Hey, right-wing corporate hate machine!
Go ahead! Win the day!
Cut health care! Abolish the FDA! Strip education!
Let seniors "fend for themselves"! Let returning soldiers, rife with PTSD and unemployment rot!
Embrace the über wealthy! Jettison the über poor!
Let the middle class shrivel and die!
Hoard your profits, gained from cutting wages, doing away with retirement benefits and outsourcing jobs!
Hoard your profits, gained from wars fought for oil!
Divide countrymen and countrywomen from each other! Demonize art, sexuality and the intellect!
Pretend like race is a "non issue"!
Lie like hell! Distract and connive!
And sooner than later cut your own throat and the throats of all those people who have the misfortune to be born into the world you've won and made in your own, craven image!
Turn this once noble land into a strip-mined strip-mall!
Ignore history!
And at some point, the lesson will be learned. Again!
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheStevenWeber
you said: " The freedom to make "greater profits" while not incurring greater liability to contribute to the maintenance of the Government that provides the environment in which you are earning those profits?"
Ok.. here's a quick math lesson for you.. do you know what percentage means? If everyone is taxed at the same percentage, do you even realize that that does NOT mean that everyone will be paying the same amount of taxes? When those evil rich people make greater profits they WILL pay MORE in taxes.. because they are paying a percentage of their income. The rich / wealthy DO pay more.. the top 20% of earners pay 90% of all taxes the govt. takes in! And somehow you / the left think they're not paying their "fair" share?? This IS the problem with the left.. a lack of comprehension of basic math.. and an aggressive leftist agenda spurring on those lies that the rich aren't paying their fair share.. literally taking advantage of the ignorance (and strengthening that ignorance) that is so widespread on the left.
After all expenses, the bottom 50% of the Socio/Economic ladder have 0 (or are in the negative).
After all Government support intended to provide the opportunity to temporarily survive an economic difficulty, the bottom 50% of the Socio/Economic ladder have 0 (or are still in the negative).
THEREFORE, we should TAX those who have 0.
I NEED a math lesson from someone who supports the rationale that:
Less than 2% of the ENTIRE POPULATION of Recipients of Government Assistance are guilty of "gaming the system".
Therefore we should deny assistance to 100% of that ENTIRE POPULATION.
I should absolutely get a math lesson from someone who seems to believe that:
Without Government Assistance the "MILLIONS without jobs, who are seeking employment, while BARELY able to LIVE on the current programs providing them assistance, will SUDDENLY be able to find a job.
Okay, I'm sure you'll deny (personally) supporting any of that, but the Party you support has certainly made those assertions and more.
And who is saying that we should tax those who have 0?? Nearly half the population is not paying ANY fed. taxes. The main issue is the left's insistence that those who pay MOST.. which you conveniently ignored that figure btw, of the taxes.. should pay even more. Logic and common sense says that this solution does have an end to it.. when it reaches 100% this "solution" ends. So CLEARLY the ideology of raising taxes on the wealth and having them carry the entire burden is actually NOT a solution! Instead of raising taxes to pay for all the WASTE (and my gosh I hope you don't try to deny that fact.. although that hope is not very high).. why don't we work on getting rid of the waste?? And instead of continuing to give more and more money/ aid to people which does not encourage them to be self supportive, we focus more on fixing that "solution" and help people to become more self supportive? Because if we do not do that exact thing, again, we will reach an end where we cannot get any more money from the rich.
So, I think you are saying here that the unemployment aid etc should continue until these people find a job? That sounds great.. only one problem.. we don't have the money to do this. Do you know what is going on in Europe? There are several countries who have run out of money and resources to borrow more money.. why? Because their situation is so bad, no one will lend them any more money. Why do you so naively think that this can't happen to us? What if China decides we are too risky to lend any more money to? Which could very well be the case if Obama wins another term. If that happens.. where are we going to get this money from to help all these people?? You remind me of when my daughter was little and she wanted me to buy her something and I told her I didn't have any money.. and she said.. "just get it from the ATM machine". You are like a clueless child.
And the same thing with asst. for the poor. You say the govt. doesn't help them enough, it's because money doesn't grow on trees or is printed out for you on the spot when you enter your pin number.
A little history AND math, for perspective.
Throughout HISTORY there have been times when the DISPARITY between the Wealthiest Individuals in a Society and the Poorest Individuals in THAT Society has exceeded a certain percentage. WHAT HAPPENED in EVERY ONE OF THOSE SOCIETIES?
That is the point that Steven was making.
