Ikpeip wrote:-The article you link states "the rich" are increasing in their share of overall wealth. This still is not an indicator of economic growth or health. In your world it'd be better if we were all paupers, as long as we were all equally destitute.
-The only reason your taxes as a percentage of your income is twice Mitt Romney's is due to deductions for charity - twice as much as the $1.9 million he paid in taxes, which puts the combined amount he's "giving back to society" 50% higher, as a percentage of his total income, than yours.
-Nobel prizes are given out for political reasons, not for merit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9603849/Nobel-Peace-Prize-the-ten-most-controversial-winners.html. Paul Krugman
is a hack-I never claimed automation was solely a response to overly burdensome regulations. I am claiming that overly burdensome regulations provide more of an incentive for automation, and increasing that burden will result in employers hiring less employees. I'm not claiming that's a bad thing, but it does run against your mob-rule desires.
-You claim to be "fighting for the human condition... for the poor and middle class" but you're not fighting for anything. You're advocating theft against productive members of society, to bribe unproductive members of society, to advance your political agenda. When you fight for something, you put your own skin in the game.
-The study concluded specifically from both Reagan's 86 tax cuts and the Bush Tax Cuts that no economic benefit came from them for the country. Both tax cuts were not offset with government spending drops which in short reduced the ability of the government to change course when the economy did fall into recession. little economic growth resulted from specifically lowering taxes on the highest bracket instead it showed increased investment in overseas accounts and in non-corporate investments (bonds, mutual funds, trusts) by the top 5%. This had the result of freezing large amounts of capital out of the U.S. Economy. The result of a 5 fold increase in wealth for the top 1% and a shrinking of 1/3 of the U.S. middle class is what happened. As the rich paid less taxes their tax burden moved to the middle class and specifically payroll taxes on the working poor.
-Only right wing nutjobs think that Nobel Prizes are given out for political reasons. What you're actually seeing is political leadership and scientific research being recognized that you disagree with politically but the rest of the world sees as politically neutral but influential for the benefit of mankind. You've been given delusional information and you've swallowed it. You can quote right wing conservative leaning opinion papers like 'The Telegraph', and 'Money Watch' if you want but they have a clear conservative agenda. 'United Liberty' and 'Times Watch' have about as much to do with journalism as Stormfront, Glenn Beck's Daily Newsletter or Fox News. And before you attack 'The New York Times' and look like even more like a wing-nut for the right, you should realize that 'The New York Times' is considered the best newspaper in the world and the most respected news source in this country since Cronkite died. You're disagreement with Krugman and the Times is simply your spoon fed dogma from sources like Fox News coming back up.
-Responsible workplace regulation which your right wing lobotomized thought process calls burdensome is exactly one of the reasons why that clothes company in that article you cited moved back to N. Carolina rather than continuing in India and Bangladesh, and why they've put in state of the art air cleaners and workplace spaces. Without those positive government regulatory developments over the past 100 years the manufacturing center you work in would be inhumane for the workers just like most of the other 3rd world countries that company fled.
-"Theft against productive members of society", what a joke. Most of these companies are owned by the inheritors of wealth or the money men who are also the inheritors of wealth from their parents. I can't imagine a less productive member of society than these Trust fund perma-children of the 1% you keep voting for. Even look at Bayard Winthorp's family from that clothing company you gave us. It's not like he started with nothing and worked himself up by his bootstraps.
You're talking about the working poor here. You don't know these people. What you call theft is allowing people to live in decent housing and allowing them to have a decent retirement when they reach old age. You call that theft for some bizarre reason when it's actually investing their lives and labor into this country. How you can call them unproductive is beyond me and I've got as much skin in the game as anyone.
Look at your leaders on the right. So few of them have actually built their money and lives for themselves. Look at your last 3 presidential candidates. Mitt Romney inherited millions and a contact list from his parents and wanted for nothing.
McCain is the grandson of a Mississippi Plantation owner which held 120 slaves at it's height (see the article from your very own Telegraph), and George W. Bush is the Grandson and Great Grandson of 2 industrialists. His grandfather was one of 7 directors of a bank that was seized during WWII for being controlled by Nazi Supporter Fritz Thyssen under the 'Trading with the Enemies Act'.
Bush himself was fed by his father's friends and business contacts to make his millions. All of these men inherited their wealth and contacts and invented and produced nothing.
As Balzac once said "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
jwhitehorn wrote:Your kidding yourself if you think Claeyt is anything but poor and uneducated. He is fighting for what he believes will help future generations avoid the outcome of his own ineptitude. A misplaced effort sure, but I wouldn't go as far to say that his political agenda is outside of his own immediate sphere of knowledge and experiences and therefore, he very much has skin in this "game" he is playing and system he is abusing. It is his beliefs and attitude that have secured his place in the lower class and it is his place in the lower class that feeds his beliefs and attitude. A vicious circle that unfortunately will perpetuate itself and we will be forced to listen to it until he no longer prioritizes his welfare check to pay his internet bill.
I'm neither poor nor uneducated. You couldn't have gotten it more wrong Chief. Even from the personal details I've given you here on the forum you should be able to figure out I've got at least a masters. I work in the private sector. I'd be considered upper middle class but definitely grew up in the lower middle class.
