Maybe we deserve to be ripped off

[Bengals_12th_Man]

[url="http://www.alternet.org/story/48278"]http://www.alternet.org/story/48278[/url]


Maybe We Deserve to Be Ripped Off By Bush's Billionaires

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted February 20, 2007.



While America obsessed about Brittany's shaved head, Bush offered a budget that offers $32.7 billion in tax cuts to the Wal-Mart family alone, while cutting $28 billion from Medicaid. Tools

"Now, after she shaved her head in a bizarre episode that culminates a months-long saga of controversial behavior, it's the question being asked by her fans, her foes and the general public: What was she thinking?"-- Bald and Broken: Inside Britney's Shaved Head, Sheila Marikar, ABC.com, Feb. 19

What was she thinking? How about nothing? How about who gives a shit? How's that for an answer, Sheila Marikar of ABC news, you pinhead?

I'm not one of those curmudgeons who freaks out every time that Bradgelina moves the war off the front page of the Post, or Katie Couric decides to usher in a whole new era of network news with photos of the imbecile demon-spawn of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I understand that we live in a demand-based economy and that there is far more demand for brainless celebrity bullshit than there is, say, for the fine print of the Health and Human Services budget.

But that was before this week. I awoke this morning in New York City to find Britney Spears plastered all over the cover of two gigantic daily newspapers, simply because she cut her hair off over the weekend. To me, this crosses a line. My definition of a news story involves something happening. If nothing happens, then you can't have "news," because nothing has changed since the day before. Britney Spears was an idiot last Thursday, an idiot on Friday, and an idiot on both Saturday and Sunday. She was, shockingly, also an idiot on Monday. It will be news when she stops being an idiot, and we'll know when that happens, because she'll have shot herself for the good of the planet. Britney Spears cutting her hair off is the least-worthy front page news story in the history of humanity.

Apparently, from now on, every time a jackass sticks a pencil in his own eye, we'll have to wait an extra ten minutes to hear what happened on the battlefield or in Congress or any other place that actually matters.

On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.

Not only does it make many of Bush's tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what's interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.

Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

Or how about this: if the Estate Tax goes, the heirs to the Mars candy corporation -- some of the world's evilest scumbags, incidentally, routinely ripped by human rights organizations for trafficking in child labor to work cocoa farms in places like Cote D'Ivoire -- if the estate tax goes, those assholes will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks. That's more than three times the amount Bush wants to cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period.

Some other notable estimate estate tax breaks, versus corresponding cuts:




Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts



Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut



Ernest Gallo family (shitty wines) receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut



And so on and so on. Sanders additionally pointed out that the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks.

Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children.

Somehow, to me, that's the worst one on the list. Here you have the former CEO of a company that scored record profits even as it gouged consumers, with gas prices rising more than 70 percent since January of 2001. There is a direct correlation between the avarice of oil company executives and the increased demand for federal aid for heating oil programs like LIHEAP, and yet the federal government wants to reward these same executives for raising prices on the backs of consumers.

Even if you're a traditional, Barry Goldwater conservative, the kinds of budgets that Bush has sent to the hill not only this year but this whole century are the worst-case scenario; they increase spending generally while cutting taxes and social programming. They commit taxpayers to giant subsidies of already Croseus-rich energy corporations, pharmaceutical companies and defense manufacturers while simultaneously cutting taxes on those who most directly benefit from those subsidies. Thus you're not cutting spending -- you're just cutting spending on people who actually need the money. (According to the Washington Times, which in a supremely ironic twist of fate did one of the better analyses of the budget, spending will be 1.6 percent of GDP higher in the 2008 budget than in was in 2000, while revenues will be 2.6 percent of GDP lower). This is something different from traditional conservatism and something different from big-government liberalism; this is a new kind of politics that transforms the state into a huge, ever-expanding instrument for converting private savings into corporate profit.

That's not only bad government, it's bad capitalism. It makes legalized bribery and political connections more important factors than performance and competition in the corporate marketplace. Beyond that, it's just plain fucking offensive to ordinary people. It's one thing to complain about paying taxes when those taxes are buying a bag of groceries once a month for some struggling single mom in eastern Kentucky. But when your taxes are buying a yacht for some asshole who hires African eight year-olds to pick cocoa beans for two cents an hour ... I sure don't remember reading an excuse for that anywhere in the Federalist Papers.

