The liberal vultures are circling.

[Laelth]

This has nothing to do with who has how much money.  Justice is supposed to be blind, right?  So no, fair is fair when it comes to these matters, and confusing individual acts of personal responsibility compared to acts in the business world are not the same.  The idea of "too big to fail" doesn't make me happy, but it is an economic reality.

In my experience, how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.  I will continue to hold that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance.  

And yes, "too big to fail" is a reality, and I begrudgingly admit that Bush had to bail out the banks with the TARP, but if Clinton (with the complete support of the Republican Party and with the support of all the Democrats except for the truly liberal ones) hadn't repealled Glass-Steagal, then the banks would never have been allowed to grow into institutions that are "too big to fail."  Our greedy rich people created this mess, and now "We the People," who are not so rich, have to bail them out.  This, I think, is unfair.

Laelth, I'm a former Democrat and was quite liberal.  No one's going to convince me that Democrats care more about the regular individual and that liberals care about the poor (and other groups) except to use them as a prop to carry out their ideology.  Liberals could care less about protecting the interests of "We the People."  In fact, they activiely want to turn "we the people" into "those whose lives are controlled by the state."  No, thanks.  That's why I left the party; it was all lip service and lies.  I find the overwhelming majority of people who actually are willing to get their hands dirty to help others are conservatives, and most of them have migrated to the Republican party, and so did I.  To call the Dems the party of the working man and the Repubs the party of the rich/corporations just doesn't apply anymore.  Sorry guy, but I've watched DU for way too long to be convinced that anyone over there cares about anyone other than themselves.  You participate on a board a various malcontnets, kooks, and primarily selfish individuals who only want to know what's in it for them.  To try and tell myself otherwise about those at DU would be to tell myself a lie.  I don't even refer to them as people because real people don't think like they do. I'm not sure what they are, but whatever it is, it's unhealthy.  The type of country that several at DU envision, if we were invaded by a foreign country, I wouldn't be willing to pick up a weapon to defend it.  Why should I fight to remain a slave?

Let me very clear here.  I am not defending the Democratic Party.  There was a time (say, between 1934 and 1980) when the Democratic Party actually did try to represent "the people" (if you don't count the Southern Democrats who were really rich-serving Republicans but couldn't call themselves Republicans due to race-related issues).  Those of us on the left thought Clinton was an anomaly.  I like to call Clinton "the best Republican President since Eisenhower," because he passed NAFTA (which hurt a lot of working people by allowing the corporations to freely exploit cheap, Mexican labor and kill a lot of good-paying American jobs in the process), because he destroyed AFDC (and replaced it with the nearly-useless TANF), because he passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, because he repealed Glass-Steagall, because he actually cut the size of the Federal Government by 5% (which no Republican has ever even tried to do), and because he actually balanced the Federal budget and left us with a surplus.  Clinton was a true conservative, and we liberals were really mad about a lot of what he did.  But, again, we thought he was an anomaly.

Barack Obama is proving to us that Clinton was not an anomaly.  He is proving to us that the Democratic Party has been captured and is completely controlled by the rich and by the corporations.  This is evidenced by nearly everything he has done since he has become President.  No, I will not defend the Democratic Party here.  Both major parties, now, are completely in the pockets of the rich and the powerful.  The people have no voice in government.  I am here, in large part, because I have been critical of the Democratic Party on DU, and that seems to be no longer allowed (btw, it was allowed for a long time).

You're in GA and I'm in NC, so because you're a neighbor I have some empathy for what you're saying and you seem like a descent person, but on a side issue do yourself a favor and get off of DU.  That place is toxic.  The only reason to be there is to do as we're doing; read their crap and shake your head at how ridiculous they are.

And I have no desire to defend DU here, either, for reasons I alluded to above, but I don't want to be tombstoned, either, so please forgive me if I remain silent on this subject.

Thanks for the sympathy and for the response.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Reagan merely signed the bill.  Congress was the one that sent the FICA taxes through the roof.

He could have vetoed it if he wanted to.  He didn't.

