Obama's naive class warfare

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Well their sure as shit not getting out of the wagon and pulling like everyone else.
Give them an incentive to get off their collective asses.

I am for that, but no one has come up with a brillant plan to do that, so pull out the net? There are a ton of lazy people, I agree! For every lazy person sucking off the dole there are a ton of people just trying to get by in a post-recession that wont end.

PS The very rich are still doing very well, I know you are all sick of hearing it, but the truth they are. I am not for taxing the crap out of them either, but a 2% increase, not talking 250K income would not kill them.

Jobs increased the slowest in 25 years under the Bush tax cuts and we still have them now, where are the jobs? I understand Obama has been lax in giving business in this country some faith, but what is needed? Another tax cut? I am all for rewriting tax regulations in this country, too complex! But I dont think there is a magic elixir or a tax cut that is going to make this country active again in 4-5% GDP. We will find out soon! If Obama loses and the Dems lose the house, I am all ears! Every economist or pundit has a solution, but I want to see results like every other American!

 

[Straight Shooter]

Well their sure as shit not getting out of the wagon and pulling like everyone else.
Give them an incentive to get off their collective asses.

Let me explain unemployment benefits to you. The goal of the unemployment insurance program is to provide people with about half of their normal wage. They aren't lucrative by any means. It just simply isn't adequate enough for someone to live on. Indeed this is the point, if you give the unemployed too much money for too long, it could theoretically take away their incentive to search for work. Instead, unemployment benefits are essentially intended to provide just enough money to keep jobless Americans — and the economy as a whole — temporarily afloat.

 

[Trident1]

I am for that, but no one has come up with a brillant plan to do that, so pull out the net? There are a ton of lazy people, I agree! For every lazy person sucking off the dole there are a ton of people just trying to get by in a post-recession that wont end.

PS The very rich are still doing very well, I know you are all sick of hearing it, but the truth they are. I am not for taxing the crap out of them either, but a 2% increase, not talking 250K income would not kill them.

I am all for rewriting tax regulations in this country, too complex! But I dont think there is a magic elixir or a tax cut that is going to make this country active again in 4-5% GDP. We will find out soon! If Obama loses and the Dems lose the house, I am all ears! Every economist or pundit has a solution, but I want to see results like every other American!

I agree. For those who have worked and are out of a job because of the crisis I have no problem seeing them on gov't assistance. I know they'll get back on their feet when the job situation gets better.
The ones that I target are those who sit do nothing, have kids they can never take care of, have no impairment, use the race card as an excuse, etc etc.
These are the people who have no intention of getting out of the wagon. Instead they know people like us will pull for them. The social welfare system needs to be fixed.

 

[ragincaucasian]

so we're talking about families in Section 8 housing......not proposing an equitable tax for those acquiring wealth exponentially greater than the most citizens?

 

[TheOrangeCat]

so we're talking about families in Section 8 housing......not proposing an equitable tax for those acquiring wealth exponentially greater than the most citizens?

But you have to look at the other side of the equation.. regardless of the disproportionality of the wealth accumulation, those that do earn well have usually worked their asses off for it.

I'm not sayign the working class don't work hard .. but just as it is unfair to say the hard working poor should be penalised for earning poorly, why is it any more equitable to say equally hard working rich should be taxed disproportionally: particularly when the basis of the latter is to support NOT the former, but those who will not (for whatever reason) pull their weight?

P.S. the vast majority of today's ultra rich - those most vilified by the 'working class advocates' - are college dropouts from middle to working class backgrounds. What's the lesson here: it's not about environment. It's about heart.

Check this out as a very basic example.

 

[ragincaucasian]

because 20% of $40k isn't "proportional" to and 20% of $250k

if the average person needs $35k to sustain their family....that 20% of $40k cripples any chance of even fighting inflation.

if the wealthy person removes 20% of $250k, they still have way more than they would need to sustain their family.

Its not like we're suggesting something out of the blue or never actually applied

what does the 0.00001% of the billionaires you presented have to do with anything? The Ayn Rand fantasy of John Galts out there doesn't take into account that NONE of this works without labor. Why can't a man who becomes the best custodian he can be make a living to survive? Why is it necessary that a man/woman who works has to break their back for 60 years just to get by only to be left to fend for themselves when they can no longer work. He isn't incentivized for saving his money (because of interest rates) and any hope he has for retiring via 401k will get pillaged by his CEOs. This isn't about how we can make the exception (of the 1% wealthy) the rule.

To make matters worse, we're trying to privatize EVERYTHING / Every service (school, retirement, health care, transportation, etc) creating a dog-eat-dog / get-whats-mine society with no infrastructure to raise the standard of living ("ACK!! Cummunizms!"). Why is it necessary that our consumer-driven society force everything to be more difficult than it needs to be (to force labor to never be content.....to always be stuck in a position of servitude to corporations)

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Well, this is kind of my point: it's about proportionality.

