The shifting of wealth

Everyone already knows that the wealthy keep the poor alive through progressive taxation anyway. I just don't want the situation to get even more out of hand than it already is.

And why isn't anyone calling for reduced gov't spending? Imagine if the president called for a massive decrease in spending (like 80% over ten years)? Think of all the taxes we could decrease then. The whole concept of government as its own industry makes me sick.

Hey Lance-a-lot

Let me give you a simple math problem. You and your neighbors all have various jobs with annual pay. Pick the scenario you prefer most.

A. You make $400,000, and your neighbors make $600,000.

B. You make $175,000, and your neighbors make $125,000.

C. You and your neighbors all make $60,000.

Carnivore 69 wrote:

Hey Lance-a-lot

Let me give you a simple math problem. You and your neighbors all have various jobs with annual pay. Pick the scenario you prefer most.

A. You make $400,000, and your neighbors make $600,000.

B. You make $175,000, and your neighbors make $125,000.

C. You and your neighbors all make $60,000.

depends on where your tax rate is

might be more take home with scenario B than either choice in A if BO gets his way.

americans brought it all on themselves by embracing the idea that profit=evil. but profit will still exist folks--just privately, while debt becomes public.

xlev2 wrote:americans brought it all on themselves by embracing the idea that profit=evil. but profit will still exist folks--just privately, while debt becomes public.

I've always been under the assumption that Americans believed profit is all that matters. Really, what's the truth of the matter? And where's the proof?

me no read gringo wrote:

Everyone already knows that the wealthy keep the poor alive through progressive taxation anyway.

Have you ever counted the number of the wealthy and the number of the poor?

The gov't exists to keep the wealthy alive.

Unbridled self interest is your retard neighbor shooting your ass because he likes your Mercedes...

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

And I am sure you think poor = lazy, right? ESPECIALLY "poor black", right?

You're bringing up race a lot here, as is typical with the liberals in control of congress. No one previously mentioned anything of the like.

tommy h-

What else would you suggest? Do you truly not believe in any form of self-control? Should everyone be pumping out babies as fast as they can?

Refute this statement: If you cannot provide for a child, you should not be having one.

Please refute.

xlev2,Explain to me how, with the progressive tax system we have today, you could ever have more take home pay at $175,000 in annual income than with $400,000 in annual income. I would love to hear the explanation. Thanks.

xlev2 wrote:

A. You make $400,000, and your neighbors make $600,000.

B. You make $175,000, and your neighbors make $125,000.

C. You and your neighbors all make $60,000.

------------------

depends on where your tax rate is

might be more take home with scenario B than either choice in A if BO gets his way.

me no read gringo wrote:

Everyone already knows that the wealthy keep the poor alive through progressive taxation anyway. I just don't want the situation to get even more out of hand than it already is.

And why isn't anyone calling for reduced gov't spending? Imagine if the president called for a massive decrease in spending (like 80% over ten years)? Think of all the taxes we could decrease then. The whole concept of government as its own industry makes me sick.

No, the poor keep the wealthy sitting pretty with their back breaking work. When they try to unionize and get a fair share of the profits from their labors, the rich cry bloody murder.

Also laughing pretty hard at the guy who thinks 400,000 could ever bring home less than 175k.

Moes Tavern wrote:

Bingo.

me no read gringo wrote:

Funny how the proponents of socialism are always the ones who stand to benefit the most by screwing over the rich guy. It comes down to getting votes in poor areas every time.

Truly productive people don't believe in socialism; they are too busy changing the world to worry about being a parasite off of someone else's efforts.

Socialists are germs that attack you when you are most productive and most successful. They wait to see who the winners are and then try to (legally) steal from them. They don't think; they loot. They believe in the fixed pie instead of the expanding pie that benefits everyone. In fact, they often cause the pie to shrink, hurting themselves as well as others.

Socialism is only one step away from fascism and totalitarianism - do not forget that.

Just when I think the posters here could never be more ignorant of history, or more ignorant in general, I'm proven wrong. Apparently all you need to be a conservative is a lack of an ability to absorb facts or truth. You guys need to push back from the keyboard, put your tinfoil hats back on, buy some more tea to hang from your ears and go out to some town square to hang with the rest of the morons.