And I have no interest in defending the Democratic Party for reasons that I expressed up-thread.

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

In my experience, how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.  I will continue to hold that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance. 

Why?  Where in anything the Founding Fathers wrote....where in the COnstitution....where in anything this country was founded on does it say that has to be the case?

Your thinking is more in line with Hugo Chavez and V.I. Lenin than Washington Jefferson and Adams.

[Laelth]

You thought we'd be receptive to Liberal class warfare rhetoric/talking points and trying to blame Ronald Reagan?  

You SURE you came to the right website?

Yes, in fact, I thought you would be receptive.  If you make over $1 million a year, I can see why you wouldn't be receptive (if you're particularly selfish, which I suspect you are not), but if you don't make that much money, you ought to be concerned that even Warren Buffett says the amount he pays in taxes is not fair compared to what his middle-classed secretary has to pay.

Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth

[Hawkgirl]

Yes, in fact, I thought you would be receptive.  If you make over $1 million a year, I can see why you wouldn't be receptive (if you're particularly selfish, which I suspect you are not), but if you don't make that much money, you ought to be concerned that even Warren Buffett says the amount he pays in taxes is not fair compared to what his middle-classed secretary has to pay.

Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth

That's called redistribution of wealth...and you'll find MOST Conservatives don't buy into that theory.   You want to keep taking from the successful...and taking....and taking....eventually, you'll find there's no more to take.

[Karin]

Are you skipping posts, Laelth?  Specifically, those written by DumbAssTanker? 

[Laelth]

But, the way the job market is today, the enterprising among us have no choice but to make our own job. 

That's certainly what I chose to do.  At this point, though, I wonder whether I made a good choice.  It appears that you can't get anywhere unless you're plugged into (and subservient to) corporate America.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

I've owned and operated my own business for almost 25 years, too.  I agree paying the 15.3% can be a bite, especially considering I'll never see it again.  Add to that your Federal Income Tax rate and it mounts up.  But as a Sub-S Corp, I use the law to my advantage.  Let's say I make $500K.  I pay myself a base salary of $100K (on which I owe the 15.3% and any applicable Fed Income Tax) and I pay the remaining $400K as Sub-S dividends, which is currently taxed at 15% and no SS taxes are garnished.  You might do the same thing already for all I know.

.

I have an LLC.  I pay myself "disbursements" from my company's income, but given the corporate structure I chose, all the income of the LLC is considered taxable income to me.  Perhaps I should look into another corporate structure.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

He could have vetoed it if he wanted to.  He didn't.

Riiiiiiight.  And have the Democrat controlled congress override the veto.

As I sad there were promises made in the approval of the hike.

But you're too myopic in your eagerness to be a typical Lib and bash Reagan for it.

And I have no interest in defending the Democratic Party for reasons that I expressed up-thread.

-Laelth

Don't bring your DU bullsh*t over here if you want people to take you seriously.  The Libs of the early 80's to INCLUDE those from the south...Byrd...Gore, Jr...Hollings...Gonzalez etc were jsut as bad as the current crop of Socialists you admire.

Save that tinfoil buffoonery for the mind numbed lemmings at your favorite Liberal haunts.

Oh and way to go avoiding the facts I've posted about who pays taxes.

Anyone who thinks this Libtard is here for any kind of intelligent discussion of the issues is fooling themselves.
[/quote]

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That's certainly what I chose to do.  At this point, though, I wonder whether I made a good choice.  It appears that you can't get anywhere unless you're plugged into (and subservient to) corporate America.

-Laelth

Isn't it amazing that in spite of all the regulations we have to choke down the big corporations can still thrive...

...but the small and medium sized businesses have to bear the same crushing weight?

Maybe we should stop trying to use government to enforce fairness of outcome and instead look to fairness of opportunity.

[Laelth]

Spare me the moronic class warfare.

Well, here's what Warren Buffett has to say about that:

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/123058

On the left, we tend to say things like this:  They only call it "class warfare" when we fight back.  The income disparity between the rich and the poor in this country has been growing by leaps and bounds for over 30 years.  We are well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country.  It seems to me that we should do something about this.  The middle class is disappearing.  Surely, you will agree, this is a problem.

Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Who do you think funds all these charities and foundations you Liberals are so fond of championing?

I don't recall advocating a 90% marginal tax rate for the wealthiest among us, but I do think we need to do something about the fact that the rich keep getting richer and the poor (and middle class) keep getting poorer.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

That's certainly what I chose to do.  At this point, though, I wonder whether I made a good choice.  It appears that you can't get anywhere unless you're plugged into (and subservient to) corporate America.

-Laelth

You're just a walking talking Liberal propaganda machine aren't you?  With your class warfare corporate conspiracy theorist crap.


You've already condemned yourself to failure before you started by playing the Lib victim card.

You're using it to give you a pass for not doing what it takes to actually be successful.  Like a typical Liberal you think it should just be handed to you to make it "fair".

The small businesses that make this country run would never have gotten where they are today with your piss poor attitude.

[TheSarge]

Yes, in fact, I thought you would be receptive.  If you make over $1 million a year, I can see why you wouldn't be receptive (if you're particularly selfish, which I suspect you are not), but if you don't make that much money, you ought to be concerned that even Warren Buffett says the amount he pays in taxes is not fair compared to what his middle-classed secretary has to pay.

DUmmie...I'm a promotable Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army making 46K a year...and I think that the confiscatory tax rates in this country today are too high.

I give two shits what Jimmy's older cousin has to say about that.  He can afford to say it because even if you raise his taxes he's got enough stored away that he could live off the interest...non taxable if his accountant is smart..and not have to worry whether his companies are taxed at 90% or not.

I see no reason to confiscate money from someone who has busted their ass their entire life and give it to someone who hasn't.

Let's say your company is successful...you'll be making WAY more than me...you gonna happily let the Federal Government take a healthy chunk of your profit that YOU earned and give it to me to make it "fair"?

And with EITC and other tax credits the IRS tosses out at us...I highly doubt that secretary is paying a dime in taxes.

Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth

Keep repeating the mantra all you want to.

You still haven't answered the question of why they should.

[Laelth]

Why?  Where in anything the Founding Fathers wrote....where in the COnstitution....where in anything this country was founded on does it say that has to be the case?

Your thinking is more in line with Hugo Chavez and V.I. Lenin than Washington Jefferson and Adams.

Interesting point.  Last night, I did a lot of reading about Shay's Rebellion, the historical event that actually pushed the states to create and ratify the Constitution.  I'd suggest you take a look at it, but this bit of history makes me very thankful for our 2nd Amendment--which was added to insure that when the rich are taking too much of our money and property we have the ability to take it back from them with the force of arms.

Consider Jefferson's quote (in response to Shay's rebellion):

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC

I think you'll find that my ideals are not entirely out of sync with those of the founders (some of them, anyway).

Cheers!  

-Laelth

[Hawkgirl]

Well, here's what Warren Buffett has to say about that:

On the left, we tend to say things like this:  They only call it "class warfare" when we fight back.  The income disparity between the rich and the poor in this country has been growing by leaps and bounds for over 30 years.  We are well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country.  It seems to me that we should do something about this.  The middle class is disappearing.  Surely, you will agree, this is a problem.

[quote author=TxRadioguyOk so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Who do you think funds all these charities and foundations you Liberals are so fond of championing?

I don't recall advocating a 90% marginal tax rate for the wealthiest among us, but I do think we need to do something about the fact that the rich keep getting richer and the poor (and middle class) keep getting poorer.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

1.  American corporations are the highest taxed in the world, with the exception of Japan.  How much more do you want to tax?  Do you want ALL our companies to go overseas?  Keep taxing them honey!
2.  And since when is the Middle Class considered poor?  I certainly don't consider myself poor...I have a house (well, a few), a car that's paid for, I eat well, I dress well.  I certainly am middle class, and I'm certainly not poor.
3.  Libs don't believe in personal responsibility or personal accountability...you always want 'someone else' to pay.  This is the reason you will not only lose the November elections (23% democrat congress approval rating) and the Presidency in 2012.  You see, working Americans don't buy into your ideology.

