73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Gipper]

Sure. . .and I though you were against trade agreements?

And I thought you were smart enough to recognize that Europeans (especially Germany, France, and Belgium) who have MUCH more involved government regulations and labor laws are doing a LOT better than we are in commerce?

See, one common element in those "successful" commerce countries is. . .that they have universal health care, so employers do not have to worry about the increasing cost of health care for their employees. . .

That "government" regulation is a HUGE benefit for employers AND employees, AND provide more stability!

Again, you post absurdities. Will it ever end?

The economies of those three nations are not significantly better than ours. In fact, all have huge government debt loads which as a percentage of GDP, are greater than the US. Educate yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

And their unemployment rates while better than ours, are not much better. Educate yourself here: http://www.visualeconomics.com/unemployment-rates-around-the-world/

And, even when one considers the horrendous damage the Marxist Obama and the Progressive Bush have done to our economy, it is much more dynamic and capable than any nation in the world. You would know this if you weren't so uninformed by the lib media.

 

[GenSeneca]

. . .what people want is to have a chance at a decent life, at a home, at education for their children, at a vacation once in awhile, at some certitude that, if one of their loved ones is suddenly diagnosed with a life threatening disease, they will have access to health care without counting on "charity" or having to declare bancrupcy!

People do have a chance of achieving all those things and more, what they do not have is a guarantee to be provided with all those things at someone elses expense.

NO ONE has the right to built their home on the work of others without even acknowledging that those others DO HAVE A RIGHT to the "pursuit of happiness"

Everyone has a right to pursue happiness, what they do not have is a guarantee that happiness will be provided to them at someone elses expense.

..continuing to get richer, when the majority gets poorer is NOT sustainable.

How does the forcing the "rich" to get poorer along with everyone else help anyone?

I am just surprised that YOU, of all people, do not see that.

What I see is tyranny being sold as compassion.

 

[Dr.Who]

disagree that our safety net is as strong as Europe's.

Where did i say our safety net was not as 'strong'? I said that we could cut aid to those who really do not need it. I have no doubt some Eu countries give more to the poor - I can't help if they want to screw their economies, their people, and even their poor.

I disagree that our GDP is as large as the combination of all the European countries. It is barely larger than that the few countries that make up the current European Union. . .and Germany, France, and Belgium have a lager GDP per capita than the US.

But according the wiki three sources all indicate that none of those fare better on good measures of GDP per capita (PPP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

And I do believe a lot of government programs benefit BIG CORPORATIONS, therefore their CEO's, Wall Street, and the very wealthy.

I believe it too. Lets work together to stop that.

Even the tax system benefits the wealthy (capital gain taxes lower than "income" taxes, tax loop holes, even the very popular mortgage interest deduction. . .it obviously benefits people who have "jumbo" --or super jumbo -- mortgages a lot more than people who have a $50,000 to $150,000 mortgage!). In fact, that is a place where some cuts could be made. . .only allow mortgage interests up to (let's say) the "jumbo" base to be deductible!

Those complaints are simplistic.

 

[Openmind]

People do have a chance of achieving all those things and more, what they do not have is a guarantee to be provided with all those things at someone elses expense.


Everyone has a right to pursue happiness, what they do not have is a guarantee that happiness will be provided to them at someone elses expense.


How does the forcing the "rich" to get poorer along with everyone else help anyone?


What I see is tyranny being sold as compassion.

What I see is a cold, sectarian heart pretending to believe in the rationalization of ridiculous and destructive inequalities.

Sure, everyone also has a chance to win the lottery!. . .
But the chance to make it out of poverty today is worse than it was over the last 100 years, and the accumulation of wealth in the top 1% (and even more in the top 0.1%) is unsustainable, but continues to pile up, leaving the rest of the country in the gutter.

You talk about people making millions of $ a year getting "poorer?" And you think that losing 2 or 3% of that "new found wealth would be unfair?

How much of the wealth should they freely accumulate while the rest of the population loses it? What would satisfy you? 50%? 60%? 75%?

And where (especially in a bad economy) would you suggest they get that additional wealth. . .if not by robbing the middle class of the vestige of comfort and fairness?

 

[Dr.Who]

If the top 1% economically have 40% of the wealth, and pay 38% of the taxes, it sounds to me as if the taxes must be pretty fair over all. What's the problem?

The fed income tax is based on income and not on wealth. So how much they own is not relevant but how much they earn is.