And, as i said in my post, it's an example only. An example that background has nothing to do with achievement. It's about will, heart and opportunity.

And, sometimes, people need a sharp kick in the ass in order to get them to grab the brass ring.

 

[Trident1]

because 20% of $40k isn't "proportional" to and 20% of $250k

if the average person needs $35k to sustain their family....that 20% of $40k cripples any chance of even fighting inflation.

if the wealthy person removes 20% of $250k, they still have way more than they would need to sustain their family.

Its not like we're suggesting something out of the blue or never actually applied

what does the 0.00001% of the billionaires you presented have to do with anything? The Ayn Rand fantasy of John Galts out there doesn't take into account that NONE of this works without labor. Why can't a man who becomes the best custodian he can be make a living to survive? Why is it necessary that a man/woman who works has to break their back for 60 years just to get by only to be left to fend for themselves when they can no longer work. He isn't incentivized for saving his money (because of interest rates) and any hope he has for retiring via 401k will get pillaged by his CEOs. This isn't about how we can make the exception (of the 1% wealthy) the rule.

To make matters worse, we're trying to privatize EVERYTHING / Every service (school, retirement, health care, transportation, etc) creating a dog-eat-dog / get-whats-mine society with no infrastructure to raise the standard of living ("ACK!! Cummunizms!"). Why is it necessary that our consumer-driven society force everything to be more difficult than it needs to be (to force labor to never be content.....to always be stuck in a position of servitude to corporations)

I'm for privatizing because the fed gov't has proven it's inability to get anything done without a huge clusterfuck.

Going after people who make 250K isn't fair either. You said go after the rich.............well then go ahead. 250K is middle class. I'm in that group. Go after the people making over 500K they're the upper class.
Don't undercut the entrepreneurial middle class with the insipid class war shit. You end up freakin dividing a pie into small pieces no one gets shit but hey you've redistributed the wealth and fucked the middle class meanwhile the upper class is still sittin' pretty.
It's like you're punishing anyone who's made something for themselves and are trying to maintain a decent life while giving something to the next generation. For example, I support Kasich's effort to scrap the estate tax.

The left operates like a State gov't job.........only do the minimum requirement for work but get punished if you go over that because it makes the other workers look "lazy".

 

[cindy CD/TV]

I don't want the government taking money from so-called "rich" people who earned their money and hand me a check funded with their money. It's not what this country is all about. The founding fathers were mostly businessmen who fought a goddamn revolution to, in essence, avoid what liberals are trying to do today. When the founders spoke about freedom and "All men are created equal," they were talking primarily about ECONOMIC freedom.

When I think of "rich," $250K or even $500K a year doesn't count because a great many of these types are "small" business people who put a majority of those earnings back into their businesses and pay the salaries of a LOT of fellow Americans. But we shouldn't even be taking money from all those corporate CEOS and banker assholes who give themselves $120M bonuses, or pro sports stars who earn $30M a year. It's all part of the capitalist system. Taking the good with the bad, this is the system by which this country became the most powerful nation in history. By its very nature, capitalism leaves some people behind and some people profit in obscene ways. The entitlement programs (excluding seniors) are meant to help those who are left behind on a TEMPORARY basis until they can support themselves -- it's not meant to be a permanent crutch that removes all incentive to produce something in society.

The promise of the American dream, IMO, is that any one of us can rise from dirt poor to filthy rich by working hard and taking chances -- not to wait for some government program to give you your monthly allowance. What's the point of reaching this goal only to have the government step in and essentially punish you for all your hard work?

 

[Straight Shooter]

The lengths to which Republicans are going, including opposing their own proposals and hurting the U.S. economy, just to undermine President Obama is unbelievable. For example I'll start with PAY-GO. Four GOP senators supported legislation to bring back PAY-GO, but once Obama agreed to endorse PAY-GO those same four senators then withdrew their support and decided they didn't want it anymore. Another one is the bi-partisan debt commission which was originally sponsored by Judd Greg(R) of NH. Seven GOP senators co-sponsored legislation to establish such a commission but once again when Obama agreed to endorse the proposal, those same seven senators withdrew their support and decided they didn't want it anymore. So basically anything Obama is for, the GOP is against.

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that G.O.P. leaders actually want the economy to perform badly when they make statements like this.

 

[YMIHERE]

The issue of raising taxes should not be sidetracked by the red herring of the Redistribution of Wealth augment. The issue is the how to share the tax burden in a society. The government needs revenue to pay its bills without borrowing. If the "rich" pay less it means the middle, poor and future taxpayers pay more. The principle of wherewithal to pay should be the determining factor. There's no way spending cuts alone are going to reduce the national debt. It's going take spending cuts and tax increases the get a handle on this problem.