You can hold DEAR all of your beliefs about Justice, Right and Wrong, Mathematical Realities OR ANYTHING ELSE that you wish.
The REALITY is that those with nothing have nothing to lose, and when a large enough number find themselves in that circumstance they will REBEL!
It's a historical fact, and all the math in the world will not change it.
Lastly, another PERCENTAGE that you might consider. Approximately 70% or our "right of center" Nation, agrees that the wealthiest Americans should PAY MORE.
You, are decidedly in the minority.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/09/20/poll-most-americans-support-obama-deficit-plan-to-tax-rich
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/Americans-Favor-Jobs-Plan-Proposals-Including-Taxing-Rich.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Americas%20-%20Politics%20-%20USA
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156737-poll-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-leave-medicare-medicaid-alone
Do you have any figures to support these assertions? No you don't. It DOES remove incentive and it DOES significantly negatively affect their profitability, this is again, common sense reasoning. What doesn't seem "significant" to you may certainly be for those who are actually having to pay the money.. again this is SUBJECTIVE.. and you / the left have NO RIGHT to determine what is or isn't significant to someone else. what they pay in taxes is NOT their only financial obligation... is it yours?? What would a "little" do to your budget? Have you noticed how upset people are right now over a simple new $5 fee by banks?? It's turned out to be extremely significant.
"The REALITY is that those with nothing have nothing to lose, and when a large enough number find themselves in that circumstance they will REBEL! "
Those rich people are the ones who create the jobs. And that's where we must focus to get people from having nothing to having something. And in the process we must preserve capitalistic freedoms as much as possible so that we have as many jobs as possible. AND preserve the opportunity for those who WANT to have more than nothing or just something.. so they are FREE to do that.. just like those who have a lot right now did. Punishing the rich for being rich is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And I'll address the rest (that 70% agree with raising taxes on the rich) later this evening.
Genius. Very easy for a guy who has already made a lifetime's living to piss on those below.
I thought Capitalist's favored "Trickle Down Economics".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Bloomberg has set his sights on Koch Industries. This is a good start.
No Fat Presidents
03:18 PM on 9/30/2011
"Your philosophy keeps forgetting that while the evil rich are free to "abuse" their employees. .. those employees are FREE to not work for their abusers. . .it also means that there are many employers who are free to decide to treat their employees fairly . . . And those people actually DO exist and most likely will be found in the majority of successful companies."
Either you are VERY young, VERY naive, or you simply didn't grow up anywhere NEAR a major Corporation's production facility.
I grew up in the INDUSTRIAL NorthEast. I am intimately familiar with many of the MOST SUCCESSFUL Corporations in America, and their Labor Relationships. I grew up watching major waterways and landmasses CALLOUSLY and UNCARINGLY being POLLUTED into uselessness. I've had friends and relatives who developed CANCERS and other illnesses and conditions, at young ages, due to exposure to toxins in the workplace AND their homes (air, water, and soil) from those Industries. I grew up reading the news EVERY DAY of how Corporation A was fighting against a requirement imposed by the Government that would force them to place filters on the sewage flowing out of their plant, and Corporation B was fighting a lawsuit from CITIZENS who wanted them to stop burning TOXIC waste in their furnaces, because all it was doing was sending the toxins into the air, because those toxins were not destroyed by heat.
I'm afraid you are simply wrong on this point. No MAJOR CORPORATION has EVER cleaned up it's mess without being FORCED by Government Regulation or Legal Mandate to do so. Even WITH a LEGAL DIRECTIVE from the Government, MOST CORPORATIONS will seek to EVADE the most COSTLY actions (see BP, Haliburton, Shell, Motorola, Exxon, Eastman Kodak, Koch Industries for examples) if they can figure a way to do so.
Using the govt. to FORCE your / the left's confused idea of justice.. is just yet another INJUSTICE.
What is "confused" about thinking that Corporations SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO POLLUTE OUR AIR, WATER, LAND, and OUR BODIES, when it is within their capability to operate their businesses WITHOUT those effects? What is "confused" and "unjust" about believing that a Corporation SHOULD NOT be able to hire "CHILDREN" to do the work of ADULTS? What is unreasonable in the concept of workers being paid a "Living Wage"?
Perhaps it is you who should take "some classes". The History of Industry in America is not exactly an unknown amongst those who have studied it.
Yet, you do SOUND confused.
03:18 PM on 9/30/2011 "You truly don't see the implication of those numbers/ statistics ??"
Thanks for clarifying (somewhat) what you are referencing. It only took asking 3 times.
