L L wrote:
When Warren Buffet wants restructure taxes to take more from high earners is it envy?
Buffet doesn't want to pay higher taxes. He want to appease the people who hate him.
L L wrote:
When Warren Buffet wants restructure taxes to take more from high earners is it envy?
Buffet doesn't want to pay higher taxes. He want to appease the people who hate him.
The left correctly realises that an unregulated free market rewards power and privilege far more than it does talent or hard work, and that you cannot have a succesful society that does not reward everybody, not just the elite, for their contributions.
LSL wrote:
?
Shut up and give me your money!
exthrower wrote:
genuine random a hole wrote:OP,
The left does not vilify success. Next question.
You seem to be morally challenged....Remember liberals attacking Romney for being successful?
I've come to the conclusion that most liberals are closet commies....
They are just furious and outraged that the World isn't 'fair/equal'....
Shows their naivete/immaturity..
Liberals, including Obama, are okay with killing babies who survive botched abortions. Disgusting, yes? Yes, they are okay denying aid to surviving babies. Obama has voted in favor of infanticide. You want to be part of that party? I sure don't!
le veritable wrote:
The left correctly realises that an unregulated free market rewards power and privilege far more than it does talent or hard work, and that you cannot have a succesful society that does not reward everybody, not just the elite, for their contributions.
Yes. Because everyone knows that making a bunch of rules makes things more meritocratic. Just look at Russia for a good example.
spade detector wrote:
Typical tactic of the right, when you have no ability to attack liberal policies, make up a liberal belief and attack it instead.
But but but rich guys!!!!!!!!! wrote:
They mistakenly believe that wealth creation is a zero sum game. They think of salaries like an allowance that daddy hands out from a fixed pot. If someone gets more, that must mean that someone else is getting less.
What they don't take into account is that when a financier invests in a successful company, they have helped to create wealth where there was none before.
Moreover, they tend to confuse economic worth with worth as a human being. The idea that different people have wildly different contributions to the process of wealth creation makes them really uncomfortable.
That...didn't take long.
exthrower wrote:
.Remember liberals attacking Romney for being successful?
I've come to the conclusion that most liberals are closet commies....
They are just furious and outraged that the World isn't 'fair/equal'....
Shows their naivete/immaturity..
I do not remember people attacking Romney for being successful.
Cite examples.
I do remember people inquiring why his effective tax rate was lower than many people who received compensation for their services but made much less money.
To the OP:As mentioned, you have created an attack on a perceived, but untrue, belief. "The left" does not vilify success. Indeed, all people having the ability to pursue success is one of the founding principles of this country. I have been quite successful, personally, and I want to see every person in this country have the opportunity to do so if he or she is willing to work for it. But we don't have that in our country. We have that ideal. We LOVE that idea. We'll trot out every rags to riches story we can find to show that that ideal is still alive and well. But the statistics show otherwise. The most important factor for determining one's income and wealth is parental income and wealth. I'm not saying this is a bad thing: I've set up trusts for my kids, I have good life insurance, etc etc. What I and others like me do not like is the way money has come to rule politics and has completely overrun our political system. Again, one of the founding principles of our government was that every person, no matter their wealth or lack thereof, gets the same say in how the government is run. But we all know that is most certainly not true. Which brings me to this guy's comment:
But but but rich guys!!!!!!!!! wrote:
Moreover, they tend to confuse economic worth with worth as a human being. The idea that different people have wildly different contributions to the process of wealth creation makes them really uncomfortable.
On the contrary! The only people I've ever encountered living by this are wealthy conservatives. The current day wealthy conservatives are the ones rigging the system so that economic worth does indeed determine one's worth as a human being for governmental purposes. You want something done in the government? You better be able to pay for it. You pay enough for it, you get it. The amount of money being pumped into campaigns by large companies looking only to make it easier for their company to make more money is sickening. And let's be clear, they are NOT trying to make the country better or make the lives of their employees better. They are trying to set up a system where they can make more money, which allows them to pay more money to politicians, so that laws and financial regulations and environmental regulations can be skirted or removed, so they can make more money.
I don't vilify success. I vilify those who would use their success to ensure that only THEY are successful. That is exactly what we have seen happen over the past 15 years or so.
wealth inequality in America is growing
An actual response wrote:
To the OP:
As mentioned, you have created an attack on a perceived, but untrue, belief. "The left" does not vilify success. Indeed, all people having the ability to pursue success is one of the founding principles of this country. I have been quite successful, personally, and I want to see every person in this country have the opportunity to do so if he or she is willing to work for it.
But we don't have that in our country. We have that ideal. We LOVE that idea. We'll trot out every rags to riches story we can find to show that that ideal is still alive and well. But the statistics show otherwise. The most important factor for determining one's income and wealth is parental income and wealth. I'm not saying this is a bad thing: I've set up trusts for my kids, I have good life insurance, etc etc.
What I and others like me do not like is the way money has come to rule politics and has completely overrun our political system. Again, one of the founding principles of our government was that every person, no matter their wealth or lack thereof, gets the same say in how the government is run. But we all know that is most certainly not true. Which brings me to this guy's comment:
But but but rich guys!!!!!!!!! wrote:Moreover, they tend to confuse economic worth with worth as a human being. The idea that different people have wildly different contributions to the process of wealth creation makes them really uncomfortable.
