Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 10:44 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Waiting for Wealth

Topic closed. 404 replies. Last post 5 years ago by rdgrnr.

Page 18 of 27
2.910
PrintE-mailLink

Should you vote for and support policies that benefit only the rich as you wait to win the lottery?

Yes [ 10 ]  [18.52%]
No [ 44 ]  [81.48%]
Total Valid Votes [ 54 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 9 ]  

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 9, 2012, 4:29 pm - IP Logged

Here's what the title should have read

I hope you vote for the people who will force you to support me because it will be just like winning the lottery.

Interesting to me that a solution or proposed alternative is never given by to left wing lunatics. Are they saying we need laws that will somehow harm or punish the rich?? Should we make being rich a criminal offence?? Will the country be better off WITHOUT Microsoft, Oracle, Google (no more googler), Berkshire Hathaway, Wal-Mart, Bloomberg LP, Amazon.com, Facebook, Dell, Nike, candy, oil & gas and all the other thing we ALL use everyday??

Also interesting is how efficient they are at projecting onto other their own sad, pathetic station in life. The ultimate "bubble" has to be the liberal collage classroom incubators they call universities, where they get accolades for acting more insane than their peers.

    maximumfun's avatar - Lottery-030.jpg
    Lavender Rocket

    United States
    Member #124616
    March 16, 2012
    2642 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 9, 2012, 4:59 pm - IP Logged

    Interesting to me that a solution or proposed alternative is never given by to left wing lunatics. Are they saying we need laws that will somehow harm or punish the rich?? Should we make being rich a criminal offence?? Will the country be better off WITHOUT Microsoft, Oracle, Google (no more googler), Berkshire Hathaway, Wal-Mart, Bloomberg LP, Amazon.com, Facebook, Dell, Nike, candy, oil & gas and all the other thing we ALL use everyday??

    Also interesting is how efficient they are at projecting onto other their own sad, pathetic station in life. The ultimate "bubble" has to be the liberal collage classroom incubators they call universities, where they get accolades for acting more insane than their peers.

    ok now we are going past where I can ride the ride with y'all.    I do not believe that left-leaners are all lunatics, nor do I share their politics, nor do their lives mirror more sadness or pathetic'ness than many of my right-leaning associates. 

    Universities and other institutes of public learning (k-12 and beyond) - all seem to be more and more espousing ideals that are contrary to my own.  My children, however, all attended public schools (from 6th grade on - that was when I stopped home-schooling), public universities (some of the private ones were 'more scary' to us than the public ones!!!) and our famiy never ceased our 'home-learning' during any of that time.

    Since we are now to the 'next-educatables' - the grand-kids, I am teaching them all to read (3 years old is our norm), and will keep working with them as long as God allows me to draw breath (and my kids live close-by).

    It is the right and responsibility of each generation to teach the next and the next and the next those things that are precious to it.  Bashing entire groups (as opposed to specific examples) is never healthy or right.


      United States
      Member #116268
      September 7, 2011
      20244 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 9, 2012, 8:28 pm - IP Logged

      ok now we are going past where I can ride the ride with y'all.    I do not believe that left-leaners are all lunatics, nor do I share their politics, nor do their lives mirror more sadness or pathetic'ness than many of my right-leaning associates. 

      You managed to misquote or misunderstand at least twice in your first paragraph alone. I didn't say anything about ALL left learners being lunatics and the word sad had nothing to do with sadness. 

      It is a sad (and pathetic) state of affairs for a person the categorize (label) a person like me as someone who "lives in a bubble and quotes Rush" etc... etc.... etc.....  because I have fundamentalist, traditional values that don't include right to abortion on demand, gay rights, rights for illegal immigrants, the right to smoke dope, and the right to equal pay for everyone, like the lunatic left are "progressing" toward.

      At least try to make sense, no matter which side you are arguing for.

        mediabrat's avatar - 18z0typ
        upstate NY
        United States
        Member #108791
        March 31, 2011
        549 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 10, 2012, 11:15 pm - IP Logged

        Almost half the people in this country DON'T pay any income tax.  How is that fair?  The rich do pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country?  Why should we take more from them? 

        Your quote says a lot about what you think of rich people, that we should steal from them.  Jesse James was a murdering thief and no amount of romanticizing will change that. 

         Between the cutting of taxes and the desire to cut as many services for the poor as possible, it certainly looks like the right wing wants to place our economic burdens on the backs of those who can least afford it. - It's this welfare President that has done more damage to middle America.  I noticed he kept the Bush tax cuts after saying he was going to let them expire.  Why is that?  Because the tax cuts work.

        "Your quote says a lot about what you think of rich people, that we should steal from them."

        No sir.  What is says is that it makes sense to continue to tax the rich at their current rates, if not more, because they can afford it.