I also don't remember reading much about this year's budget. It was a story for about half a minute when it came out two weeks ago. It barely made TV newscasts, and even when it did, only the broad strokes made it on air. There was some fuss about the Alternative Minimum Tax and a mild uproar over the fact that the 2008 budget failed to account for estimates of the costs for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But overall, the budget was a non-starter as a news story. As it does every year, it takes a back seat to hot-button issues like gay marriage, the latest election scandal, etc. Already, the 2008 election presidential campaign has gotten far more ink than the 2008 budget. As entertainment, bullshit politics always triumphs over real politics.

Here's the thing about the system of news coverage we have today. If the Walton family, or Lee Raymond, or the heirs to the Mars fortune actually needed the news media to work better than it does now, believe me, it would work better. But they have no such need, because the system is working just fine for them as is. The people it's failing are the rest of us, and most of the rest of us, apparently, would rather sniff Anna Nicole Smith's corpse or watch Britney Spears hump a fire hydrant than find out what our tax dollars are actually paying for.

Shit, when you think about it that way, why not steal from us? People that dumb don't deserve to have money.

[Guest ONYX]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Yep, we sure do. [/b][/color]

[Actium]

Assuming for a second that everything in this article is accurate, why is the government entitled to even more of the money of the Waltons and others who basically build our economy? Billionaires do pay quite a bit of taxes, you know. And surely Rolling Stone knows the President's proposed budget is not binding--and I doubt a Democrat-controlled Congress will go along with many of the proposals.

[|Bunghole|]

Ten guys go to a Reds game and pay $10/man for a ticket. One man is a billionaire, five are middle income wage earners (30% tax bracket), three are lower income wage earners (10-15% tax bracket) and one does not pay taxes (below the poverty level). The game is cancelled and will not be replayed so, by practice, they refund the full cost of the tickets to each person. However, it so happens this year their ticket sales manager is a very liberal democrat who reasons as follows:



The Billionaire won’t even miss the $10 so don’t refund him anything.
The five middle income wage earners should get something back but they don’t need it as much as the lower income wage earners and certainly not as much as the poor bastard who is below the poverty level. So they refund each of the middle income wage earners $9 for a total of $45.
The three lower income wage earners really could use the dough so refund them $12 each for a total of $36.
For the below the poverty level ticket holder refund them the rest or $100 - $45 - $36 or $19.


Now apply the analogy to taxes. Those who pay the most in taxes get the most back when one gives a percentage tax break. If you warp it, then you may be rewarding folks who recognize that not being successful may be a good deal because the liberal democrats will distribute the wealth to the poorer folks. I’m not against taking care of poor folks. I am very against penalizing folks just because they’ve worked hard, taken chances and were successful and made money.



Someone ought to ask Matt how much did Wal-Mart pay in total taxes before just shoving a number up there that says see how much they will save under this proposal.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="#008080"][b]Example A of why it is looking more and more like I will be finishing my PhD .... and then moving out of the country.

I suggest the rest of you build up loans, credit card bills, extract as much cash as possible = and then do the same.

It is looking more and more like this countries population is too fucking lazy, trivial, and stupid to save itself...

The majority of people are not interested in how they are being screwed - as long as you give them cheap bud light, greasy fast food, reality TV to watch, porn to jerk off to, a slick cell phone to use, and a fat wife to fuck.


Armed revolution is basically impossible.... as is the ability of any 3rd party to enact change ... corporations own almost everything (including the politicians) and their rich heirs will soon evolve into the Dark Age’s equivalent of a Nobleman with all of us as their wage serfs.


Then when you point out to the average American just how bad the system is being manipulated to create an oligarchical collectivist system of CORPORATE WELFARE and Corporate COMMUNISM ....... where fucks like Wal-Mart are given tax breaks, subsidies to open stores, and tax cuts to the rich piece of shit descendants who will now be billionaires for the next 25 generations even if they do nothing.... (This is not Adam Smiths “fruits of your own labor” argument). = Upon hearing this --> Americans wrap themselves in the flag and convolute some cockamamie idea of "Why does the government deserve their money" ...

