that's never going to happen. the american dream is false if it means that everyone should expect to be super-rich at the expense of most of the rest of the country.

Quote :

"not to redistribute the money that they earned, or their parents earned, or their grandparents earned simply because other people dont have as much"

and we did just that for a large part of our most prosperous times in this country.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 2:18:57 PM

No one is hating the rich....but making ignorant comments like "The poor should get jobs" isn't going to help our country move forward in any way. No matter how much American dream shit you spill out, the truth of the matter is that each American is not afforded the same opportunities on a day to day basis.

1/31/2008 2:20:09 PM

Quote :

"you guys arent supposed to hate the rich and want to take their money because you're jealous of their situation and because not everybody is as rich as them you're supposed to use them as motivation for you to work harder and get rich like them THAT is the american dream not to redistribute the money that they earned, or their parents earned, or their grandparents earned simply because other people dont have as much"

or that they "earned" by using their massive wealth to put candidates it office that created favorable policies or contracts that they used to enrich themselves, thus helping maintain the existing economic and social order. People donate money to politicans to make themselves rich, not just keep themselves rich.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : /]

1/31/2008 2:21:20 PM

Quote :

"each American is not afforded the same opportunities on a day to day basis."

and they NEVER will...so whats your point...life isnt fair

1/31/2008 2:21:45 PM

Quote :

"life isnt fair"

neither are taxes

checkmate

1/31/2008 2:22:39 PM

i dont know why you wouldnt want POOR PEOPLE TO GET TAX CUTS

that shit baffles my mind

youre saying these people are at a disadvantage, dont have the same opportunities and benefits as the rich, etc, yet you dont want them to have to pay less taxes??

1/31/2008 2:23:06 PM

that's fine for poor people. rich people shouldn't get tax cuts.

1/31/2008 2:23:41 PM

Of course they never will, that's not my argument....my argument to you is to simply realize the fact. That how HARD you work in this country is not exactly a direct connection to the amount of financial success you have.

1/31/2008 2:24:04 PM

^^rich people shouldnt get tax cuts because you think they all inherited money?

rich people who go from rags to riches by working hard all their lives shouldnt get tax cuts?

doesn't sound like equality to me

Quote :

"HARD you work in this country is not exactly a direct connection to the amount of financial success you have."

no but hard work isnt going to hurt anybody's chances...hard work should still be encouraged...it beats the fuck out of apathy and laziness

1/31/2008 2:24:25 PM

Alright, whatever, its obvious that you equate lazy with poor, so there's no changing that.

But that isn't the case. Go to the ghetto and see how many people are just laying around all day. It will be a lot less than you think.

1/31/2008 2:27:02 PM

Quote :

"^^rich people shouldnt get tax cuts because you think they all inherited money? rich people who go from rags to riches by working hard all their lives shouldnt get tax cuts? doesn't sound like equality to me "

no they shouldn't. i feel that the rich owe it to the country that helped them become rich. not to mention, i think that the distribution of wealth shouldn't be wide.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 2:27:50 PM

Quote :

"its obvious that you equate lazy with poor,"

no its obvious that that particular ad hom is in response to the equally false ad hom that rich people are all equated with inheriting money and not working at all

Quote :

"the rich owe it to the country that helped them become rich."

how much do they owe? they already pay the vast majority of the country's taxes, and they've paid taxes to the country that helped them become rich over the years...what more do you want for them? should we have income ceilings? we dont live in your pseudo-communist society

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 2:28:46 PM

I've never once said anything about INHERITED wealth. I said that people are given certain opportunities for Advancement depending on the socio-economic status that they were born into.

1/31/2008 2:30:45 PM

^i agree with that, also please bear with me, i'm replying to multiple people at once

heres my thing...why do i want to be rich? what motivation is there for me to work hard and make a better life when i'm going to have to give most of it away to people who havent made a better life

also i'm sick of the copout of opportunities...every child in this country has the opportunity to go to school from kindergarten through 12th grade, study hard and do well enough to get a college scholarship or take out a student loan, work hard in college, graduate and get a job and do just fine

dont punish me by taking more of my hard earned money, just because they might not have had parents who cared enough to keep them on the straight and narrow

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 2:31:38 PM

Quote :

"also i'm sick of the copout of opportunities...every child in this country has the opportunity to go to school from kindergarten through 12th grade, study hard and do well enough to get a college scholarship or take out a student loan, work hard in college, graduate and get a job"

Your argument would be fine, would it be that all schools in our country are created equal and stimulate students at the same rate. But that is not the case.