        And if you view taxes as a form of theft, I'm not sure how you expect the functions of government to be funded.

          mediabrat's avatar - 18z0typ
          upstate NY
          United States
          Member #108791
          March 31, 2011
          549 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 10, 2012, 11:40 pm - IP Logged

          (EDIT:  This is in reply to CDanaT, I apparently forgot to tick the "quote this post" box.)

          "I will ask you the same question that I asked Googler earler in the topic(to which he failed to reply)......
          How Much Money Should the Rich Be Allowed to Keep ???? What percentage should they should their tax level be ? 50, 60, 80 % ???"

          I'd say we need to come to a consensus on what "rich" means.  Having looked at our current tax rates, I actually wouldn't change much.  What I would do is add two more tax brackets:  40% for incomes between $600,000 and $1.5 million, and 45% for incomes above $1.5 million.  These rates are still lower than they've been throughout much of history.  Also, I'm not sure if I'd increase the long-term capital gains tax on these two new brackets any more than it's already going up (it's supposed to reset to 20% for all but the bottom 25% next year), but I wouldn't go any higher than 25%.

          "Let's take it one step further...lets gut their entire wealth, every single dime they own, take every millionaire and take it all to give back to Uncle Sam shall we ??"

          I never said that.  I must respectfully ask you to stop making things up.

          "Do you realize that won't pay a 3rd the current national debt we have  ??"

          So let's not bother trying to chip away at it?  How does that make sense?

          "Our problem is not a tax issue its a SPEND issue...spend more than we take in, give more away, keep giving and giving and borrowing & borrowing......16 trillion and climbing is the problem...."

          I don't disagree that spending is a problem.  However, reducing spending alone will not be enough.  We need to BOTH decrease outflow AND increase income.

            mediabrat's avatar - 18z0typ
            upstate NY
            United States
            Member #108791
            March 31, 2011
            549 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 10, 2012, 11:44 pm - IP Logged

            Willie sutton.

            What ? Who ? the famous bank robber of the 1930s.

            It was'nt Jesse James that said "Because thats' where the money is" It was Willie Sutton.

            and what he really said, when asked by an interveiwer, "why do you rob banks ? "

            was "cause thats' where they keep the money"

            Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

            Thank you, kind sir.  I usually look these things up, but for some reason this time my gut was saying, "Don't worry about this, you got it!"  Stupid gut.  Crazy


              United States
              Member #116268
              September 7, 2011
              20244 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 10, 2012, 11:52 pm - IP Logged

              Current Congressionally created debt:

              01/23/2012
              12/31/2011
              06/30/2011
              12/31/2010
              06/30/2010
              12/31/2009
              08/30/2009
              04/16/2009
              10/30/2008
              11/01/2007
              09/29/2006
              09/30/2005
              09/30/2004
              09/30/2003
              09/30/2002
              09/28/2001
              08/08/2001
              04/30/2001
              02/28/2001
              01/31/2001
              12/29/2000
              09/29/2000
              09/30/1999
              09/30/1998
              09/30/1997
              09/30/1996
              09/29/1995
              09/30/1994
              09/30/1993
              09/30/1992
              09/30/1991
              09/28/1990
              09/29/1989
              09/30/1988
              09/30/1987
              $15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
              $15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
              $14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
              $14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
              $13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
              $12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
              $11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
              $11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
              $10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
              $9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
              $8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
              $7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
              $7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
              $6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
              $6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
              $5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
              $5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
              $5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
              $5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
              $5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
              $5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
              $5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
              $5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
              $5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
              $5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
              $5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
              $4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
              $4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
              $4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
              $4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
              $3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
              $3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
              $2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
              $2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
              $2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

              The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt's web site:
              http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

                haymaker's avatar - Lottery-012.jpg
                Egg Harbor twp.south Jersey shore
                United States
                Member #112968
                June 29, 2011
                3854 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 11, 2012, 6:05 pm - IP Logged

                Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

                Thank you, kind sir.  I usually look these things up, but for some reason this time my gut was saying, "Don't worry about this, you got it!"  Stupid gut.  Crazy

                Well, there are times when ya gotta go w/ the gut.

                Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds    -- Charles Mackay  LL.D.