Better yet, move to a glorious successful society like Hong Kong that adheres to your "f**k everyone just give me the money" moral values. By your sick definitions Jesus was a socialist. I'm sure people with your moral values were the ones that nailed him to the cross.

dbag patrol wrote:

tommy h-

What else would you suggest? Do you truly not believe in any form of self-control? Should everyone be pumping out babies as fast as they can?

Refute this statement: If you cannot provide for a child, you should not be having one.

Please refute.

wait a second -- so you DO think we should be more like communist china???

i'm surprised that the anti-socialism crowd is made up of commies.

tommy- Simply refute that statement. That's all I asked.

Clearly you can't. But unless you're a moron, I have to assume that you don't understand the statement. I said nothing about keeping people from having them. They can have them all they want; but they're then on the hook to provide for them.

So, again. Refute the following statement:

"If you cannot provide for a child, you should not be having one."

yes professor, of course if you cannot provide for a child you should not be having one.

i was just making fun of you for getting all worked up in your earlier post.

merry xmas!

dbag patrol wrote:

tommy- Simply refute that statement. That's all I asked.

Clearly you can't. But unless you're a moron, I have to assume that you don't understand the statement. I said nothing about keeping people from having them. They can have them all they want; but they're then on the hook to provide for them.

So, again. Refute the following statement:

"If you cannot provide for a child, you should not be having one."

There's nothing to refute in your statement because it's incomplete, simplistic, and like everything else conservative ignorant of the consequences.

Of course people shouldn't have children if they cant afford them. But saying " I said nothing about keeping people from having them. " is a load of BS. It's typical conservative hogwash and a cop out.

Conservatives, since they have teeny little brains, glom on to simplistic banter which other ignorant fools flock to. COnservatives are a bunch of pussies that lack the ability to make an intellectually challenging choice. Let's look at your statement in detail.

I said nothing about keeping people from having them. Being a gutless wonder, of course you didn't. You suggested a stupid, simplistic solution without thinking about it one second. If you had a brain, you would have discussed that point because without it your other statement has no meaning.

They can have them all they want; but they're then on the hook to provide for them.So what are your choices then, hmmm? Is it your creed that it's OK to just let children die because they're parents aren't industrious? Should people be allowed to abandon or simply kill their children when their economic circumstances change? Exactly what SHOULD happen when people cannot provide for themselves or their children? Spell that out, in detail, or STFU you spineless wimp.

keith Stone wrote:

They can have them all they want; but they're then on the hook to provide for them.So what are your choices then, hmmm? Is it your creed that it's OK to just let children die because they're parents aren't industrious? Should people be allowed to abandon or simply kill their children when their economic circumstances change? Exactly what SHOULD happen when people cannot provide for themselves or their children? Spell that out, in detail, or STFU you spineless wimp.

do you not know who charles darwin is? survival of the fittest? are you retarded? do you even have a 5th grade education?

if someone can't provide for them or their children, they will eventually die. but it's their own fault, because they are lazy. I don't feel sorry for them really.

someonestolemyname wrote:do you not know who charles darwin is? survival of the fittest? are you retarded? do you even have a 5th grade education?

if someone can't provide for them or their children, they will eventually die. but it's their own fault, because they are lazy. I don't feel sorry for them really.

Of course I know who Charles Darwin is. I will point out that conservatives were the people that fought against Darwin, and prosecuted people for promoting his theories.

In any case thank you for proving my point by having the guts to admit the true conservative philosophy. When conservatives politicians stand up admit the truth" someone can't provide for them or their children, they will eventually die. but it's their own fault, because they are lazy. I don't feel sorry for them really." then progress will really be made.

Three pages in, and not one of you can name a situation where socialism has worked well. Give it up.

dumbass liberals wrote:Three pages in, and not one of you can name a situation where socialism has worked well. Give it up.

The interstate system.

Point of Order:

Because you took 2-3 economics classes (maybe even 5...is that a minor), that does not qualify you to give an expert opinion on economics in any form.

Apart from that, there are few governments that have had a great deal of poor (no hope kind of) populations and survived.

A government's greatness, IMHO, comes in balancing the needs of the many--not necessarily equally--but closer than the US is right now.