Michael Moore was out and about this last week railing against those who want to bring public sector unions under control and giving his views on the economy.
His solution to fix the problem?
Confiscate the wealth of those few who are billionaires.
Yeah, you read that right. Go in and take it. It’s not like they earned it anyways.
What’s happened is that we’ve allowed the vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people, and they’re not circulating that cash. They’re sitting on the money…
…that’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this… we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.
The simple mindedness of this creature is sometimes hard to comprehend. But lets say we go along with his simpleminded, communist, wet dream.
The United States of America has about 400 billionaires. Moore calls them “400 little Mubaraks.” About half of those have less than $2 billion each, and those with a net worth in the double-digit billions is an exclusive club of about 30.
The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.
That’s before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you’re keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).
So, what if we try to solve a smaller problem? Across the nation, 45 states are projecting over $100 billion in shortfalls, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. If the government just redistributed the wealth of the top three American billionaires—Bill Gates ($54B), Warren Buffet ($45B), and Larry Ellison ($27B)— it could solve that problem in a jiffy.
Of course, the 260-275,000 people employed by Berkshire Hathaway, the 105,000 employed by Oracle, and the 100,000 or so employed by Microsoft, might have something to say about that (to say nothing of the thousands of non-profits, charities, and causes that benefit from Gates’, Buffet’s and Ellison’s fortunes). That’s over 400,000 people out of a job.
Michael Moore would argue to nationalize those jobs, but as MKH argues, where would the incentive come from to make those companies profitable if anyone successful in that endeavor will have their monies confiscated?
There will be no incentive.
One could also close the state budget gap with the wealth of the bottom 100 or so billionaires, who have but $1 billion and change each. But good luck processing the payment because you’ve just wiped out Paypal’s founder (Peter Thiel, No. 365). Also, the owners/founders of the Colts, the Eagles, the Redskins, the Saints, Campbell’s Soup, Home Depot, and the entire ironic t-shirt empire of Urban Outfitters. Those products, brought to you by the country’s billionaires and currently enjoyed by all of us, would be sacrificed to Moore’s plan to almost pay for the 2011 deficit.
But when it comes down to it, his goal isn’t to eliminate the debt. He wants to transfer the wealth from the rich to the poor….make it all even you see.
What’s that called again?
See author page
Moore also called on all high school students to walk out of their schools at 2 PM Friday in solidarity against the Wisconsin budget fix.
That fizzled.
Student protest plans yield few walkouts
I think the loony left has spread itself too thin what with all their calls for secondary strikes, walkouts, boycotts, etc.
Why is it that anyone would take a damned thing this guy says seriously? Isn’t he the same guy who was in those Austin Powers movies? The one they called, “Fat Bastard”!!!
Hitler failed with a similar plan to Moore’s.
No surprise. He has obviously already eaten everything else.
Here is a little interesting tidbit on Michael Moore-on: Weinstein Co. was the financier for MM’s movie, Sicko. Moore, whose estimated weath at the time was $10 million, cut a deal with Weinstein right out of the “Guidebook on How to Be A Greedy Capitalist.”
It seems that Moore received not the standard percentage of the box office take, but that his agent managed a tony 50% (unheard of) of Sicko’s gross profits (that’s after the theater owner collect their take of ticket sales). But that wasn’t the end. Moore’s agent also negotiated a 50% of all DVD sales, instead of the standard 20%. Since it cost $9 million to make, and grossed almost $25 million in the US, Moore earned a nice little income from Sicko of at least $5 million, adding to his already fat checking account. And that doesn’t count the DVD sales.
Now, you may wonder who is MM’s agent; well none other than Ari Emanuel, brother of Rahmbo (Dead Fish) Emanuel. And it gets even better: Michael Moore, and his wife, funnel his money into a non-profit organization that is especially designed to off set his tax bill. From investments of that organization, Moore uses the profits to contribute to certain [useless] charities. In other words, he spends none of his own money on charity (having given a paltry $36,000 in charitable donations in 2006).