There will always be a natural gap in classes in our society, but continuing to have tax cuts on such high incomes will only lead to a larger gap in wealth and will NOT benefit our economy.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM. Reason : s]

1/31/2008 2:37:58 PM

Quote :

"dont punish me by taking more of my hard earned money, just because they might not have had parents who cared enough to keep them on the straight and narrow "

we're not punishing you. you will never make the money that i'm talking about. 99.9% of america won't.

1/31/2008 2:48:50 PM

Quote :

"that's fine for poor people. rich people shouldn't get tax cuts. "

Wow, spoken like a true democrat. What else do you discriminate against?

Id love to hear your reasoning why someone should be able to keep more of their own money more than someone else. That is basically what you are saying. Which I couldnt disagree with you more.

1/31/2008 3:23:43 PM

okay. that's fine. i'm not trying to misrepresent myself. i believe in progressive taxation.

and my reasoning: the poor use a FAR greater percentage of their income simply to get by than the rich do.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 3:34:16 PM

We have a progressive tax system.

Making it more progressive would come at the expense of the economy.

There will always be a trade-off there, no matter what happened back in the 30's and 40's.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 3:57 PM. Reason : 2]

1/31/2008 3:57:12 PM

well, that's the exact opposite of what happened. so. . . and it wasn't just the 30s and 40s. the prosperity from those changes lasted through the 60s


[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 4:00:28 PM

There's a good article in the Washington Post last year that explained about Bush's tax cuts.....


The cuts reduced taxes for those earning 1.25 million or more a year by 4.6 percent, whereas the cuts for middle income families (56,000 or so) only saw about 2.9 percent.

Seems to me like it'd be reversed.

1/31/2008 4:06:23 PM

^^C'mon man. You seem like a smart guy. Don't argue an indefensible point just because it suits your political slant.

Raising taxes, particularly on the wealthy, typically hurts the economy. This is not rocket science. It's reality.

In the 30's and 40's, our economy had nowhere to go but up coming off the Great Depression. There were tax cuts in the late 50's and early 60's which spurred the economy. Under LBJ and the "Great Society" years, top tier income tax ballooned to, like 70%. If you recall, that contributed to a little thing called "stagflation". Reagan cut taxes across the board, and all the sudden we had a boom lasting a decade.

Taxes aren't the only factor in the economy, but they have a pretty big impact. To argue that raising taxes on the rich would benefit the economy is preposterous.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : 2]

1/31/2008 4:08:32 PM

so the 30 year boom is less important than the 80s boom (for the rich)?

Quote :

" Taxes aren't the only factor in the economy, but they have a pretty big impact. To argue that raising taxes on the rich would benefit the economy is preposterous."

but it did and has

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 4:14:15 PM

It's called "post-war expansion". Look it up sometime.

I'm gonna quote JFK real quick. You can take it up with him from here on out:

Quote :

"According to President John F. Kennedy: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. "

Now maybe you know more than JFK did back in the 60's. Maybe we should have kept tax rates ridiculously high, despite the fact that the economy took off and revenues DID increase in the long run after JFK's tax cuts. I don't know. Hmmm, I gotta think about this one.

Just stop, dude. It's ok to concede a point sometimes.

1/31/2008 4:28:02 PM

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but not at the expense of a balanced budget and basic investments in oversight and regulation (SEC, FTC, etc.), infrastructure, public safety, education, and a basic safety net. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw that line, but acting like giving up revenue is always a good idea is silly.

1/31/2008 4:29:26 PM

Quote :

"Maybe we should have kept tax rates ridiculously high, despite the fact that the economy took off and revenues DID increase in the long run after JFK's tax cuts."

so now you're proposing that the economy took off after jfk's tax cuts? which is it? post-war boom or tax cuts?

and to clarify: i'm not saying that we have to move to as drastic a change in our tax rates as in the 30s. but to blindly say that "taxes are bad, tax cuts are good" is just plain wrong.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 4:32:09 PM

I thought it was fairly obvious. We saw a huge post-war expansion throughout the 40's and 50's. As the economy slowed down under the burden of excessive taxation, JFK realized that it was necessary to cut taxes, which kept the economy afloat at a time when it was in danger of plunging into a recession.