You know - that same government that built the roads Wal Marts trucks drive on, dug the ports Wal Marts ships sail into, laid the electrical grid that Wal Marts stores use, supplied the police and firemen that guard Wal Marts stores, laid the water pipes and infrastructure that Wal Marts stores use, supply the military that supposedly defends the interests of the nation that Wal Mart resides in, etc etc etc etc. Wal Mart exists as a corporation because the PEOPLE of the United States allow it to. The GOVT is supposed to represent the interests of the majority of the PEOPLE ... but in our system we have serfdom where the amount of representation you gets - depends on the size of the check you write.


I suggest you build up some student loans ... and then move to Greenland.[/b][/color]

[Actium]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444158' date='Feb 22 2007, 10:19 AM'][color="#008080"][b]Example A of why it is looking more and more like I will be finishing my PhD .... and then moving out of the country.

I suggest the rest of you build up loans, credit card bills, extract as much cash as possible = and then do the same.

It is looking more and more like this countries population is too fucking lazy, trivial, and stupid to save itself...

The majority of people are not interested in how they are being screwed - as long as you give them cheap bud light, greasy fast food, reality TV to watch, porn to jerk off to, a slick cell phone to use, and a fat wife to fuck.
Armed revolution is basically impossible.... as is the ability of any 3rd party to enact change ... corporations own almost everything (including the politicians) and their rich heirs will soon evolve into the Dark Age’s equivalent of a Nobleman with all of us as their wage serfs.
Then when you point out to the average American just how bad the system is being manipulated to create an oligarchical collectivist system of CORPORATE WELFARE and Corporate COMMUNISM ....... where fucks like Wal-Mart are given tax breaks, subsidies to open stores, and tax cuts to the rich piece of shit descendants who will now be billionaires for the next 25 generations even if they do nothing.... (This is not Adam Smiths “fruits of your own labor” argument). = Upon hearing this --> Americans wrap themselves in the flag and convolute some cockamamie idea of "Why does the government deserve their money" ...

You know - that same government that built the roads Wal Marts trucks drive on, dug the ports Wal Marts ships sail into, laid the electrical grid that Wal Marts stores use, supplied the police and firemen that guard Wal Marts stores, laid the water pipes and infrastructure that Wal Marts stores use, supply the military that supposedly defends the interests of the nation that Wal Mart resides in, etc etc etc etc. Wal Mart exists as a corporation because the PEOPLE of the United States allow it to. The GOVT is supposed to represent the interests of the majority of the PEOPLE ... but in our system we have serfdom where the amount of representation you gets - depends on the size of the check you write.
I suggest you build up some student loans ... and then move to Greenland.[/b][/color][/quote]

These could be the lyrics to a Queensryche song

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444158' date='Feb 22 2007, 11:19 AM'][color="#008080"][b]Example A of why it is looking more and more like I will be finishing my PhD .... and then moving out of the country.

I suggest the rest of you build up loans, credit card bills, extract as much cash as possible = and then do the same.

It is looking more and more like this countries population is too fucking lazy, trivial, and stupid to save itself...

The majority of people are not interested in how they are being screwed - as long as you give them cheap bud light, greasy fast food, reality TV to watch, porn to jerk off to, a slick cell phone to use, and a fat wife to fuck.
Armed revolution is basically impossible.... as is the ability of any 3rd party to enact change ... corporations own almost everything (including the politicians) and their rich heirs will soon evolve into the Dark Age’s equivalent of a Nobleman with all of us as their wage serfs.
Then when you point out to the average American just how bad the system is being manipulated to create an oligarchical collectivist system of CORPORATE WELFARE and Corporate COMMUNISM ....... where fucks like Wal-Mart are given tax breaks, subsidies to open stores, and tax cuts to the rich piece of shit descendants who will now be billionaires for the next 25 generations even if they do nothing.... (This is not Adam Smiths “fruits of your own labor” argument). = Upon hearing this --> Americans wrap themselves in the flag and convolute some cockamamie idea of "Why does the government deserve their money" ...