[TheSarge]

A couple other note about the Liberal Warren Buffett meme that this DUmmie is shoving down our throats.

Not only does he pay billions in taxes (capital gains, dividend tax) on his vast stock holdings, he pays sales on almost everything he or his companies buy.

From my understanding, he is basing his claims on the small token salary he takes as head of warren buffet corp.

There is nothing that says the Sage of Omaha can't pay MORE taxes in to the Treasury every year.  He just has to write the check for what he thinks is "fair".

And he could pay that secretary better too.

This is just more Liberal class warfare/envy by someone who when they say "I" really means everyone BUT him.

[Laelth]

DUmmie...I'm a promotable Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army making 46K a year...and I think that the confiscatory tax rates in this country today are too high.

Thank you for your service to this Country.  My father was in the Navy, and my adopted father served in the Air Force.

And I agree that the poor and the struggling middle-class pay way too much in taxes.  What I don't understand is your anger.

And, again, I apologize for invading your home.  Thanks for putting up with my ramblings.

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

And I agree that the poor and the struggling middle-class pay way too much in taxes.  What I don't understand is your anger.

My anger stems from your baseless claims that the middle class pays too much in taxes when in fact the bottom 50% of wage earners...that middle class you claim to be championing...pay slightly over 3% of all taxes in the country.

So your claim tht the middle class is getting soaked for taxes while the rich don't pay enough is an utter and complete lie..

The problem is that you've been so indoctrinated in the Communist Dogma of the Left in this country you don't realize how badly you've been lied to.

And, again, I apologize for invading your home.  Thanks for putting up with my ramblings.

-Laelth

<----DU is that way.  You'll find more sympathy to your propaganda over there.




Oh and Mr. Buffets and your information...since you don't think you're paying your fair share of taxes these days:

Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

[Laelth]

That's called redistribution of wealth...and you'll find MOST Conservatives don't buy into that theory.   You want to keep taking from the successful...and taking....and taking....eventually, you'll find there's no more to take.

Yes.  It is called redistribution of wealth.  That, in fact, is the issue.  In the United States, over the past 30+ years, wealth has been re-distributed upwards (to the richest among us) to the point that those of us in the bottom 90% are on the verge of being serfs.  The wealth distribution in this country is terribly unfair.  Unless we do something to correct this problem (which neither major party seems inclined to do), we'll be a 3rd world country.

I am aware that conservatives oppose redistribution of wealth, but I also think that most of you are sane.  I think you can see that our current system redistributes wealth upwards, and that this is not healthy for the Republic.

Or, at least, so I hope.

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

Yes.  It is called redistribution of wealth.  That, in fact, is the issue.  In the United States, over the past 30+ years, wealth has been re-distributed upwards (to the richest among us) to the point that those of us in the bottom 90% are on the verge of being serfs.  The wealth distribution in this country is terribly unfair.  Unless we do something to correct this problem (which neither major party seems inclined to do), we'll be a 3rd world country.

Thanks to all of thee Social Welfare programs your leftist brethren keep enacting you're right...we will turn into a third world country like you claim.

The only problem with your claim is you are laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people.

Your fellow leftists don't want this country to be the best or to be successful...it's not...as you said..."fair".

So they are purposely managing the best economic engine the world has ever seen right into the ground.

How else do you explain the spin that 10% unemployment is a good thing?

I am aware that conservatives oppose redistribution of wealth, but I also think that most of you are sane.  I think you can see that our current system redistributes wealth upwards, and that this is not healthy for the Republic.

Or, at least, so I hope.

-Laelth

I suppose you have some kind of verifiable proof that this is the case?

You and the rest of the leftists in this country aren't worried about the Republic...you're too busy trying to turn America into a Socialist Utopia.

[TheSarge]

If such a system were enacted, a CEO would make as much as a janitor - a construction worker would make as much as a senator - a bad artist would make as much as a good one - a 16-year-old living with his parents would make as much as a 30-year-old with three kids and a mortgage - an entry-level clerk would make as much as accountant with 20 years of experience under his belt.