At least that's the way I understand it.

Quote :

"but to blindly say that "taxes are bad, tax cuts are good" is just plain wrong."

& ^^, that's not what I am saying.

I will blindly say that generally speaking, "taxes are bad, tax cuts are good" with respect to the economy, a point that few economists would argue with.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : 2]

1/31/2008 4:35:04 PM

I think it is kind of pointless to debate economic policy espicially when it comes to taxes. People will always favor a policy that most benefits them currently or there future expected economic state. The one exception is heartfelt upper-middle class liberals who feel that the state has a duty to give handouts to the poor. 70% of which are poor b.c they are lazy, lack intelligence, or made their own bad decisions in life.

Rich people will always bitch about having to pay taxes for services that often have a net utilitarian benefit to society. Meanwhile poor people will always bitch that they should pay less but the rich should pay more. Part of this is jealous and the other part is they want more gov't programs to help them out while paying less. There is no perfect solution.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : a]

1/31/2008 4:47:16 PM

I would argue that good infrastructure and a skilled workforce are just as essential to the economy as competitive tax rates (and all are important).

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 4:49:18 PM

^exactly this is why i actually view taxes collected and distributed for the use of education as actually an investment in the economy. Same with infrastructure to allow the transportation of goods, people, and ideas.

1/31/2008 4:51:30 PM

Quote :

"you're supposed to use them as motivation for you to work harder step on people and get rich like them"

1/31/2008 5:12:37 PM

while i think ^that is clearly the exception and not the rule, oh well, step on some folks and don't get stepped on...life moves pretty fast...adapt to whats going on or you'll be the one getting stepped on

unless of course you have faith in politicians to make it right! hahaha yeah i didnt think so

1/31/2008 5:13:58 PM

1/31/2008 5:50:05 PM

I've been thinking about it a little and I decided I will no longer work with all the real numbers. It's just not fair that numbers can get as big as they want without bound. What about the little guy like 1/2 or 1/10? I mean we can't survive without fractions.

Nope, that's it from now on I'm just using [0,1] and that's that.

[end nerd rant/]

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 6:24:36 PM

maybe some Republicans have some mistaken notions about the poor, but I think these pale in comparison to the mistaken notions that Democrats have about the "rich".

1/31/2008 8:06:28 PM

Quote :

"70% of which are poor b.c they are lazy, lack intelligence, or made their own bad decisions in life."

Goooood, that statement makes me cringe. But you are titled to your opinion, I guess.

1/31/2008 8:52:43 PM

If I could vote for GW Bush twice I'll have no problem voting for McCain. At least he's not Guliani.

1/31/2008 8:55:16 PM

Quote :

"but I think these pale in comparison to the mistaken notions that Democrats have about the "rich". "

or that freely giving hand outs to everyone will create a perfect society where everyone works hard and no one has to live in poverty. i just don't believe in the strong federal system we have today nor in using taxes to subsidize people's style of life. I have no problem with social programs acting like a safety net. however, when people use it as a hammock then i think its a problem. Ok you got laid off if you don't have a job in three months then maybe you need to be less picky or sell your 2006 mustang for a beater to help pay the bills till you get a job.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM. Reason : k]

1/31/2008 8:55:17 PM

I don't think anyone is freely promoting "handouts," but rather a reversal on a tax program that saves a person making 1.25 million a year about 24 more thousand dollars. I don't think that money will make a huge difference in that person's life, yet giving just a grand more back to someone making 30k a year can make a HUGE difference.

1/31/2008 8:59:08 PM

Quote :

"24 more thousand dollars. I don't think that money will make a huge difference in that person's life"

but they EARNED it though. True some rich people evade taxes or make money by exploiting other people but i'd say the majority worked hard for it. Even those who maybe inherited the money their parents worked hard and saved so they could live a better lifestyle. Why do you hate people who make good decisions, save, innovate, and/or take a proactive role in choose their destiny.

I think a flat tax is the only solution. Lets say after a certain threshold for example 6k, just to appease the socialists, every further dollar earned is taxed the same regardless if you make 20K (14K in taxable income) or 200K ( 194000 in taxable income). The rich pay more but its fair to everyone. When you buy a big screen TV Average Joe doesn't pay 3% sales tax b.c he only makes 25K as a construction worker, while Donald Trump pays 40% sales tax b.c he makes $texas in a year.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : l]

1/31/2008 9:04:42 PM

so someone who makes 30k a year didn't EARN the money they would get back? The tax cut STILL is saving that person making 1.25 a year something like 36 thousand a year.