On the contrary! The only people I've ever encountered living by this are wealthy conservatives. The current day wealthy conservatives are the ones rigging the system so that economic worth does indeed determine one's worth as a human being for governmental purposes. You want something done in the government? You better be able to pay for it. You pay enough for it, you get it. The amount of money being pumped into campaigns by large companies looking only to make it easier for their company to make more money is sickening. And let's be clear, they are NOT trying to make the country better or make the lives of their employees better. They are trying to set up a system where they can make more money, which allows them to pay more money to politicians, so that laws and financial regulations and environmental regulations can be skirted or removed, so they can make more money.
I don't vilify success. I vilify those who would use their success to ensure that only THEY are successful. That is exactly what we have seen happen over the past 15 years or so.
This ^
Well said, Sir.
I should clarify something in my above post:
When I referred to "wealthy conservatives" I should have referred to "superwealthy conservatives." E.g. the Koch brothers of the world. Not Mr Smith down the street who has worked hard as a local business owner to make a good living, and who happens to be a conservative.
Actually, those superwealthy people who are truly distorting the system with obscene amounts of money aren't really conservatives. They use that stance to try to gain popular support for their policy-buying.
liberals are very closed minded and mean people. They hate you and they HATE AMERICA.
That's why.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
I take it you are referring to the Citicorp crooks who bribed the right wing poliicians into gutting the Dodd-Frank provisions that would keep them from 'successfully' lining their pockets at the expense of the American economy?
Gee, I'm not sure why the left are the only ones to villify them. Maybe because the left is smarter?
LSL wrote:
Typical tactic of the left: when you have no ability to attack the message, attack the messenger.
You flatter yourself.
Do you really think that anyone who disagrees with right wing politics 'vilifies success'? Like many of my fellow left wingers, I work hard to pursue success at the things I value. I've taught my kids t do the same. I just happen to think that most right wing politicians over-value economic profit, are prone to exploit the poor, and under-appreciate externalities like damage to the environment.
Not a liberal wrote:
exthrower wrote:You seem to be morally challenged....Remember liberals attacking Romney for being successful?
I've come to the conclusion that most liberals are closet commies....
They are just furious and outraged that the World isn't 'fair/equal'....
Shows their naivete/immaturity..
Liberals, including Obama, are okay with killing babies who survive botched abortions. Disgusting, yes? Yes, they are okay denying aid to surviving babies. Obama has voted in favor of infanticide. You want to be part of that party? I sure don't!
Is this true?
I'm a liberal. Like 90% of liberals I believe in liberty, equal opportunities, civil rights, freedom of religious views, press freedom, free trade, a healthy environment and private enterprise. That's what liberalism means.
Entrepreneurship built America and should continue to do so, however it's hampered at every turn by over-regulation, high start-up costs, lack of financing, high taxes and lack of investment.
Tax avoidance by the rich and social security for the working poor are a huge burden on the middle-class. If the rich paid their fare share of taxes, and I'm not talking about tax increases, it would reduce the tax burden on the rest of us and encourage small business.
What many conservatives don't realize is where their taxes go. For instance, Walmart pays it's staff so little they have to claim social security just to feed their families. This means that you are subsidizing Walmart.
Increase the minimum wage and it will increase employment and reduce dependency on government handouts.
The first thing I would do if I became the Fuehrer of the USA would be to crack down on tax avoidance and abolish subsidies to big industries. That money would be used to reduce taxes on the middle-class and fund small small businesses including farmers.
That is a loaded question. Are you that stupid?
Randy Oldman wrote:
I'm a liberal. Like 90% of liberals I believe in liberty, equal opportunities, civil rights, freedom of religious views, press freedom, free trade, a healthy environment and private enterprise. That's what liberalism means.
You're using the above phrases without any ascribing ant firm meaning to them. "Liberty" means the right to one's unrestricted choice of action, and "free trade" is liberty in the context of economics, but by "equal opportunities" and "healthy environment," you mean you want laws that take opportunities away from some people in order to give them to others (based on race and sex) and forbid people to produce certain commodities and use certain methods of production, which are acts that directly undermine liberty and free trade. You do not actually believe in human freedom; like all leftists, you believe in a government empowered to controls our decisions, actions, and destinies.
Love of Lactate wrote:
You're using the above phrases without any ascribing ant firm meaning to them. "Liberty" means the right to one's unrestricted choice of action, and "free trade" is liberty in the context of economics, but by "equal opportunities" and "healthy environment," you mean you want laws that take opportunities away from some people in order to give them to others (based on race and sex) and forbid people to produce certain commodities and use certain methods of production, which are acts that directly undermine liberty and free trade. You do not actually believe in human freedom; like all leftists, you believe in a government empowered to controls our decisions, actions, and destinies.
I usually try to avoid ascribing ant farm meanings to my phrases. But I guess to each his own.
Also, the rest of your post is even more stupid.