But sticking his money into a tax free account doesn’t prevent Moore from living in a tony area that is absolutely lily white, sending his kids to a private school with non-union teachers, keeping a posh Manhatten penthouse or refusing to hire union laborers on his movie productions.
Moore is just another hypocrite that wants to redistribute other people’s money, but not his own. If he really believed in his socialist clap-trap, he would be living in a remodeled block house in mid-town Detriot, sending his kids to a public school, and giving his money away. Instead, he is just a stinking (according to the students of the University of Texas who claimed his body odor was so strong you had to stand upwind from him) fat bastard in a gimme cap who goes around trying to keep his name in the papers so he remains relevant.
It pains me to even respond to Moore’s BS. I say to all progs especially the ones who’s girth exceeds the national average by 200%. Give all of YOUR money away. Live in a tent, graze on grass and leave me the hell alone.
The “confiscation” most liberals have in mind is what is commonly referred to as “taxation”. Liberals don’t advocate the confiscation of wealth. They advocate a more progressive taxation of income. The way that the distribution of wealth and income are trending in America and the rapid growth of the national debt can both be attributed–at least in part–to the fact that those with the highest income have been subject to some of the lowest top-end tax rates in history, for nearly three decades. (At least in part is an acknowledgement that excessive spending has been the second component of the problem.)
Mary Katherine Ham’s billionaire argument is bogus. She makes her point by taking the hyperbolic Michael Moore’s words literally, when he’s really using the word “billionaires” rhetorically. What Moore is actually talking about here are the wealthiest 5 percent or so of the population–a group that doesn’t consist only of Ham’s literal billionaires, but includes them. That wealthiest 5 percent doesn’t just own the $1.3 trillion Ham cites; that wealthiest 5 percent collectively owns 60 percent of the nation’s total wealth–a total that greatly exceeds $1.3 trillion.
There’s an obvious correlation between the concentration of wealth and the concentration of income. High end tax cuts have serious budgetary consequences. They increase deficits. The effect is not only cumulative but compounding, because we have to pay interest on our growing debt balance.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks it makes sense to cut spending and then pass out all of the savings (and then some) in the form of more high-end tax cuts must be even loonier than Michael Moore. (Or just plain devious.) Doing so turns the fiscal wisdom of spending cuts into little more than a scam that facilitates the upward redistribution of even more of the nation’s income and wealth, while doing little or nothing for the debt problem. It certainly does little or nothing to increase the overall economic security of the American middle class.
I don’t know where to start Greg.But I’ll try. First, do you realy think that the Federal Government is better at managing our money than you or me? Do you really think that with all the coruption in Washington that they would dole it out fairly? And to whom , the poor ,you or me? No ,it would go to the unions who pad the polititions wallet thats who. Do you really think, given the history of communism and sociolism,that it is better than capitalism? Do you really think taxing the rich is going to solve anything? Is that gonna motivate people to succeed knowing if they work hard and be productive the government will just take it? Come on Greg we all know you’re jealous of rich people and you just want them to be just as poor as you are, because that’s what is in the future you so furvently want. Even a high school graduate from a small town can see that. Finally, why not a flat tax on everyone, 10% accross the board. Would you be for that?
That’s it I’ve spent far to much time on you, I can’t change your mind just like you can’t change any ones mind here on this site. And thats fine with me Greg, something your freinds on the left need to understand, just because we disagree as to the solution to our problems doesn’t mean we are enemies. Your buddies are escalating the redoric not the Tea Party it’s gonna get ugly just like it allways does when sociolism enters the picture. Make decisions based on facts and not feeling and you’ll never go wrong.
Whoo, I feel better now!
So, now the left’s talking points are pure hyperbole, meant to be taken figuratively?
Is that it?
And apologists of the left’s speakers can interpret their hyperbolic speech any way that works at the time.
I see.
NOT!
Who speaks for the left in plain English?
Anyone?
Didn’t think so.