The working poor are NOT unintelligent, lazy, or have necessarily made bad decisions in their life. What if you had been born into a family in rural Georgia where you went to sub-standard schools that could never have prepared you for college or into a family that didn't value education and college as much as hard work. The way you speak makes it seem that you assume everyone was given the same opportunities that you were afforded, and that's just not true. No one is saying hike up taxes for the rich and curb their profits; all I care about is reversing them to FAIR levels such as those before Bush came into power.

1/31/2008 9:10:18 PM

Unless you come from living in poverty, you won't understand poverty.

Poor people are lazy. Of course there are exceptions. Let's not be stupid. But, let's also be realistic. You have no excuse in America. There are charities, churches, and government agencies on practically every street corner. You do not have to starve, be cold, or naked. That's why America is so wonderful.

Growing up around poor people, I know how many of them think. They WANT to be the scum of the earth and they WANT to be hand fed. I have yet to meet a hard working poor person. Honest hard working people are not poor. They may struggle. They may suffer a little. They may have not have the latest HDTV. But, a hard working American will never be poor. There are some who work two jobs and still struggle, but that's because they have made or will make STUPID financial decisions. If you are that stupid and lazy, then you probably deserve to be poor.

If an illegal immigrant can come into this country and make enough money to live in America, pay rent, buy food, and clothes, then the physically/mentally healthy American citizen has NO EXCUSE.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 9:15 PM. Reason : bold]

1/31/2008 9:14:07 PM

Quote :

" all I care about is reversing them to FAIR levels such as those before Bush came into power. "

You are too concerned with fairness. If you want everything to be fair, you should move to a communist state.

Although Bush's tax cuts have benefited the rich the most, tax revenues have actually been up lately and the rich have paid a higher portion of overall revenues due to their wealth gains. Why is that a problem?

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 9:26 PM. Reason : 2]

1/31/2008 9:26:20 PM

Quote :

"Unless you come from living in poverty, you won't understand poverty. "

my parents lived in a singlewide trailer until just before i was born. until i was a teenager, dad cut hair for a living, and mom didn't work from the time i was born until I was probably 12-13. we were never in poverty, but i remember eating a lot of mac and cheese, riding in cheap cars, and generally not having or doing a lot of the things my friends did.

then lets not discount my experience with friends and family who didn't have a lot of money (sometimes because they were flat out lazy, sometimes because they'd just settled for low income jobs), and in any case, did stupid things with money lots of times.

TONS of rich people are rich because they've been responsible and disciplined, and tons of lower income people aren't making it because they do dumb shit with money.


i'm not saying "Fuck the poor and lower middle class"...I'm just saying that it is unfair and pointless to burden the upper middle class, rich, and super-rich to subsidize them.

1/31/2008 9:33:28 PM

Quote :

"so someone who makes 30k a year didn't EARN the money they would get back"

I wouldn't exactly call someone earning 30K the "working poor" but i'll go with it just for argument sake. You are
right they did earn the money. Currently with a progressive tax system they will pay somewhere between 15%-25% depending
on their dependents. On the flip side they will likely earn too much in order to qualify for welfare, medicare,
or any of the other gov't social programs that a lot of people leech off of. At some point though they decided to
pursue a career making 30K or were LAZY to find the means or work hard enough in school to land a better paying job.
Those from the working class and working poor given taht they did well in high school have far more financial opportunities
to get money for college then someone from a lower middle class home. Beyond my freshman year except for paying for health insurance my parents didn't give me any money for school. Most of my tuition was paid for by loans since my parental income was too much to qualify for "need-based" grants. Did i bitch and moan? no i sucked it up and considered it an investment in my future. Meanwhile a friend of mine gets nearly 3000/semester for tuition b.c he is from a single parent home and his mom DOESNT WORK!! (his mom is daddy's little princess). Is this fair?????

Quote :

"I have yet to meet a hard working poor person. "

I actually disagree with you here. I've met plenty of people who work their asses off at their blue collar
or low paying job. It is just that either they lacked the intelligence or they lacked the will to work hard earlier
in their life to obtain a better paying job.

