU and the US leading the way, but you see that layout in principle in the Japanese economy and it'S interaction with the party system after WWII as well. Nationality will be replaced by corporation membership, so to speak. future corporations will be few, and will be of a size we still do not dare to think off - and right we are to fear them, since their power will be beyond any countercontrol, and without any democratic or other political legitimation. Science Fiction holds some drafts of such futures that very well may become a reality. And most of such drafts show no pleasant realities at all.

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Skybird is once again voting for Communism I see. No surprise there.

-S

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.

I want to start using the patented SUBMAN1 approach to handle everyday situations from now on.

"Sir, I pulled you over because you didn't come to a complete stop at that intersection."
"Sounds a little bit like COMMUNISM to me!"

"We forgot to pick up milk on the way home."
"A little late for that, isn't it... COMRADE?"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

I don't particularly agree with all of his points, but calling his proposal communism is quite a stretch.

For some Americans - for some - everything not being themselves, or being located outside "american borders" (a phrase almost meaningless in that kind of thinking) is communism, socialism, Democrats, liberals, girlies, gays, nazis, environmentalists, French, Russians, cowards, whiners and atheists - all rolled into one! There is only America and anti-american - now beware ! - Evil !

In that company, terms and labels do not mean anything anymore, and thus can be mixed at will - it still is the same being said everytime. Terms and labels just get sorted into two groups: true American, and - let'S tempt Saint Lucifer himself - Evil !

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For some Americans - for some - everything not being themselves or being located outside "american borders" (a phrase almost meaningless in that kind of thinking) is communism, socialism, Democrats, liberals, girlies, gays, nazis, environmentalists, French, Russians, cowards, whiners and atheists - all rolled into one! There is only America and anti-american - now beware ! - Evil !

In that company, terms and labels do not mean anything anymore, and thus can be mixed at will - it stil is the same being said everytime. Terms and labels just get sorted into two groups: true American, and - let'S tempt Saint Lucifer himself - Evil !

id say that pretty much described Subman1
if you dont see eye to eye with him, you're a commie

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?