Out of curiosity, i did watch Moore’s “Roger and Me”. The manure thrown on Roger Smith was indeed historic. Smith tried to get concessions from the United Auto Workers to save the GM plants in Flint, Michigan. That powerful union said an absolute no to saving jobs and improving the competitiveness of GM. Roger Smith did not kill Flint, Michigan. Moore, the propagandist, missed this.
I wonder what economic class Greg took when he was in 2nd grade!
@Dastardly Dave, #8:
You’ve got at least three incorrect assumptions in a single sentence. Counting the “we all know” part as a fourth would probably be a stretch.
@Nan G, #9:
Moore probably should have said “gazillionaires” rather than “billionaires”, to avoid confusing conservative literalists.
I was talking to a coworker of mine this week about all sorts of issues. We talked politics (Wisconsin). We talked fuel prices (He wants to see $10/gallon fuel). We talked the bi-polar paradigm of politics. And we talked debt. And on debt, he mentioned that he feels that the wealth of people is “ours”, meaning citizens of the state.
He has issues with the government saying what he can have in his back yard, but ok with the government forcing other decisions on him. He likes China’s policies on people control (he believes that China has a great political system that ensures that people aren’t harmed by “nonpracticing” bureaucrats ).
It kept coming back to money.
And then, it hit me.
I have figured out a way to eliminate the national debt. I have the ABSOLUTE SOLUTION. Of course, since the government can create any law it wants (see ObamaCare, etc), the solution is painfully simple.
Make collecting Social Security a capital crime. Make it punishable by death.
Imagine that. The glorious government programs could do on forever. Budget deficits would be eliminated overnight. And think about the economy without the debt burden.
Of course, I say anyone in government old enough to collect Social Security should be first on the list, to show how it is a noble and just cause.
Then there’s that pesky problem of all the bodies, right? Well, now we have a BOOM industry of death. Think about all the caskets, mortuary business and crematories that you should buy stock in now! And this would help quite a bit. Then add in the inheritance to the younger crowd. They obviously will spend it with little regard, further spurring the economy.
Soon, we could have one of the youngest (by average age) countries…
And all it requires is a commitment to collect social security and face the penalties.
You could tax the people a 100% and it still wouldn’t get us out of debt. Once the dollar is declared useless and no longer the worlds currency we will be hurting worse than we are now.
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Calling confiscation “taxation” doesn’t change what it is. Taxation is the method used to acheive the goal, not the goal itself.
1. OK Mikey…How about you start without us and we’ll catch up (wink, wink). How about you liquidating every asset you have and send the cash to the government? That’s the only way I’ll know you really believe what you say. It is a national resource anyway, right?
2. And when it is time to confiscate the wealth of billionaires, please start with George Soros.
@Greg:
Actually, there isn’t. When one talks about wealth, they speak of what a person, or group of people have attained, asset-wise, during their lifetime up to that point. When speaking of income, it is based generally on the money one makes over the course of a year. Money isn’t necessarily wealth, just as wealth isn’t necessarily just money.
What’s more, the wealth a person has accumulated might, or might not, have a bearing on their income for a particular year, whether past or current. Some people have their wealth in areas that do not bring in a single penny during the year, thus, their wealth is not income. Some people have all their wealth in the market, and in a good year, make plenty of income off of it, and thus, their wealth is entirely tied to their income, although their total wealth is not their income.
The Vanderbilts still have an enormous amount of wealth, but their incomes are nothing special. Bill Gates used to make vast amounts of income, and added most of it to his total wealth. He is now more like the Vanderbilts in that parts of his wealth contribute to his income.
Most liberals make the same mistake you do, Greg, in thinking that wealth and income correlate with one another. As such, that is why you all speak about the “concentration” of wealth when discussing taxation policies. You are wrong to think that way, just as Moore is wrong in his assumption that people’s wealth belongs not to them, but to everyone.
@johngalt: Well put. There are many on the left that do not understand this. My family lived a very poor existence in NE Pennsylvania along with thousands of other farmers. Now, the Marcellus shale gas deposits are paying them as much as $4000/acre. Families who just existed for so long are now wealthy Greg? Should they pay part of this to others who failed to labor for generations to keep the family farm? There are some very deserving older people who can still farm but not be concerned about where their next dollar will come from.