Quote :

"I'm just saying that it is unfair and pointless to burden the upper middle class, rich, and super-rich to subsidize them."

EXACTLY

Those rich people that do illegally manipulate the system or exploit people to further their wealth end up in jail. Look at Martha Stuart or Ken Lay


NCBRETTSU i mean i feel ya. As a half-way broke college student i'd love the gov't to take all the rich peoples money and giving me free food, subsidized housing, healthcare, etc. However, then i would not have any incentive to work hard in school and strive to make a successful career. As I would have my necessities and their would be no reward for my efforts.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:17 PM. Reason : k]

1/31/2008 10:03:55 PM

Hur and prawn, you guys need to stop trying. The liberals will never understand that someone who earns there money and is succesful is somehow entitled to their OWN money.

The whole notion that someone makes alot hence must be evil is ridiculous, but is becoming more common. People simply dont want to work hard, sacrifice and save. So those that do, need to be punished. I think it is more of a jealousy and ignorance. Mostly because none of us make that much money or have any idea of the debts they might have.

I tried to watch the debate tonight and had to turn it off. I just had too much of rich SENATORS telling some people how other sections of their society either dont need the money they make, or they make too much because "people need it". What should have been met with boos, was met with cheers.

To me a fairtax is the best answer, stop penalizing working and saving. The next best is the flat tax where everyone takes home the same percentage. It will also end class warfare bc if the govt wants to raise more money for BS then EVERYONE will have to fund it. Right now its too easy to say "yeah, we need that, but let the other guy pay for it..not me".

1/31/2008 10:15:49 PM

^ i mean i understand but its a naive way of thinking and they need to grow up are realize how the real world works. Marxist theories were implemented into gov't during the 20th century and proven not to work. I used to feel the same way when i was a freshman and just wanted to spend my time smoking up, going to concerts, and partying. Then one day you realize that lifestyle is immature and the perks of working for success.

Quote :

"To me a fairtax is the best answer, stop penalizing working and saving. The next best is the flat tax where everyone takes home the same percentage"

not sure if i support a fairtax but i'm definitely all about flat tax. Regardless of either whoever takes over the whitehouse needs to slaughter the pig and cut down on federal spending so not as much taxes will needed in the first place. The 10th amendment needs to be respected again and the 16th re-evaluated.

Quote :

"I tried to watch the debate tonight and had to turn it off. I just had too much of rich SENATORS telling some people how other sections of their society either dont need the money they make, or they make too much because "people need it". What should have been met with boos, was met with cheers."

Unfortunately there is a lot of lower and working class people who all want more for nothing. Hillary and Obama merely cater into their wants in order to harness the political power of a very large population of people. I originally favored the democratic party b.c of the liberal position on social issues. Lately it seems the dems have been focusing more on their economic liberal agenda a lot more then liberal social agenda. Getting into the real world as long as a GOP candidate is "moderate" on social issues i can tolerate this more than the threat of a socialist liberal taking over the white house and taxing me to death to subsidize the lower classes. Hence why i currently am really excited that McCain is taking the lead in the GOP versus Romney or Huck.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:27 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 PM. Reason : l]

1/31/2008 10:19:15 PM

Quote :

"As a half-way broke college student i'd love the gov't to take all the rich peoples money and giving me free food, subsidized housing, healthcare, etc"

I'm not arguing these points for my personal gain. My parents have paid for my entire college education and are sending me to grad school at GWU next year as well. I will graduate with a master's degree and absolutely no debt. I haven't exactly half-assed my way through any of this.

With that being said, I understand how absolutely privileged I am, and I personally feel responsible to help those who were not given the same opportunities as me, even if it means I take home a few thousand less a year.

But you have your own ideals, and I respect those. So, I'm just gonna let it be.



[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:44 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/31/2008 10:41:01 PM

I agree with HUR for once.....people in this country need to step up and be responsible for themselves. The more the govt gets involved, the less incentive people have to better themselves.

1/31/2008 11:15:59 PM

why wouldn't i argue for my own gain?

i have no illusion that i will ever be in the upper 1% of the country. and it won't be for lack effort. i won't be a leech of society. but i do think that those who have more money have benefited from our society should carry a larger burden than the rest. do you think just because people have to pay more in taxes that they wouldn't want to be rich anymore? that's lunacy.

1/31/2008 11:17:32 PM