Obama didn't rise from nothing. He didn't come straight out of the ghetto, no matter how he tries to speak that way when it suits the audience. Silver spoon all the way to the top. Now if you're a stoner and a cokehead and you make it to the presidency, you had something going for you--a lot of people. To quote Obama, "You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
We need to protect the most vulnerable in society that will need help under any economic system. Some of the next tier up need to get to work and stop feeling entitled to the hard work of others, and some at the very top need to stop thinking their success is only due to hard work and brains.
Ignoring a lot of other issues, the whole concept of this thread has at its core the idea that someone else has a better and more efficient/valuable use of the money than the current owner of it. Sometimes that is true, but on the other hand, I trust Bill Gates a lot more to put his money to work in a productive way than handing 25% over to Uncle Sam or the lower class. There is nothing wrong with one person having more than $3 million, particularly when the sum of their assets are being put to more productive uses than an alternative owner of those assets.
canspo wrote:
We need to protect the most vulnerable in society that will need help under any economic system. Some of the next tier up need to get to work and stop feeling entitled to the hard work of others, and some at the very top need to stop thinking their success is only due to hard work and brains.
Ignoring a lot of other issues, the whole concept of this thread has at its core the idea that someone else has a better and more efficient/valuable use of the money than the current owner of it. Sometimes that is true, but on the other hand, I trust Bill Gates a lot more to put his money to work in a productive way than handing 25% over to Uncle Sam or the lower class. There is nothing wrong with one person having more than $3 million, particularly when the sum of their assets are being put to more productive uses than an alternative owner of those assets.
Good post. As I said before, the richest should be charitable. But there should also be much more accountability when people get a "hand up." There are too many hand-outs for the sole political purpose of buying votes. Most of America's so-called "poor" have no concept of the real poverty in other countries. When you have a roof over your head, a car, a big TV with cable, and a cell phone, you're considered rich in many countries. In my wife's hometown in Southeast Asia, if you have more than a scooter to get you to the market, you're really well-off.
canspo wrote:
There is nothing wrong with one person having more than $3 million, particularly when the sum of their assets are being put to more productive uses than an alternative owner of those assets.
How so?
Shawn H wrote:
Oh, yeah wrote:Why $3 million? Why not 4, or 2, or 1, or .1?
The problem with this thinking is that today it is $3M, tomorrow $2M, and so on, until they get everybody.
We are taxed MORE than enough. The problems are waste, fraud, and abuse, including corruption. What can be done about these various things, without throwing the country into chaos, is the question.
People these days are afraid to get a bloody nose, and that is the problem. Americans are wimps.
You are so right. Many of the "millionaires and billionaires" Obama has talked about in the past are small business owners who really don't make that much and who are responsible for the majority of jobs in America. And socialists are never happy as long as someone has "too much" in their eyes, so yes, if things get bad enough they will start looking at anyone who makes $500,000, $300,00, $200,000 and so on. That's how we got the so-called "progressive income tax." A flat tax would be fair, but socialists don't want fair--they want equal outcomes regardless of work ethic, talent and intelligence. But of course the socialists at the top, like the millionaire Obamas, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et. al are never talking about themselves or their celebrity friends or the big business cronies who contribute to their campaigns. And many in the GOP are just as bad. They talk the talk, but they NEVER walk the walk. The walk is just for you and me, the underlings and the "useful idiots" who will keep on voting for them.
What a load. Reducing liberalism to the idea of equal outcomes for all is like reducing conservatism to hating homosexuals and women. It's an extremely lazy and faulty premise to take a stance from.
breit leight wrote:
Shawn H wrote:You are so right. Many of the "millionaires and billionaires" Obama has talked about in the past are small business owners who really don't make that much and who are responsible for the majority of jobs in America. And socialists are never happy as long as someone has "too much" in their eyes, so yes, if things get bad enough they will start looking at anyone who makes $500,000, $300,00, $200,000 and so on. That's how we got the so-called "progressive income tax." A flat tax would be fair, but socialists don't want fair--they want equal outcomes regardless of work ethic, talent and intelligence. But of course the socialists at the top, like the millionaire Obamas, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et. al are never talking about themselves or their celebrity friends or the big business cronies who contribute to their campaigns. And many in the GOP are just as bad. They talk the talk, but they NEVER walk the walk. The walk is just for you and me, the underlings and the "useful idiots" who will keep on voting for them.
What a load. Reducing liberalism to the idea of equal outcomes for all is like reducing conservatism to hating homosexuals and women. It's an extremely lazy and faulty premise to take a stance from.
But SOCIALISM to the idea of equal outcomes in not lazy; it's the essence of socialism. Look up liberalism, and one of the first definitions you will see is:
Definition of liberalism (n)
Bing Dictionary
lib·er·al·ism
[ líbbərə lìzzəm ]
1.progressive views: a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters
2.political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property
3.free-market economics: an economic theory in favor of free competition and minimal government regulation.
But does that sound like anything the liberal Democrat Party endorses? Especially the rejection of authoritarian government, property rights, free-market economics, and minimal government regulation? No, that's conservatism. But modern so-called "progressives" don't want those freedoms, at least not for the masses. The liberals, aka socialists at the top don't want any of that except for themselves. And that is not simplification. That's why socialism has failed everywhere and why it will fail if America keeps going down the same path.