For those of You that may need more explicit info on Economics INRE the Entitlement Class, Wealth Redistribution and Those that have questions about fairness, taxation and confiscation of assets.
I view it in the same vein as someone rustling my cattle or stealing my horses. Try it at Your Own Personal risk including that morbidly obese clown Mr. Moore. You can’t outrun me or OO’ gauge Buckshot. Survivors will be prosecuted.
Little Red Hen – Modern Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQIGN84RN8&feature=related
It’s very easy to determine if an Idiot NeoFabian Progressive like Greg truelysupports a “progressive” tax rate vs “confiscatory-punishment-for-simply-being-more-wealthy-than-I-want-tax-rate”…
Ask them if they support the most progressive tax method ever proposed: The FairTax
They will obviously scream bloody-murder, because along with true fairness (which they don’t really give a shit about), it removes influence-peddling from government, which IS what they need to cling to power with.
If left wingers really believed in what they say, people like Michael Moore would have no more money, or assets, than the poorest person in America. When Moore earns $5 million from just one movie, he would redistribute that wealth equally among the camermen, the grips, the caterers, the actors, the production crew, the entire movie company. But he doesn’t.
He keeps that money, just as Obama has kept the money from his book sales. He did not share that money equally with the editors, the printers, the accountants at the publishers, the printers, the truck drivers who delivered his books to the store, to the clerks who sold the book. He kept it. Socialism is only for the little people and never applied to the socialist themselves.
Case in point: when Castro overthrew the Cuban government with the help of Dr. Death and hard core communist, Che’ Guevara, did Che live like the poorest of Cuba? No, he confiscated the largest mansion in Havana that had a yacht harbor, seven bathrooms, a huge swimming pool, a sauna, massage salon and a specially designed U.S. built 10 foot TV with remote control, exotic technology in 1959. Che also sported a quite expensive Rolex watch. The meals prepared for Che were like something out of Arabian Nights in their luxury.
See, communists/marxist/socialist are always quick to claim they are for the little guy, but when it comes to living like the little guy, they suddenly think that the rules don’t apply to them. This is Moore. Rules don’t apply to him because he has managed to dupe millions into making him very, VERY wealthy.
When income tax was first pushed in the USA the story was it would never be more than 5% and how did that turn out?…..
FDR was the Obama of his time; hiring government workers, using keynesian economic principals and pretending to be Robin Hood. What we were not taught in school about FDR was that he prolonged the great depression for years because of his foolish half cocked decisions and all Americans suffered greatly because of his lack of intelligence, explain that one greg. Why is he considered a great president anyway?…
Here is a good reminder of how Michael Moore, like most of his type, fails at practicing what he preaches. As usual with his side, “don’t do as I do, do as I say”.
archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/​2005/11/3/150518.shtml
@Zac, #22:
The explanation is simple: The reason none of that has ever been taught in schools is because none of it is true. What’s stated there is a recently contrived version of history–a revision of history–that the great majority of Americans who actually lived through the Great Depression would have immediately recognized as a distortion and rejected in an instant. It’s rooted in little more than the criticisms that were leveled at FDR by wealthy special interests and the politicians that represented them at the time.
Why should we trust those who–seventy years later–would revise history to tarnish the image a man who was generally recognized as one of our greatest American presidents, by a majority of people who actually lived through that era? We can’t even trust such people for an unbiased version of current events. They’re revising events to suit their political agenda on the roll, before the day is even over.
Long before Obama was even a state senator economists looked at what FDR did and why the Great Depression lasted so long.
In 2004 a couple of them published their findings.
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
…………..
“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
-UCLA Newsroom-
LSMS368
August, 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy
LOL!
@Nan G, #25:
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are two such revisionists.
Would you have preferred the approach that Adolph Hitler used to lift Germany out of the depths of the Great Depression? A lot of people did. His approach had its proponents in both the United States and England. Quite a lot of them, in fact.