You know - that same government that built the roads Wal Marts trucks drive on, dug the ports Wal Marts ships sail into, laid the electrical grid that Wal Marts stores use, supplied the police and firemen that guard Wal Marts stores, laid the water pipes and infrastructure that Wal Marts stores use, supply the military that supposedly defends the interests of the nation that Wal Mart resides in, etc etc etc etc. Wal Mart exists as a corporation because the PEOPLE of the United States allow it to. The GOVT is supposed to represent the interests of the majority of the PEOPLE ... but in our system we have serfdom where the amount of representation you gets - depends on the size of the check you write.
I suggest you build up some student loans ... and then move to Greenland.[/b][/color][/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Hopefully my 401k will one day buy me a home outside Toronto, provided of course, that the
billionaires that I work for don't steal it. [/b][/color]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ONYX' post='444187' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:09 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]Hopefully my 401k will one day buy me a home outside Toronto, provided of course, that the
billionaires that I work for don't steal it. [/b][/color][/quote]


F that, Im learning a new language and moving to Brazil, it's warmer they run their cars on ethanol plus did you see their women during the World cup?

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444199' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:26 PM']F that, Im learning a new language and moving to Brazil, it's warmer they run their cars on ethanol plus did you see their women during the World cup? [/quote]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Good points. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img] But soccer is really, really gay.[/b][/color]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='ONYX' post='444208' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:41 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]Good points. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img] But soccer is really, really gay.[/b][/color][/quote]


Yes I agree, but tell me you never have done anything "gay" like that for a woman.

Another point.... Carnival.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='444141' date='Feb 22 2007, 10:29 AM']Ten guys go to a Reds game and pay $10/man for a ticket. One man is a billionaire, five are middle income wage earners (30% tax bracket), three are lower income wage earners (10-15% tax bracket) and one does not pay taxes (below the poverty level). The game is cancelled and will not be replayed so, by practice, they refund the full cost of the tickets to each person. However, it so happens this year their ticket sales manager is a very liberal democrat who reasons as follows:



The Billionaire won’t even miss the $10 so don’t refund him anything.
The five middle income wage earners should get something back but they don’t need it as much as the lower income wage earners and certainly not as much as the poor bastard who is below the poverty level. So they refund each of the middle income wage earners $9 for a total of $45.
The three lower income wage earners really could use the dough so refund them $12 each for a total of $36.
For the below the poverty level ticket holder refund them the rest or $100 - $45 - $36 or $19.


Now apply the analogy to taxes. Those who pay the most in taxes get the most back when one gives a percentage tax break. If you warp it, then you may be rewarding folks who recognize that not being successful may be a good deal because the liberal democrats will distribute the wealth to the poorer folks. I’m not against taking care of poor folks. I am very against penalizing folks just because they’ve worked hard, taken chances and were successful and made money.



Someone ought to ask Matt how much did Wal-Mart pay in total taxes before just shoving a number up there that says see how much they will save under this proposal.[/quote]
????????
I mean c'mon guys, this is how the system works.....

[Jason]

[quote]While America obsessed about Brittany's shaved head, Bush offered a budget that offers $32.7 billion in tax cuts to the Wal-Mart family alone, while cutting $28 billion from Medicaid. Tools[/quote]

Do you know what happens when rich people get more money in their pockets? They spend or invest it, thus putting more money into the economy.

When Mr Walton gets his tax cuts, he will likely open more stores, creating more jobs, more income for himself, cost savings for families, and pump billions of dollars back into the economy, and increase the governments tax income.

Since the Bush tax cuts, the government has taken in more money.

When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s the government income grew.

When Kennedy cut taxes in the 60s the government income grew.

Notice a trend???

Yes, the rich get more money back when tax rates are cut. But the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.54% of all income taxes. The Top 1% pay 34.27%.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="#0000FF"][b]~ Ten guys go to a Reds game and 9 of them pay $10/man for a ticket and one man the billionaire gets paid 20 $ to attend the game.

The Billionaire is paid to enter the game because he has paid off the owner of the baseball team and is his golfing buddy .... and the team owner has sold this to the public by telling them that his presence in the stadium is a good thing. (See Wal Mart and community incentives/tax breaks/ $$$)

Now apply the analogy to taxes.