                  Avatar
                  Inland Empire
                  United States
                  Member #118116
                  October 22, 2011
                  316 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 11, 2012, 6:19 pm - IP Logged

                  Current Congressionally created debt:

                  01/23/2012
                  12/31/2011
                  06/30/2011
                  12/31/2010
                  06/30/2010
                  12/31/2009
                  08/30/2009
                  04/16/2009
                  10/30/2008
                  11/01/2007
                  09/29/2006
                  09/30/2005
                  09/30/2004
                  09/30/2003
                  09/30/2002
                  09/28/2001
                  08/08/2001
                  04/30/2001
                  02/28/2001
                  01/31/2001
                  12/29/2000
                  09/29/2000
                  09/30/1999
                  09/30/1998
                  09/30/1997
                  09/30/1996
                  09/29/1995
                  09/30/1994
                  09/30/1993
                  09/30/1992
                  09/30/1991
                  09/28/1990
                  09/29/1989
                  09/30/1988
                  09/30/1987
                  $15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
                  $15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
                  $14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
                  $14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
                  $13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
                  $12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
                  $11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
                  $11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
                  $10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
                  $9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
                  $8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
                  $7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
                  $7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
                  $6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
                  $6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
                  $5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
                  $5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
                  $5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
                  $5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
                  $5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
                  $5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
                  $5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
                  $5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
                  $5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
                  $5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
                  $5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
                  $4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
                  $4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
                  $4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
                  $4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
                  $3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
                  $3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
                  $2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
                  $2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
                  $2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

                  The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt's web site:
                  http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

                   Starting from 2001, I think both Dems and Reps did some really lousy jobs in keeping the book. The debt scale gets worse starting in 2001 and it's the constant pace even after the new president.

                    CDanaT's avatar - tiger avatar_04_hd_pictures_169016.jpg
                    TX
                    United States
                    Member #121193
                    January 4, 2012
                    1637 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 12, 2012, 2:07 am - IP Logged

                    (EDIT:  This is in reply to CDanaT, I apparently forgot to tick the "quote this post" box.)

                    "I will ask you the same question that I asked Googler earler in the topic(to which he failed to reply)......
                    How Much Money Should the Rich Be Allowed to Keep ???? What percentage should they should their tax level be ? 50, 60, 80 % ???"

                    I'd say we need to come to a consensus on what "rich" means.  Having looked at our current tax rates, I actually wouldn't change much.  What I would do is add two more tax brackets:  40% for incomes between $600,000 and $1.5 million, and 45% for incomes above $1.5 million.  These rates are still lower than they've been throughout much of history.  Also, I'm not sure if I'd increase the long-term capital gains tax on these two new brackets any more than it's already going up (it's supposed to reset to 20% for all but the bottom 25% next year), but I wouldn't go any higher than 25%.

                    "Let's take it one step further...lets gut their entire wealth, every single dime they own, take every millionaire and take it all to give back to Uncle Sam shall we ??"

                    I never said that.  I must respectfully ask you to stop making things up.

                    "Do you realize that won't pay a 3rd the current national debt we have  ??"

                    So let's not bother trying to chip away at it?  How does that make sense?

                    "Our problem is not a tax issue its a SPEND issue...spend more than we take in, give more away, keep giving and giving and borrowing & borrowing......16 trillion and climbing is the problem...."

                    I don't disagree that spending is a problem.  However, reducing spending alone will not be enough.  We need to BOTH decrease outflow AND increase income.

                    "Do you realize that won't pay a 3rd the current national debt we have  ??"

                    So let's not bother trying to chip away at it?  How does that make sense?

                    Of course lets not chip away..lets slash it by not giving foreign countries hundreds of millions,cut out Post Office delivery on SAT, make proper adjustments to Amtrak fees, stop bailing out banks, stop bailing out the auto industry. This jargon of business is too big to fail ??  Wrong, they created the monster, let them learn by their losses. Its just like the welfare recipients that continue to produce children because the get more more money and free this or that..If they keep getting bailouts, they will never learn their lesson...Henry Ford failed in 1899 and again in 1901. The government didn't bail him out then and he made it in 1903. I think that Ford didnt take any federal money this time either.
                     
                     
                    "I never said that. I must respectfully ask you to stop making things up." ......" However reducing spending alone will not be enough"
                      I didn't say YOU DID !......I said that and am stepping up for that suggestion to make people aware that our mindless Government cant control their budget................As I stated before with the list of net worth on the Forbes list, it showed even with all their wealth, and taking it all, that it  wouldn't reduce our deficit/spending habits. Look at the spending trend we have gone along with over the last 3 years ?... Increase of income is a great thing, but when you create major corporate taxes and regulations that cost employers major $$... The USA is the #1 country in the world for corporate taxes.  Starting a business takes capitol. When employees demand insurance coverage and higher wages then OSHA regs and the state government taxes/ county government taxes/ EPA reg & fees, etc etc..........The problem with government is they continually have their hand out to dig into our pockets....You can't blood from a turnip....No income and continued unemployment doesn't create income for deficit reduction.
                    When was the last time that our elected officials took a paycut ? or the government actually reduced the budget ?? Big government  and their regulations/ reckless spending is not the answer.
                    Yes rates are lower then they have been throughout history...But so is the value of the dollar....Just remember, the more they(government) take and carelessly spend, the less you have to spend on what drives our economy (the American business owner)....The viscous cycle continues, we get it and they don't.