What about Joseph Stalin’s? The situation was so desperate in the United States that there was serious danger of Marxism taking hold. During the height of the Great Depression this wasn’t some trumped up threat trotted out as a political boogey man. The threat was real.
There were basically three different political and economic responses to the Great Depression, each of which played out somewhere: National Socialism/Fascism, Marxism, and FDR’s New Deal democracy.
The American people chose FDR by democratic election. Three consecutive times. As a consequence, America beat the Great Depression, successfully resisted and defeated opposing extremist systems, and went on into over 70 years of growth and prosperity. America chose wisely.
False Dilemma fallacy, greg.
You pull one every once in a while.
There were a LOT MORE than just two or three ways to deal with the Great Depression.
But you go ahead with your hasty generalizations.
You never read any of the massive records that allowed such perfect 20/20 hindsight that led those two economists to reach their conclusion, did you?
@Nan G, #27:
I’ll stick with the “hasty generalizations” that have existed for seventy-some years, originating with the people who lived through the time and witnessed the events. My grandparents and parents were such people. They had no problem with what was in the history books. I’m pretty sure some of this New and Improved History would have made them raise their eyebrows and shake their heads.
Hubby’s family lived through that era as well.
His dad talked about getting farmers mad enough at him to where they would throw turnips or cabbages at him.
He’d pick them up and his mom would make dinner out of it and hunted, gathered, fished foods.
He described sharing an egg between the four of them on more than one meal time.
So what?
All of that is anecdotal.
The point is, hindsight is not just 20/20 because we can look back.
It is more accurate because we have so much more raw material to add in than people immersed had.
Look at how the archeological age in Europe added to the accuracy of our understanding of ancient places and rulers.
Heck, scientists still add to our accurate knowledge by doing autopsies on mummies, running materials through spectographics, and so on.
Our understanding of ancient languages is constantly improved because we uncovered and interpreted more ancient words in different contexts.
You are set in stone.
Ask yourself why.
It must benefit you in some way for old theories to still be thought well of.
Fox News: At Least 100,000 Protesters Outside Wisconsin State Capitol. That was Saturday, March 12.
@ Greg, The World War Two Industries brought the US out of the Depression, Period.
Your sense of history as per usual waltzes around the Facts. FDRs Policies prolonged the Depression
by and large. Your usual tripe and Party Line Revisionist History.
@Nan G: You can tell them the koolaid is not good for them, but you can’t make them stop drinking it!
@Greg: You said:
Evidently you didn’t watch the entire video, Greggie. MKH also dipped down to the millionaire category. She noted that even doing that would not touch our massive debt.
You then ventured into well trodden territory upon which myself, Mata and others have proven you wrong again and again:
*sigh*
You are so predictable Greggie. Your jealousy of those “evil rich” people knows no bounds. I only hope you pay your taxes, because your ideology is so inline with the Obama administration that were you to stop paying your taxes, all road blocks to a job in the IRS working for Obama would be removed. I shudder to think of you with ANY power over tax policy.
@anticsrocks, #33:
Please refer to #12.
@Greg:
Please refer to #17.
If you insist on discussing economics here, please learn the difference between wealth and income. It is hard to have a real discussion with someone who insists on using ignorance, with a helping of liberal diatribe, as a replacement for reason and knowledge.
@johngalt: Don’t you hate people who think they know everything? It gives those of us who do a bad name! LOL
@Randy:
LOL! I don’t claim to know everything, but what I do know, I know well.
I just finished reading “Life and Death in Shanghai” by Nien Cheng. Incredible read about the Communist’s “redistribution of wealth” by the “revolutionary” youth and later The Red Guards who did Mao’s dirty work. They looted houses, took what they wanted, destroyed music, art, etc., from the “old way”. They turned over enough of their ill gotten gains to their superiors so they would get credit but they did take whatever they wanted…not just tax money. In 1966, Mrs. Cheng was imprisoned for 6 1/2 years for being a “capitalist-roader”. I’m sure some here at FA have read her account but to those who haven’t I urge you to go to your local library and read this wonderful writer’s story.