You're not lazy because of the definitions of the words, you're lazy because you are attacking ideals that very few have and projecting it onto the democratic party. You're either an idiot for thinking that democrats on the whole believe in strictly equal outcomes or lazy for applying that idea to the whole party. I'm not sure which you fall in.
conservatives suck wrote:
People with at least $3 million in savings are already set for life and can live comfortably - they won't be bothered by it at all unless they are dangerously greedy. Use this money to improve infrastructure in poor areas.
great idea, provided that you - not the govt - are the one doing the taking, LOL. Losers who haven't made it in life - and never will - love to bitch about how unfair it is that someone else busted their arse, took some risks, and made a pile of $$. And I love to listen to losers bitch on my way to the bank..
conservatives suck wrote:
People with at least $3 million in savings are already set for life and can live comfortably - they won't be bothered by it at all unless they are dangerously greedy. Use this money to improve infrastructure in poor areas.
what happened to all those shovel ready infrastructure jobs Mullah Obama promised were being funded with hundreds of billions of taxpayer $$? What happened to the "stimulus" $$? Where did it go? Who has it? You haven't a clue, yet you bleat for govt to take more $$ and waste it. We're a nation of losers, clowns, ingrates, & dumbarses..
Roy D. Mercer wrote:
conservatives suck wrote:People with at least $3 million in savings are already set for life and can live comfortably - they won't be bothered by it at all unless they are dangerously greedy. Use this money to improve infrastructure in poor areas.
what happened to all those shovel ready infrastructure jobs Mullah Obama promised were being funded with hundreds of billions of taxpayer $$? What happened to the "stimulus" $$? Where did it go? Who has it? You haven't a clue, yet you bleat for govt to take more $$ and waste it. We're a nation of losers, clowns, ingrates, & dumbarses..
He's a troll you conservative moron
"Anybody that runs faster than a 20:00 5k should have to wear a weight vest until they are slowed down to the 20min mark."
That is what you are saying.
breight leight wrote:
You're not lazy because of the definitions of the words, you're lazy because you are attacking ideals that very few have and projecting it onto the democratic party. You're either an idiot for thinking that democrats on the whole believe in strictly equal outcomes or lazy for applying that idea to the whole party. I'm not sure which you fall in.
You're right. Glad to hear that you're one of the few members of the old Democrat Party, as opposed to the new socialist one.
If you really want to stop people from accumulating excessive wealth, the solution is to levy higher taxes on estates and cut income taxes. That would encourage individuals to retire sooner, thereby opening doors for younger generations. It would also allow for more talented individuals to succeed rather than those who simply inherit family money.
I'm not sure about the OPs idea, but can't we have a consistent tax rate for all? If you work at a job then you pay a percentage of what you make, and it's the same for everybody? The current tax rules are too complicated.
Shawn H wrote:
breit leight wrote:What a load. Reducing liberalism to the idea of equal outcomes for all is like reducing conservatism to hating homosexuals and women. It's an extremely lazy and faulty premise to take a stance from.
But SOCIALISM to the idea of equal outcomes in not lazy; it's the essence of socialism. Look up liberalism, and one of the first definitions you will see is:
Definition of liberalism (n)
Bing Dictionary
lib·er·al·ism
[ líbbərə lìzzəm ]
1.progressive views: a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters
2.political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property
3.free-market economics: an economic theory in favor of free competition and minimal government regulation.
But does that sound like anything the liberal Democrat Party endorses? Especially the rejection of authoritarian government, property rights, free-market economics, and minimal government regulation? No, that's conservatism. But modern so-called "progressives" don't want those freedoms, at least not for the masses. The liberals, aka socialists at the top don't want any of that except for themselves. And that is not simplification. That's why socialism has failed everywhere and why it will fail if America keeps going down the same path.
Let me see if I've got this straight.
1) 'breit leight' pointed out what a load of shit (more politely - an extremely lazy and faulty premise to take a stance from) was being propounded.
2) You come back with, 'well yeah, let's look at some definitions and then revert back to the same load of shit'
Got that about right?
TRex's 'point' makes me puke. Athletes don't make a dime because they're great athletes - they're wealthy because they're great entertainers and in huge demand to do just that - entertain. Companies sponsor the entertainment & the sheeple buy their products because they all wanna be like Jordan or Lebron or Manning.. If you feel this is unfair & that the govt should be even more coercively involved in picking winners & punishing success through redistribution, then I'm assuming you're willing to give away all the wealth you 'unfairly' allegedly inherited by marrying that hot rich wife of yours, right? You didn't work for that $$, so give it up to the poor teacher or senior - and get back to us when you do...
Roy D. Mercer wrote:
TRex's 'point' makes me puke. Athletes don't make a dime because they're great athletes - they're wealthy because they're great entertainers and in huge demand to do just that - entertain. Companies sponsor the entertainment & the sheeple buy their products because they all wanna be like Jordan or Lebron or Manning.. If you feel this is unfair & that the govt should be even more coercively involved in picking winners & punishing success through redistribution, then I'm assuming you're willing to give away all the wealth you 'unfairly' allegedly inherited by marrying that hot rich wife of yours, right? You didn't work for that $$, so give it up to the poor teacher or senior - and get back to us when you do...
You forgot to use the word, 'libtard'. However, you did use 'sheeple' so you get partial credit for that. Your post can be taken somewhat seriously - perhaps with a grain of salt.
Next time try to use the word, 'libtard' if you want to be taken seriously.