While this all may sound good to a 16-year-old living at home, the rest of us have some problems with this. Kids should make less than adults, simply because they are less experienced and have fewer expenses. Some jobs simply are worth more than others, and some people need more money than others.

Now, somebody currently making $12,000 a year will probably take issue with this. I mean, who doesn't want to make more money? Even Bill Gates still manages to roll out bed every morning - even though neither he nor anybody even remotely related really needs to work another day in their life. He has more money than he will ever need, yet even he wants more.

At this point, it is important for me to note what kind of people are most likely to be reading this rant ... college students. A quick look at my current site statistics indicates that a good portion of my hits come from colleges. (Yes, Big Brother is watching you) College kids usually work part time for $6 or $7 an hour - I'm sure a lot of you probably think that a "flat pay" system is a great idea, since it would amount to a pay increase of 300%-400%. (This probably explains why some may "young" people vote for Democrats - they consider themselves poor)

I have news for you guys. You are not "the poor". You are just young. In a few years you will probably be in the middle class, or better. It really isn't very hard to do. Just the fact that you will have a college degree is usually enough to secure you a $30,000 a year as soon as you leave college, and most of you will make more than that.

When I was 19, I made about $12,500 a year. By the time I was 24, that amount doubled. Now that I'm 27, that figure has almost doubled again. That's the way this game works. As soon as you get some experience under your belt and learn how to actually be productive, society will reward you by giving you a bigger chunk of the pie.

You will probably only be in college for 4 years - you will be working in the workforce for the next 40 years. So please, stop being so selfish and take the time to think this "flat pay" thing through. Don't vote for boneheads like Clinton, just because they are promising to give you free-health care right now, when you are going to be paying for it through higher taxes for the rest of your life.


All that aside, any government that tried to enact a "Flat Pay" system would invariably run into certain difficulties. For one, it would be difficult to fill certain positions. Some jobs slots would remain empty because nobody would be willing to do certain types of work if they could make the same amount do something else. Nobody would want to take the "Dangerous" or "Dirty" jobs, when there are plenty of "cushy" jobs to be had. But somebody has to take these jobs. In order to fill all of these positions, it would be necessary to force people to take these jobs. With such a system in place, it would be government which would decide what career would be best for you. Want to be a nurse?... Too bad - We need clerical workers. Want to be a writer?... Too Bad, we need construction workers. Want to be a construction worker?... Too bad, we need policemen.

And what do you do with people that refuse to take these new jobs?... Imprison them? Kill them? Half our of population would be forced to become policeman -- just to keep the other half of society working.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

Hows that for "fair"?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Different tax rates for different citizens.

Different tax rates for different industries.

And you wonder why the system is distorted and why people who can't afford armies of lawyers and accountants are disadvantaged?

[Laelth]

Are you skipping posts, Laelth?  Specifically, those written by DumbAssTanker? 

I am having a hard time keeping up, to be honest. 

-Laelth

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I am having a hard time keeping up, to be honest. 

-Laelth

Undoubtedly.

[USA4ME]

The wealth distribution in this country is terribly unfair.  Unless we do something to correct this problem (which neither major party seems inclined to do), we'll be a 3rd world country.

I am aware that conservatives oppose redistribution of wealth, but I also think that most of you are sane.  I think you can see that our current system redistributes wealth upwards, and that this is not healthy for the Republic.

Or, at least, so I hope.

What's unhealthy for the Republic is redistribution of wealth.  That's not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And it's certainly not freedom.

If you got money you can make money; that's nothing new.  Getting the gov't involved to try and remedy this "unfairness" via redistribution will lead to serfdom long before we'll reach it by the natural order of things.  Give gov't the power to redistribute wealth and it'll realize it has powers to do any number of things contrary to what the founding fathers intended.  Given the choice to live in a corporate plutocracy and a gov't that redistributes wealth in the manner in which you speak, I'll take the corporate plutocracy.  At least we'll have Rollerball, because we certainly won't have freedom.

But you've got several at you now, so I'll bow out.

.