So, YES! I absolutely see A MULTITUDE of potential implications. My point was to try to understand what YOU think it implies, which I guess you are not really inclined to state. I guess the best way for me to approach this would be to "throw out" a few possible explanations.
It could mean that we have transitioned to a "Police State" where even the most innocent acts of (supposed) free men, is sanctioned (against the law) by the Government.
It could mean that we have some SIGNIFICANT problems in our Criminal Justice System, whereby there are numerous determinants (be it race, class, ethnicity, age, etc of the perpetrator, as well as those same determinants of the victim) which are often misapplied in the "desire for Justice" as those within the system believe it would be best served.
It could mean that we have indeed become a "lawless nation" with a significant population that has neither "respect" for the law, nor a moral or ethical concept of "right and wrong".
It could mean that we have, in a misguided attempt to justify the cost of maintaining a large prison system the political decision was made to maintain populations above 100% of their recommended occupancy.
Or, it could be a combination of a multitude of factors, those I've cited, and others. It could be that there have been multiple missteps in the Nations attempts to rid ourselves of "undesirable elements" in our Society, given that so many people have so many different definitions for what makes their fellow human being "undesirable" to Society as a whole.
My question, however, was what do YOU think it indicates?
03:18 PM on 9/30/2011
"It's good to hear you state that the left believes in those things.."personal responsibility" etc. But you must apply the numbers to this view for the sake of our country.. AND for those people themselves ! It does them no good to encourage a life that takes them no where, that makes them dependent on govt. (which btw IS what many on the left want.. because it forces govt. to grow and become more powerful and controlling over those "evil" rich people.. really, it's the left USING the poor to achieve their goals and it IS the poor who are being harmed in the long run.. by keeping them poor and dependent instead of encouraging them to become successful and independent.)"
Continuing the rationale of the previous discussion on the effect of the "ballooning" of the Prison population, I would posit the question; Is there a more definitive demonstration of "controlling a population" and/or "making them dependent on the Government" than incarceration? Do you think the increase in the Prison population was part of the "Liberal Agenda"? Given the racial disparity in the Prison population, does it make sense that "Liberals" would seek to have the racial group that tends to vote in larger numbers for Democratic Candidates than Republican, locked up in greater number than the groups that don't?
The corrupting influence of American wealth and power have conjoined in a tsunami of avarice. Those who watch Faux News can't sort out the facts from the propaganda, but they do feel the pain--sadly misdirected against other have-nots rather than the kleptocracy. Their alignment with their captors comprises a nationwide Stockholm Syndrome. And those who march are attacked by politicized cops who assault harmless left wing protestors but allow wingnuts to carry weapons to a presidential speech. None dare call it the rise of fascism.
Give us the White House and both Houses of Congress (with actual, for-real, FDR-school Democrats) for four years. We'll show you how we lifted America from a Great Depression to the actual envy of the world with a "mixed economy" - a regulated free market for some things, socialism for others, like schools, roads, the military, cops, firefighters. We'll show you how we built the Great White Male Middle Class to which Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly hearken so wistfully. We'll show you how we brought women into it, blacks, Mexicans, Poles, Italians, Irish. We'll show you an economy built on consumer spending, on more people having jobs and benefits and disposable income to eat at a restaurant or buy a better bicycle or pay for anything that isn't rent, gas, or emergency room healthcare.
Republicans promise to cut spending but drive up a bill of $13 trillion in 8 yrs, promise to cut taxes but only do so for the Top Two Percent and have no problem raising YOUR payroll taxes, fund war profiteers but not veterans' benefits (going up and up because our combat medicine is so great and soldiers just don't die anymore, but rather live maimed and psychologically scarred for the rest of their lives).
Nice little place, somewhat egalitarian, everyone happy> aristocratic overreach for all the cookies with help from bought-off politicians and submissive plebes>one or two level of social strata take it on the chin for a few decades>popular revolt/off with their heads>lather, rinse, repeat.
What could possibly convince you, so thoroughly, of your own self-righteousness, that you now believe you can presume to sit in judgement of these people? What is it that makes it so easy for your Party and your Pundits to lead you into the belief that NONE of these peoples condition is your problem, none of their circumstance may be the result of your (parties) policies, none of these people have made a valiant, and difficult effort to be contributing members of the society?
The very fact that your Parties latest assault is on people who only months ago were employed, productive, and necessary members of our Society, should have given, at least some of you, pause, but rather than consider how outrageous the accusation of their malfeasance and malaise was, you jumped on that bandwagon without hesitation.