This is what the Socialists and Communists in the USA have in store for us. We have to stop them and the more you can recognize their tactics and thinking used in the past, the easier it will be to not be deluded. For instance I read today that one Democrat strategist is recommending that the party move to the center again to win 2012. Leopard meet spot. It’s merely a trick and a lie. Now that they have exposed themselves and their agenda, we can’t ever believe a word out of their lying mouths. They are determined to bring down our constitution and republic. Just as Michael Moore, the Communists in China and Russia always made luxurious living “for me but not for thee”. They took over the houses of the formerly rich and were driven in limos without so much as a blush. Mao lived in the Imperial Palaces.
Failing to persuade Mrs. Cheng through near starvation, punishment and solitary confinement, to make a false confession to being a “British spy”, she was finally released. Upon her release, she demanded that her name be cleared and an apology be issued in the newspapers and when they laughed at the suggestion, she refused to leave Detention House #1 until they did. Exasperated, they told her she had to go anyway because “this is not an old folks home….” After Mao died, she was able to leave China and finally was allowed to come to the USA where, in 1986, she wrote her book. She was also a guest of President Reagan at one of his state dinners. She became a US citizen in 1988 and died in 2006 at 94. I wish I had read this 20 years ago.
@Randy: AND @johngalt: Talk about prescient, Reagan nailed Greggie down DECADES ago when he said – “Well, the trouble with
our liberal friendsGreggie is not thatthey’rehe’s ignorant; it’s just thatthey knowhe knows so much that isn’t so.”Did MM send in a HUGE Check from his own fortune to SHOW by LEADERSHIP??? Nope….
Did he tell the UNIONS, he does not use UNION LABOR on his films??? HORRORS!!! NOPE…
Man is a fake, Liar, fraud.. he’s setting up, for his NEXT film with all this I’ll wager! Mikey Moore is all about Mikey Moore! Now he’ll hop on his Private jet and wing off somewhere else, while polluting the atmosphere….. Fat SOB is exactly the person he SAYS he Despises! Two faced liar… can you tell I don’t like him much??
@Madame DeFarge, #38:
Oh yeah, sure. That’s definitely what requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes would lead to.
Curiously enough, that’s not what was happening before high-end tax rates were reduced to today’s historically low levels.
Something else that wasn’t happening was a totally out of control expansion of the national debt.
@anticsrocks, #39:
I voted for Ronald Reagan in two presidential elections, believing the entire economic pitch.
FROM EACH, ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.. TO EACH, ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS……
Basic Tenet #1… Communist Manifesto… Karl Marx….
Your take??? TAX the WEALTHY cuz they have it, to give to the have nots, because they need it!
The DIFFERENCE?? ZERO! Face it, your a Commie Lib!!! Just admit the truth…..
You want to know the REAL INTERESTING part?? There never has been a PURELY Communist state! Because, once those “in charge” take charge, they TOO become “corrupt”.. and have to live ‘better” than the rest, and Classes, and envy of such, is still there!! Soviet Politbureau… lived WAY BETTER than the “Comerades” did!
“Meet the NEW Boss, same as the OLD BOSS”…..
The Who, “Won’t get fooled again”…
Madem DeFarge said….””For instance I read today that one Democrat strategist is recommending that the party move to the center again to win 2012.””
This is EXACTLY what Obama did during his Campaign, spoke like a Moderate, tho everyone(with a brain) knew he wasn’t. Acted like his voting past, etc never happened. And once elected , returned to his TRUE self, far left.
Greg, you going to deny THIS TOO??
@Greg:
You state that like it’s somehow unfair that some make as much as what they do. Sure, you can pull out a handful of examples of people taking advantage of others in order to increase their take, but that is a pittance of people compared to those who work hard, work smart and treat any employees they have with respect(wages and benefits).
Yet, you wish for them to pay more. Then, when that isn’t enough, they should pay more, and then even more. If it is so unfair that some make more than others, why not place the top tax bracket at 90%? Or 100%?