Did they acquire that wealth legally? Then they should be allowed to keep it. Same for you and for me and for everyone else. That is fair.

 

[Dr.Who]

Except that, the 38% of total wealth that the top 1% held dates from 2001. . .since then, they are basically the only groups who has seen their wealth INCREASE!

I will try to find out what percentage of the total wealth they hold today!

Here it is:

Isn't it moral to be glad when someone does well?

I am glad when other people do well and I want everyone to do well.

It seems that you want to hurt rich people. Jealousy? Covetousness? Anger? Bitterness?

The facts are that the wealth of the rich changes independently from the wealth of others.

And in what world is it fair to form an INCOME tax based on WEALTH? Shouldn't an income tax be based on, well, income?

 

[Dr.Who]

NO ONE says thatt wealth is suppose to be evenly divided among the population! But it certainly isn't supposed to be divided 42% to the 1% on top, and 58% for the other 99%!

It isn't? Why not? As long as the rules as to how it is earned or accumulated are fair then the results are fair too.

Can't you see that? Can't you see that it is getting worse every 10 years, and that. . .at the end, it is just NOT sustainable?

It it were always getting worse then the wealth would certainly have accumulated 100% of the wealth in the last 200 years. But it does not always happen that the rich get richer - sometimes they get poorer.

How much wealth do you think the top 1% should be allowed to hold? 50%? 70%? Why? because so much of it is inherited?

AS MUCH AS THEY OR THEIR FATHERS WORKED HONESTLY TO GAIN!

I know you have a special interest in the inherited wealth. . .Still, I think of you as a fair person. . .and I am pretty sure you are NOT in the top !%!

If any of us based our opinions on weather or not we are in a certain group rather than on principles then we are prejudiced or biased.

The American dream is more and more of an illusion every day for 60% of the people! Can't you see that? Except for winning the lottery, or for an exceptional GENIUS like Steve Jobs. . .the rest of the bottom 60% have NO CHANCE to ever REACH the American dream!

The majority of us already have. We have almost all of us been able to work and earn a living and eat and have a home and get medical care and have entertainment. Even most of the poor do very well.

We have a higher standard of living than kings did 500 years ago.

But what is the American dream? Is it just material possessions? Are any of us that shallow?

Isn't it more about freedom and opportunity? Everyone of your ideas removes freedom and opportunity and eventually material possessions too.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Allowed to hold"? That is absurd. People are "allowed to hold" what they earned. Who are you to decide they have too much?

I am so glad you pointed that out.

Openmind, do you not see how you are advocating the ideas of a tyrant?

These things you say are absolutely evil and need to be opposed.

 

[Dr.Who]

And. . .do you really believe that there is NO room for improvement between the top 1% holding 42% of the wealth and . . .let's say the top 1% holding 25% of the wealth?

I would just be happy to see the trend of growing wealth for the top 1%, and growing poverty for the bottom 60% REVERSE. . .even if it was just 1% reversal a year for the next 10 or 20 years!

And you think "I" am being unreasonable?

yes you are unreasonable.

As long as you would want to see someone hurt rather than wanting to see all benefit it is unreasonable.

The improvement we need is not for the gov to redistribute the wealth from one to another - that never ends and only gets worse.

The solution is never to focus on outcomes.

The solution is to make sure that the rules are applied equally to all. Then whatever the outcomes are it is right.

But redistribution is completely contrary to the idea of having rules applied equally and we will never never get fair outcomes without first having fair rules.

 

[Dr.Who]

I have many more than one friend who has done this...you can make a good life for yourself without inheriting a dime.

Me too. I have met and befriended several people who have accumulated at least one million. One guy just did it by working at a middle class job and investing.

Another did it by riding his bike to fix computers and then selling that company to a large chain. And he is crazy rich.

 

[Openmind]

Isn't it moral to be glad when someone does well?

I am glad when other people do well and I want everyone to do well.

It seems that you want to hurt rich people. Jealousy? Covetousness? Anger? Bitterness?

The facts are that the wealth of the rich changes independently from the wealth of others.

And in what world is it fair to form an INCOME tax based on WEALTH? Shouldn't an income tax be based on, well, income?

I would be glad if EVERYONE did well. But that is not the case. The gap between those who do "well," and those who don't is widening. . .those who do "well" do it at the expenses of the rest of us.

By the way, I agree. . .let's make a tax system that is based on INCOME. . .HOW MUCH INCOME you take home. . .how much income you have to survive or thrive on, how much income you have to "lose" before you feel threatened by bankrupcy, how much income you have in the bank in case you or your loved ones face a catastrophic illness and is thrown off the private insurance. How much income you have to send your kid to school.