~ Those who make the most $ = benefit from the most from living in America and thus should pay the most in taxes to America as a fee.




~ I am very against allowing 30 straight generations of billionaires who live on interest --- & who've never worked a day in their lives.[/b][/color]

[Actium]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444269' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:07 PM'][color="#0000FF"][b]~ Ten guys go to a Reds game and 9 of them pay $10/man for a ticket and one man the billionaire gets paid 20 $ to attend the game.

The Billionaire is paid to enter the game because he has paid off the owner of the baseball team and is his golfing buddy .... and the team owner has sold this to the public by telling them that his presence in the stadium is a good thing. (See Wal Mart and community incentives/tax breaks/ $$$)

Now apply the analogy to taxes.
~ Those who make the most $ = benefit from the most from living in America and thus should pay the most in taxes to America as a fee.
~ I[b] am very against allowing 30 straight generations of billionaires who live on interest --- & who've never worked a day in their lives[/b].[/b][/color][/quote]

Why? I'm just curious. It is my goal to make enough money so that my progeny don't have to go through what I did. I want to be remembered as the man who provided for my family, forever--the one who elevated us to a powerful instiution. Is it likely? Probably not. But that's my goal. And say what you want about this country--for all its problems, if you have an idea and the desire to make something happen, you can.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Jason' post='444238' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:23 PM'][size=3]Do you know what happens when rich people get more money in their pockets? [/size] They spend or invest it, thus putting more money into the economy.[/quote]

[size=3][b]How is this any different than when a government (a collection of voted in people) get money in their pocket ??? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img][/size]

[color="#008000"] All money not stuck in a shoe box gets spent or invested. Whether it is Uncle Sam buying tar for roads ... or Sam Walton buying a 17th Mercedes. [/b][/color]






[quote name='Jason' post='444238' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:23 PM']When Mr Walton gets his tax cuts, he will likely open more stores, creating more jobs, more income for himself[/quote]


[b]When Uncle Sam gets more revenue, he will likely hire more govt employees, improve healthcare making workers more productive, spend on education adding $ to teachers pockets, pay soldiers more $, creating more jobs, and thus more income for himself. [/b]







[quote name='Jason' post='444238' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:23 PM']The Top 1% pay 34.27%.[/quote]

[color="#9932CC"][b]Someone brainwashed in the illusory "invisible hand" fisting you in Capitalism .... sees this and says: "Why the hell are they paying all the taxes".

Someone not raised under such a "fable" of dogma .... sees such a figure and says: "What kind of country allows the top 1 % of people - to become so fucking rich ... they when they pay 1/3 of their income ... it accounts for 34 % of all the nations income ? !!" [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img][/b] [/color]

[Actium]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444280' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:22 PM'][size=3][b]How is this any different than when a government (a collection of voted in people) get money in their pocket ??? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img][/size]

[color="#008000"] All money not stuck in a shoe box gets spent or invested. Whether it is Uncle Sam buying tar for roads ... or Sam Walton buying a 17th Mercedes. [/b][/color]
[b]When Uncle Sam gets more revenue, he will likely hire more govt employees, improve healthcare making workers more productive, spend on education adding $ to teachers pockets, pay soldiers more $, creating more jobs, and thus more income for himself. [/b]
[color="#9932CC"][b]Someone brainwashed in the illusory "invisible hand" fisting you in Capitalism .... sees this and says: "Why the hell are they paying all the taxes".

Someone not raised under such a "fable" of dogma .... sees such a figure and says: "What kind of country allows the top 1 % of people - to become so fucking rich ... they when they pay 1/3 of their income ... it accounts for 34 % of all the nations income ? !!" [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img][/b] [/color][/quote]

Letting people become rich? What are you proposing, proscribing them a la in Rome and seizing their private assets for the state? Why punish people who are extraordinary? Why reward the weak? People are not equal, nor should they be. Equality of opportunity is one thing, equality of result is quite another. Do you really think the government knows best how to deal with money, and invest? Are more bureaucrats and more pointless levels of government really the answer?