Is it fair that the top 5% of wage earners pay an immensely unfair proportion of all tax receipts?
It isn’t smart economics telling you to think like you do. It isn’t some internal scale knowing what is fair and what isn’t. It certainly isn’t intelligence that makes you state what you state. No. It’s one of two things. Either your ideology is deeply rooted in communism, or you are jealous.
We’ve given you numbers. We’ve defined terms for you. We’ve explained how things work in the real world of business. We’ve explained the non-viability of various liberal economic policies. All this, and you still desire to take more from those that have it. You don’t care about the budget, debts or the deficit. You’ve shown that by supporting Obamacare. You’ve shown that by supporting every spending program the democrats can dream up. You’ve shown that by railing against those enterprises which could truly increase jobs, and tax revenue, in our country.
Do you know why people are so resistant to higher taxes, beyond the obvious that it takes more from them? It is because they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the more government takes in, the more they will spend. Government hasn’t shown the ability to cut it’s own spending. All they’ve shown is the ability to spend more than they take in, and then pompously claim that they don’t have enough in government because some people are selfish, or that some people have gained their income unfairly.
Show me true spending cuts, Greg, and then we can discuss taxes more, otherwise what you foment about is nothing more than support for the outrageous spending our governments do.
@JohnGalt…. after dealing with lots of people like Greg here, on MANY forums… I’ve come to the conclusion that Michael Savage is right.. Liberalism IS a Mental Disease! And since the Mentally Ill do not SEE their illness, the acceptance of a “cure” isn’t possible. You can talk from now till doomsday, and he will never “get it, because his mind refuses to accept it! Sad, but it’s looking more and more like a fact. They are like those “mindless zombies” you see in the popular movies and TV shows these days…. keep bumbling about doing stupid and harmful stuff, but never know WHY, or see the hurt they cause! LOL!
@Greg #41 Why not read the book and then post so you know what I’m referencing? It isn’t only about redistribution through taxing…if they took control as they really want to, they’d simply come to your house and take what they want. Communists want a populace destitute, unable to resist…except themselves and a controlled military carrying out their agenda.
After Mao died, Socialism was finally declared a disaster. Maybe what they have now is Communism Lite…in comparison to what they had following WWII. There is no freedom in China today.
Mao… “Diplomacy comes at the barrel of a gun”…..
Democrats want all your guns……. um, duh, WHY??? Why indeed Greg??? WHY is the Liberal side of American politics so HARD BENT on an unarmed populace???? Enlighten us with your superior intellect!
LOL!
OH, for your own information, Gun deaths/murder is #15 on the CDC list…… 14 things kill Americans MORE.. know what #10 was??? INFECTIONS from wounds!! Yeah, lousy infections are more likely to kill ya than GUNS! So, why?? Still waiting….
@johngalt, #44:
What I want is a more balanced approach to the debt problem. If republicans really want to move toward a budget solution, they should at least be willing to see the top end tax rates increased to the levels we had at the beginning of the Bush administration. That should be done in exchange for spending cuts affecting progressive social programs.
Instead, what republicans seem to want are even more tax cuts, leading to the eventual breakdown of the progressive social programs that most Americans at some point depend upon. They’ve also been opposed a higher minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, organized labor’s efforts to maintain working and middle class pay and benefits, etc. All of this tends to diminish the economic security of the majority while increasing the wealth and power of the few–which has undeniably expanded enormously over the last few decades.
Taking that view hardly means that someone is a marxist, advocating confiscation and the equal redistribution of everyone’s wealth and property.
You are right, Hankster#47
The Chinese could not mount a rebellion or stand up to Mao and his thugs because they were not armed. Obama will not succeed in the USA…maybe that’s why being President of China is so appealing to him.
Greg, a lot of people have already pointed out that tax hikes are a pipe dream solution. Even if you were aware of history the Republicans know this lesson rather well before and after Woodrow Willson.
I’m just not in a fittin mood to get into details of how sourly unsound your economic understandings are. John’s done enough in that department.