Let's not base our "tax system" on how much tax we pay. .let's base it on HOW MUCH INCOME WE HAVE LEFT AFTER THE TAX!
And. . .you can obviously believe what you want, but none of those "kind and generous" adjective fit me.

In fact, believe it or not, I have been one of those "1%" for an extended number of years (prior to retirement, of course), and I NEVER felt that it was quite fair to get those huge bonuses, and to go on those all expense paid "performance conferences" in Thailand, Hawaii, or Greece, while the "little people" at the plant slaved over their menial assembly jobs for a measly $40,000 a year (that was 10 years ago!) when everyone around me was making more than $400,000 (to $5 millions) a year and spending a week "working" in a luxury hotel in Phuket or Athenes!

I have experienced both sides. And I am NOT sorry to no longer participate or belong to that ostentacious and frivolous life style. . . especially when so many people, hard working people, can't even find a job because the "elite" prefer to sit on $ 3 trillions in saving rather than hire the unemployed!

 

[Dr.Who]

What I see is a cold, sectarian heart pretending to believe in the rationalization of ridiculous and destructive inequalities.

There is a differecne between making coments about peoples ideas or statements and making comments about their hearts.

How much of the wealth should they freely accumulate while the rest of the population loses it? What would satisfy you? 50%? 60%? 75%?

And where (especially in a bad economy) would you suggest they get that additional wealth. . .if not by robbing the middle class of the vestige of comfort and fairness?

Wealth is created and made.

The person who buys bread and cheese for ten cents then sells a sandwich for one dollar has created wealth and not taken if from anyone else.

he and everyone else should be allowed to keep everything that they accumulate honestly. If dishonestly then taxing them is not the anser but prosecuting them is.

Oprah talked in front of a camera and she created wealth. Did she take it from anyone? Did she cause anyone else to become poor? In fact she caused others to become better off than they were.

 

[Openmind]

There is a differecne between making coments about peoples ideas or statements and making comments about their hearts.

Wealth is created and made.

The person who buys bread and cheese for ten cents then sells a sandwich for one dollar has created wealth and not taken if from anyone else.

he and everyone else should be allowed to keep everything that they accumulate honestly. If dishonestly then taxing them is not the anser but prosecuting them is.

Oprah talked in front of a camera and she created wealth. Did she take it from anyone? Did she cause anyone else to become poor? In fact she caused others to become better off than they were.

Well, obviously we are having some problem "creating" wealth right now. . . in fact we've had problem creating wealth for quite a few years. . . that hasn't kept the top 1% from getting wealthier. . .and leaving the middle class far behind!

So. . .if wealth is so easy to create. . .why do we have to worry about a deficit? Why do we have to cut spending on social welfare?

Let's just create a little more "wealth!"

 

[Dr.Who]

There is a differecne between making coments about peoples ideas or statements and making comments about their hearts.




Well, obviously we are having some problem "creating" wealth right now. . . in fact we've had problem creating wealth for quite a few years. . . that hasn't kept the top 1% from getting wealthier. . .and leaving the middle class far behind!

So. . .if wealth is so easy to create. . .why do we have to worry about a deficit? Why do we have to cut spending on social welfare?

Let's just create a little more "wealth!"

Since it is the rich who are currently creating wealth then we would be wise not to punish them for doing what we all need.

better yet lets have rules that punish no one for creating wealth.

We have a problem with a deficit because we spend more than the revenue on that wealth. We spend more than the gov takes in.

Wealth is created in large amounts but it is not an endless spigot.

 

[Openmind]

Since it is the rich who are currently creating wealth then we would be wise not to punish them for doing what we all need.

better yet lets have rules that punish no one for creating wealth.

We have a problem with a deficit because we spend more than the revenue on that wealth. We spend more than the gov takes in.

Wealth is created in large amounts but it is not an endless spigot.

I'm glad we are finally getting some place.

You are at last admitting that, the wealthy are still "creating" wealth, but that wealth has obviously stopped "trickling down" for at least a decade. . .and yet, the GOP still insist in following that old "trickle down" economy theory, and although NO JOBS have been created by the "job creators" over the last 6 years, we still are coddling the wealthy "job creators" in the "hope" they will finally decide to spend those 3 trillions dollars in corporate saving to employ people!

Apparently, the ONLY wealth that is being created is in a close circuit!