Tax money is not the government's to begin with. It comes from somewhere--the people. Once a people in a republic/democracy learn they can vote themselves income from the government, the floodgates are opened. Free money! Who cares where it comes from?

All that happens if you start seizing all funds above a certain point (wasn't that what Huey Long advocated?) is a decreased level of production and a stagnant economy--an economy that can't provide jobs for its growing populace.

I'm just talking here--what's wrong with plutocrats running things? Corporations are the things most responsible for raising our standard of living to where it is. They are just doing what others want to do, but they actually do it. Why punish them out of envy? Justice? What's that? A code word for hamstringing life's winners and succoring the losers?

[Guest CincyInDC]

[quote name='sneaky' post='444187' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:09 PM'][color="#ff0000"][b]Hopefully my 401k will one day buy me a home outside Toronto, provided of course, that the
billionaires that I work for don't steal it. [/b][/color][/quote]


[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444199' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:26 PM']F that, Im learning a new language and moving to Brazil, it's warmer they run their cars on ethanol plus did you see their women during the World cup? [/quote]


[quote name='sneaky' post='444208' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:41 PM'][color="#ff0000"][b]Good points. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img] But soccer is really, really gay.[/b][/color][/quote]


[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444210' date='Feb 22 2007, 12:45 PM']Yes I agree, but tell me you never have done anything "gay" like that for a woman.

Another point.... Carnival.[/quote]

I'm with Jamie on this one. Toronto is really fucking cold, and Brazilian women are hot [i]and [/i]loose.

[Jamie_B]

[Guest CincyInDC]

[quote name='Jason' post='444238' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:23 PM']Do you know what happens when rich people get more money in their pockets? They spend or invest it, thus putting more money into the economy.

When Mr Walton gets his tax cuts, he will likely open more stores, creating more jobs, more income for himself, cost savings for families, and pump billions of dollars back into the economy, and increase the governments tax income.

Since the Bush tax cuts, the government has taken in more money.

When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s the government income grew.

When Kennedy cut taxes in the 60s the government income grew.

[b]Notice a trend???[/b]

Yes, the rich get more money back when tax rates are cut. But the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.54% of all income taxes. The Top 1% pay 34.27%.[/quote]

The trend I noticed during the 80's and lately (the bush II years) is that the disparity between the rich and the poor widened. This is one reason why lefties say that trickle-down economics doesn't work. I don't know if the same trend holds true when you look at Kennedy's tax cuts. I like the idea of tax cuts (who wouldn't), but not when we're at war and spending like we are. Republicans like to bitch about tax and spend democrats, but I think cut-tax and spend repbulicans are worse. We are really fucking our children over.

Didn't Napoleon simply decide France's debts were forgiven at some point? It would be nice if we could do that. Or would it?

[Jason]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='444312' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:03 PM'][b]The trend I noticed during the 80's and lately (the bush II years) is that the disparity between the rich and the poor widened. [/b] This is one reason why lefties say that trickle-down economics doesn't work. I don't know if the same trend holds true when you look at Kennedy's tax cuts. I like the idea of tax cuts (who wouldn't), but not when we're at war and spending like we are. Republicans like to bitch about tax and spend democrats, but I think cut-tax and spend repbulicans are worse. We are really fucking our children over.

Didn't Napoleon simply decide France's debts were forgiven at some point? It would be nice if we could do that. Or would it?[/quote]

This is a smokescreen. The rich got richer, but the poor got richer too. It just so happens that the rich went up more than the poor did. [b]THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. EVER.[/b] The rich have the means and the skill to grow their income. "The poor" will always be here. However, they will not always be the same people. And the group known as "the poor" can do nothing to keep up with the group known as "the rich".