 

[Nester6]

The issue of raising taxes should not be sidetracked by the red herring of the Redistribution of Wealth augment. The issue is the how to share the tax burden in a society. The government needs revenue to pay its bills without borrowing. If the "rich" pay less it means the middle, poor and future taxpayers pay more. The principle of wherewithal to pay should be the determining factor. There's no way spending cuts alone are going to reduce the national debt. It's going take spending cuts and tax increases the get a handle on this problem.

Welfare is becoming an increasingly "way of life" for many and the generations of such a culture they create. I believe this causes internal strife that won't be overcome and will eventually lead any system of tax generation into eternal disrepair.

 

[girk1]

because we know those folks are just ballin' and livin the good life!!!





We love shitting all over the poor disenfranchised American citizens in this country, while at the same time pouring trillions of dollars overseas trying to prop up foreign governments (Afghanistan is about to declare insolvency)

We love our scapegoats

It's the same old freaking song from the same old tired ass crowd. Those from the hood/ section 8 , food stamps, AFDC crowd take up less than 2% of the US budget ,but the same people act is those insignificant benefits amount to something.

The Pentagon/Military is where most of their money is going ,followed by pensions(Social Security) and Medicare(elderly).

But let's attack the people who are getting less than 2% of the US Budget.

Most of the safety net programs(not counting earned income credit,etc..) amount to very little and will cost the taxpayer no matter what. Those people aren't going to starve to death and they will get what they need best they can and the cost in security/prisons would be far more than what we pay for setion 8, stamps and AFDC now.

Brazil has ignored the very poor in their country and it costs them greatly in crime/insecurity and it would be a replay here in the states.

 

[ragincaucasian]

Welfare is becoming an increasingly "way of life" for many and the generations of such a culture they create. I believe this causes internal strife that won't be overcome and will eventually lead any system of tax generation into eternal disrepair.

I can't argue against what you've posted there. Yes, it can create a vicious cycle.

The error would be to assume that everyone on 'assistance' is there because they just didn't "work hard enough" or "bootstrapped up, mothafucka". Until we, as a society, can deal with the answers of WHY scores of people fall into the predicament of requiring assistance, all the 'work harder' rhetoric is just that.

 

[georges]

People were marketing hyping Obama and yet what do you get as a final result? The economy is in the shitter, no real improvement about economy or reduction of the huge debt and unemployment but far worse than that is that Obama wanted to implement the long term failed policies about social healthcare and security that plagued and continue to plague Europe since decades. Trying to implement socialism in the US is lacking logic and financial long term way of managing money. Just look at how Obama managed his state when he was a senator, did he made any positive change? No, his state went worse.

 

[ragincaucasian]

Trying to implement socialism in the US is lacking logic and financial long term way of managing money.

?
What do you think private insurance is?

 

[Hot Mega]

?
What do you think private insurance is?

Exactement!!!

Although I tried reasoning that line of thinking to George once, I fear it's because I tried in English instead of French.:frenchman

 

[georges]

?
What do you think private insurance is?

I know what private insurance is. But paying for the poor and social healthcare leechers by deducting taxes on the salaries of honest hard working people is a no :nono: But who cares if the poor or the ghetto trash people die?
I don't give a damn about them. I think people should insure themselves to their own level and stop counting on others to pay for them or assist them.

 

[georges]

Exactement!!!

Although I tried reasoning that line of thinking to George once, I fear it's because I tried in English instead of French.:frenchman

Spare me your lame excuse, you are the one that fanboyed Obama and that still fanboys him even though he is a very mediocre president. Perhaps you should put your own failed way of reasoning in question and stop being so naive and blind by Obama who seems to be your messiah. Don't underestimate me , I understand English pretty well as much as I do understand Russian and German, but what you don't understand or deliberately are unwilling to understand is that none likes social healthcare leechers and the trash. Perhaps when you will understand that, we will be able to debate more efficiently.

 

[Hot Mega]

I don't give a damn about them. I think people should insure themselves to their own level and stop counting on others to pay for them or assist them.

Georges the premise of insurance is the basis for all the things you are decrying. You don't see that?

You say in one statement people should insure themselves to their own level then it the next say they should stop counting on others to pay for them...

Well, counting others to pay or assist them is EXACTEMENT what the concept of insurance is...

You take out an insurance policy to mitigate your costs (the contributions of others help to offset damages) in the event of a loss.

In other words, you pay into a system that pools your money with that of others which pays you in the event you have a covered problem.

If you are the only one filing claims in some string of misfortunes...should those who pay into the insurance you're a part of but never file a claim complain about constantly paying for your flubs?

Speaking of counting on someone...could you remove this thread since you're here?