So, I hear you hate the Tea Party.

~jet said:
Easycheese;

If we look at american history, we have several examples:

After the last time the rich had their way with the american economy (the roaring 20s followed by the j.p.morgan great depression), we put a very high tax bracket on (and ONLY on) the amount any individual took home in pay (not at all to be confused with business profits/income (those who tell you otherwise are lying to line their own pockets.)) It varied in percentages from 70 to 90 percent, and only on the amount left over after the first (in today's dollars) 3.5 million dollars a year. The amount below that was taxed at a more normal income tax rate. The results were lovely; those in danger of straying over making 3.5mil(inflation adjusted) dollars a year went out of their way to dodge paying the extra taxes by investing the difference; in their own businesses (resulting in better pay and benefits for their workers, more stable businesses, etc) or in tax deductible things like charities, commons investments, et cetera where the funds did just as much good.

This status lasted from about the mid 1930s until 1980 when Reagan slashed it down. During this time is America's measurably best, most stable years. There were no bank runs, no economic crashes, people could afford to raise a family on a single income AND take time off AND retire AND eat and play healthy.

Since that time, lower tax rates have allowed the upper crust to abscond with the difference. Since that time, deregulation has allowed them to hoard finite wealth, launder it through offshore loopholes, hire next-to-slave labor in desperate foreign nations (thus culling jobs here and making us more desperate in a very ugly race to the bottom), and so on and so forth.

Right now, even Buffet walks around with virtual ?s over his head, proclaiming the oddity of the fact that, as a capitalist, he pays less than half the tax rate than his secretaries do (15% vs 32-35%.)

Meanwhile, if the tax were even paying THAT much (i.e., the same upper 20s to low 30s I pay) social security would never ever fail, education would could be free-to-all, debts would be minimal and manageable, wealth would still be in the hands of those who spend it (and thus create demand for *duh duh duh* JOBS (which further fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs, ad nauseam.)

So yes, while all I've done is use fact and logic to make my point (in contrary to your accusation) these people really do deserve our vitriol since they are, through their greed, machinations, bait-and-switches, manipulations, lies, etc, essentially raping the citizenry of this country and leaving them battered and bruised and exposed to hostile elements as a result. I and 99% of us have every right to be upset about that.

Are you really suggesting that 3.5 million a year is not enough to live on? Are you really suggesting that 3.5 million a year does not make one very very very wealthy. Because it was that at that (soft) limit (since someone could choose to take more home if they wanted to pay the higher tax bracket) that America thrived more than at any other time in its short history. If you want further evidence, look at any point throughout human history where all the wealth was held by the few, and see how that turned out.

Next thing, you'll be telling us 'let them eat cake!'
Click to expand...


You are an 'F' so quit using logic and use your emotions instead.
 
[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION], I am curious to what do you think of the fact that a lot of the wealth is more on the liberal side, versus the conservative side.
 
saru said:
[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION], I am curious to what do you think of the fact that a lot of the wealth is more on the liberal side, versus the conservative side.
Click to expand...

Such as? Buffet has a lot of wealth... and he gives billions of it away; as does Gates who got his wealth through making something that benefited an entire planet (crummy business practices aside) and even Soros spends his money on organizations whose primary missions resides on the betterment of the working class. Meanwhile, the Koch brothers and Bush dynasty were both enriched working with stalin and the nazis, in that order while the Kochs essentially get publicly created utilities handed to them for a song after which they dramatically increase the cost of running said utilities for the every day 'captive audience' user who can't get to work without gassing their car or keep their house warm without gas, coal, or electricity. The Waltons give only to conservative mouth-pieces while their stores obliterate almost every mainstreet (and millions of jobs) in the country while offering near-slave-labor made goods at what seem like decent prices only until you realize they only last a 20th as long as items that cost two or three times more up front. For his marital flaws, Edwards made his money by defending works and families against the harm done to them by careless megacorporations, but that line of work wasn't enough to make him anywhere near as much as the Romney who made his money by buying up and euthanizing entire businesses, selling off the carcasses, and laying off large sums of people. Fiorina pretended to be conservative even as she laid off of tens of thousands of american HP workers so that they could buy themselves 150 million dollars worth of private jets with the difference (after hiring indonesian/indian workers.) Even Gates flew coach his first 10-15 years of microsoft's lifetime.

I will never argue that it's wrong to make wealth... but where wealth itself has an upper measurable limit, those who have more of it than others must also be more responsible... instead, they're using it to extract more and more and more of it from the rest of humanity, and are spending some of it to find all the loopholes they can to avoid taking up the equivalently heavy mantles of responsibility that come with those sums. Nations are dying in the wake of this behavior, people are starving and/or are otherwise going to war with one another over the scraps that are left over, the environment and entire biospheres are collapsing, and they hire the likes of XE and those guys who drink vodka out of each other's butt-cracks to run security on their gated palaces while it all happens.

Those with wealth on the liberal side are demonstrating a modicum of responsibility; those on the conservative side are demonstrating ever increasing confidence in getting away with the mass-rape of humanity. And in both cases, the labels are horribly inaccurate anyways.. there is nothing conservative about what they're doing; hell, the rest of the world calls this neo-liberalism instead of neo-conservatism anyways... 'liberally let the oligarchs do what they want' rather than 'liberally let the citizens live their lives.' It's all matter of how you twist the definition, and even trying betrays bias.
 
Last edited:
But instead of my angsty ranting, why don't you guys try to explain it rationally from your point of view. Define why you think wealth is infinite, and how you think concentration of wealth does NOT come from taking it away from others. Define how conservative wealth is making lives better. Etc. I tried; your turn.
 
I myself don't really have an opinion, if I did it would just be my mom's opinion coming out of my mouth frankly. I've been working too much to really pay attention to politics :| I'm not discounting anything you say Jet, I actually find it interesting.
 
~jet said:
But instead of my angsty ranting, why don't you guys try to explain it rationally from your point of view. Define why you think wealth is infinite, and how you think concentration of wealth does NOT come from taking it away from others. Define how conservative wealth is making lives better. Etc. I tried; your turn.
Click to expand...

Wealth is not finite because it is constantly growing. Supply side economics introduced in the Regan era did grow the GDP but it redistributed it to the richest people.

Remember a couple of months ago there was the Bush Tax cut argument and the Dems wanted to raise taxes on the rich? Well, the only real difference in tax rates between the GOP and Dem bill was that the Gop rate dropped off after about a million dollars a year while the Dem tax bill rate went higher. All of the other tax bracket rates were the same.

Conservative wealth has not made everyone's life better. This is why pure, unregulated, free market economics does not work.
 
~jet said:
Define why you think wealth is infinite, and how you think concentration of wealth does NOT come from taking it away from others.
Click to expand...

When you invent something that meets a long felt demand, you are creating new wealth that does takes nothing away from anyone. It didn't exist before, its production creates new jobs, and thus increases the amount and velocity of money. Such an invention can make its owners wealthy, expand the economy, and improve the lives of many.

We invented a new drug that treats previously untreatable conditions. This drug was recently approved in a very large geographic market. We sold the patents. Everyone is happy, particularly certain suffering patients.

On the main point of this thread: The tea party is a populist movement that won't last much beyond the current hard economic times. Most populist movements die out when things get better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top