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']Letting people become rich? What are you proposing, proscribing them a la in Rome and seizing their private assets for the state?[/quote]

[b]I thought your hero was Augustus ? [/b]






[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']Why punish people who are extraordinary?[/quote]
[b]Why neglect people who are unfortunate ? [/b]







[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']Why reward the weak?[/quote]
[b]Why not help those who have been systematically disenfranchised economically and socially through generational looting ? [/b]






[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']People are not equal, nor should they be.[/quote]
[b]Time to re-write the declaration of independence and the bill of rights ... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img][/b]







[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']Do you really think the government knows best how to deal with money, and invest?[/quote]
[b]It depends ....accountable government = Yes. They know how to better spend $ so that it helps their citizenry than say Sam Walton. But the corportocracy we have now ? who knows. [/b]







[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']Tax money is not the government's to begin with.[/quote]
[b]Doesn't the govt protect the validity of a nations currency ? [/b]







[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']All that happens if you start seizing all funds above a certain point (wasn't that what Huey Long advocated?)[/quote]
[b]Hell yeah ... and he was assassinated for it .... RIP Huey [/b]






[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']I'm just talking here--what's wrong with plutocrats running things?[/quote]
[b]stated like a true Plutocrat [/b]







[quote name='Actium' post='444297' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:40 PM']Why punish them out of envy?[/quote]
[b]Why reward most of them because of their starting position in life ? [/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[size=4][quote name='Jason' post='444238' date='Feb 22 2007, 01:23 PM']Since the Bush tax cuts, the government has taken in more money.[/quote][/size]

[center][img]http://fixco1.com/bushchart07.jpg[/img][/center]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='444312' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:03 PM']The trend I noticed during the 80's and lately (the bush II years)[/quote]

[b]Is how they bankrupt the US economy by overspending on military, not balancing the budget, and then building huge deficits that then once a Democratic president is elected after them (Because of people being tired of their policies) = That democrat then has to slowly dig out the economy while bearing the burden of all the piling up bills. [/b]

[Actium]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444354' date='Feb 22 2007, 02:43 PM'][b]I thought your hero was Augustus ? [/b]
[b]Why neglect people who are unfortunate ? [/b]
[b]Why not help those who have been systematically disenfranchised economically and socially through generational looting ? [/b]
[b]Time to re-write the declaration of independence and the bill of rights ... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img][/b]
[b]It depends ....accountable government = Yes. They know how to better spend $ so that it helps their citizenry than say Sam Walton. But the corportocracy we have now ? who knows. [/b]
[b]Doesn't the govt protect the validity of a nations currency ? [/b]
[b]Hell yeah ... and he was assassinated for it .... RIP Huey [/b]
[b]stated like a true Plutocrat [/b]
[b]Why reward most of them because of their starting position in life ? [/b][/quote]

My hero is Augustus--but he was forced to be a demagogue. Adaption to the reality of the situation--that's what it's all about. I don't have to be like him in any case--I don't have a famous great-uncle to help me get my start. I simply greatly admire that he was perceived as a mediocrity and was attempted to be used as a cats-paw by the establishment--and he changed the establishment to make it his own. His seizure of private assets was not policy per se--rather a bonus of destroying political enemies.

Maybe people who are neglected will learn to be more effective citizens of humanity if they aren't given hand-outs by the government. Concript them to serve in the armies of conquest in some capacity--and pay them that way using the plunder gained. Anyway, if the government didn't give hand-outs, maybe they would get involved in some private community and they could take care of them.

I don't make excuses for the poor. Stop blaming others and start taking action. I do not respect those who act as if Fate is against them, and who don't even try. If you fail, at least do so going down swinging.

The government prints the currency, but if you think they make it worth anything, you are wrong. The economy grows through private enterprises. Legal tender is just a way to express the value that they create.

Huey Long was a fascinating figure.

Believe me, I'm not plutocrat. I can currently barely make ends meet. But I have ambition and the will to change that. I want to do what Augustus did, use the establishment, and then destroy it and make my own. As they said in Tin Cup, Greatness courts Failure. I probably will fail. But above all things I want to be remembered in history. As a champion, or as a villain, will all be contingent on how successful I am.

I have no problem rewarding people for starting position in life. That's reality. Good families endure, and are in a better position to help out their progeny. So I have to be that much better. And hope that Providence favors me. And that I am the founder of a dynasty instead of a mere part of it.

[Lawman]

[quote]proscribing them a la in Rome and seizing their private assets for the state?[/quote]

[i]My current favorite show on televison is HBO's seriies ROME.

The last episode, exemplified this process.[/i]