                    Stay Positive, Believe and good things will come your way

                      mediabrat's avatar - 18z0typ
                      upstate NY
                      United States
                      Member #108791
                      March 31, 2011
                      549 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 12, 2012, 4:20 am - IP Logged

                      CDanaT,

                      You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you on most of what you're saying.  Not all of it, mind you, but at this point I'm not sure it would be productive to keep going at it.  The biggest difference between us is that it seems like you'd rather I take a baseball bat to your, uh, "gentleman's area" than even consider raising taxes.  There are definitely cuts that need to be made and we can argue over how much should be cut and where until the cows come home.  However, I maintain my stance that cuts alone will not be sufficient; you'll have to bring in more tax revenue, and it makes sense to raise taxes on the richest of the rich.  I'm not talking about your average small business owner, I'm talking about the real heavy hitters.  These guys don't start businesses, though doing so may or may not be how they got to where they are; they just get paid handsomely to (supposedly) run the biggest businesses in the land.  Although I misattributed the quote about robbing banks earlier, the point is the same:  that's where the money is.

                        rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                        Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                        United States
                        Member #73904
                        April 28, 2009
                        14903 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 12, 2012, 8:02 am - IP Logged

                        CDanaT,

                        You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you on most of what you're saying.  Not all of it, mind you, but at this point I'm not sure it would be productive to keep going at it.  The biggest difference between us is that it seems like you'd rather I take a baseball bat to your, uh, "gentleman's area" than even consider raising taxes.  There are definitely cuts that need to be made and we can argue over how much should be cut and where until the cows come home.  However, I maintain my stance that cuts alone will not be sufficient; you'll have to bring in more tax revenue, and it makes sense to raise taxes on the richest of the rich.  I'm not talking about your average small business owner, I'm talking about the real heavy hitters.  These guys don't start businesses, though doing so may or may not be how they got to where they are; they just get paid handsomely to (supposedly) run the biggest businesses in the land.  Although I misattributed the quote about robbing banks earlier, the point is the same:  that's where the money is.

                        You obviously just don't get it.

                        We don't have a tax revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

                        We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

                        If you raise the taxes even more they will spend even more.  They have free rein to spend all they want because Harry Reid(D) hasn't submitted a budget in years.

                        They shouldn't be allowed to keep raising and raising and raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending sprees.

                        They need to stop the insane spending before they do anything else.

                        You and I have to budget our money, why shouldn't they?

                        It's really not that complicated.


                                                                     
                                             
                                                                 

                         

                         

                         

                         

                                                                                                                           

                        "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                                    --Edmund Burke

                         

                         


                          United States
                          Member #116268
                          September 7, 2011
                          20244 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 12, 2012, 10:38 am - IP Logged

                          You obviously just don't get it.

                          We don't have a tax revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

                          We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

                          If you raise the taxes even more they will spend even more.  They have free rein to spend all they want because Harry Reid(D) hasn't submitted a budget in years.

                          They shouldn't be allowed to keep raising and raising and raising taxes to cover their irresponsible spending sprees.

                          They need to stop the insane spending before they do anything else.

                          You and I have to budget our money, why shouldn't they?

                          It's really not that complicated.

                          Thank goodness for the voice of reason. I get so tired of the whimpering schoolgirl crying baby smokescreen "raise taxes on the rich" "the rich can afford it" "the rich have more than enough" "the rich aren't paying their fair share"

                          Our "leaders" (or is it losers?) for the past 20+ years remind me of my X wife who would rumage through the mail for credit card offers, submtt them, receive the cards and spend them to the limit, and then throw the statments away in the trash.

                          When I started getting collection calls and questioned her, she would say "I NEEDED THE MONEY"


                            United States
                            Member #116268
                            September 7, 2011
                            20244 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 12, 2012, 10:42 am - IP Logged

                            Thank goodness for the voice of reason. I get so tired of the whimpering schoolgirl crying baby smokescreen "raise taxes on the rich" "the rich can afford it" "the rich have more than enough" "the rich aren't paying their fair share"

                            Our "leaders" (or is it losers?) for the past 20+ years remind me of my X wife who would rumage through the mail for credit card offers, submtt them, receive the cards and spend them to the limit, and then throw the statments away in the trash.

                            When I started getting collection calls and questioned her, she would say "I NEEDED THE MONEY"

                            $15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)

                              sully16's avatar - sharan
                              Ringleader
                              Michigan
                              United States
                              Member #81740
                              October 28, 2009
                              40293 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 12, 2012, 10:47 am - IP Logged

                              $15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)

                              Ronnie, if you get the chance, check out my blog on really dumb government spending, They are spending us right into 3 world poverty.

                              Did you exchange a walk on part in the war ?

                              For a lead role in a cage?

                               

                                                                          From Pink Floyd's " Wish you were here"

                                 
                                Page 18 of 27