Treasonous Bill Passed by Senate Today

[MikeE]

Most of the 1% worked hard to get there.

Now I know you want to bring up the banks and wall street, well you need to talk to Obama about that. Seems like if you give enough money to Obama he doesn't hold it against you that you are in the 1%.

Yeah, it's HARD WORK denying people health care and tossing folks out of their homes, even if you do get some low-class boot lickers to actually do the dirty work.

 

[dmancornell]

Yeah, it's HARD WORK denying people health care and tossing folks out of their homes, even if you do get some low-class boot lickers to actually do the dirty work.

Implying economics is a zero-sum game. You figure marxist economics has been discredited so thoroughly that no one would ever use it to make a point, but yet, here it is again.

 

[beavertonbuck]

Yeah, it's HARD WORK denying people health care and tossing folks out of their homes, even if you do get some low-class boot lickers to actually do the dirty work.

Funny when I purchased a home I didn't see anyone putting a gun to someone's head while they signed on the dotted line. My home has lost about $45k in value but I am still paying my Mortgage. It might have something to do with me not paying more than I could afford and not banking on every increasing home values that would allow me to flip my home in two years, or maybe when I sign a contract I think it is my responsibility to pay what I said I would. And if you actually read what I wrote I am not exactly sticking up for banks and Wall Street. Companies that did stupid stuff should have failed. Instead Obama & Bernanke stepped in and said that we had to bailed out banks because the markets couldn't survive it. It was Obama who took taxpayers money and transferred it to the wealthy.

Most people (those not getting hand outs from the government) who are wealthy do so by providing a valuable service to people. Steve Jobs didn't steal people's money he just created products that customer's valued more than the price tag he put on them. Steve took their money and became incredibly wealthy while his customers got to play with their toys. People like Steve aren't taking from the 99% to make themselves richer rather they are creating products that allows people to lead happier, productive lives increasing the wealth available. It's the 1% that feeds at the government's trough gambling with my money that ticks me off.

 

[MikeE]

Implying economics is a zero-sum game. You figure marxist economics has been discredited so thoroughly that no one would ever use it to make a point, but yet, here it is again.

Silly me. And here I thought it was the one thousand health insurance lobbyists and the derivative trading financiers who were acting in a zero-sum way.

 

[dmancornell]

Silly me. And here I thought it was the one thousand health insurance lobbyists and the derivative trading financiers who were acting in a zero-sum way.

I agree, government and their bootlickers operate a zero-sum game (actually a negative-sum game). The private economy does not. A clear distinction must be drawn between 1% government parasites and 1% productive private citizens.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Well thats the thing, a lot of wealth is inherited so no work was done by the offspring for massive amounts of wealth. Lets take Albert Pujols, he just signed a $253 million contract with the Angels. He "works" just as hard as a guy who loads boxes for Walmart for $20k a year. In terms of sweat and labor, both people work, but one person is worth $253 million and the other isn't worth anything.

Also CEO's often times will run their company into the ground, or make horrible decisions that affects lots of peoples live (enron, haliburton, Union Carbide, BP) And more often than not, they pay little to no consequences for how many lives they ruined, because they are essentially above the law.

A lot of the 1% did not work hard to get there, it was inherited or done through capital gains. Most of the richest 1% have the luxury of not having to work for money, but to get it through dividends and capital gains. There is something inherently wrong with this country's tax system when the wealthiest 1% pay a lower percentage in taxes on capital gains, than working stiffs do on their wages.

Also look up Roger Smith, if you need an example where someone got paid millions for piss poor work as a CEO. He got paid $7 million a year by GM to run the company into the ground. He shipped US jobs to Mexico, and put thousands of UAW workers in Flint Michigan out of work. Prime example where you can destroy peoples lives to earn your millions. He also made the obnoxious quote "Were in the business of making money, not making cars". Mitt Romney was also part of a company that would lay off all the employees after buying a new company and then sell it for a profit. He made his millions through denying US workers a job. Now with CEO's putting Americans out of work, and getting richer, why should I support them having more tax cuts? If you make your millions through employing Americans, I have less of a problem with you being well off, than if you make your millions through laying off and firing thousands of Americans.

We gave the wealthy in this country tax cuts so they would create jobs. Clinton created 25 million jobs with a higher tax rate. GWB created only 3 million jobs and ballooned the debt. I think its safe to say that your fiscal and economic ideology has proven itself to be a complete failure, if you look up the facts.

One more example, the Koch Brothers of Koch industries have gotten massively wealthier in the past 2 or 3 years than before. But there has been no correlation between there rise in financial wealth, and job creation for their company, contrary to popular belief, wealthy people getting wealthier, does not correlate to more middle class jobs. You don't get rich by writing checks for employees, and you don't hire more employees because you got a tax cut one year over the previous.

Anytime someone brings up raising taxes on the wealthy, the Republicans automatically call that person either a socialist, a marxist, a communist, or someone engaging in class warfare. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world is by any measure of the word, NOT a socialist, and he thinks that we need to raise taxes a lot on the wealthiest .3%. The fox news pundits immediately started accusing him of being a socialist. Jon Stewart said calling Warren Buffet a socialist because he thinks the taxes on the wealthy need to be raised is like saying "You know that George Clooney, always banging different broads...What a queer!"

 

[beavertonbuck]

Well thats the thing, a lot of wealth is inherited so no work was done by the offspring for massive amounts of wealth. Lets take Albert Pujols, he just signed a $253 million contract with the Angels. He "works" just as hard as a guy who loads boxes for Walmart for $20k a year. In terms of sweat and labor, both people work, but one person is worth $253 million and the other isn't worth anything.

Also CEO's often times will run their company into the ground, or make horrible decisions that affects lots of peoples live (enron, haliburton, Union Carbide, BP) And more often than not, they pay little to no consequences for how many lives they ruined, because they are essentially above the law.

A lot of the 1% did not work hard to get there, it was inherited or done through capital gains. Most of the richest 1% have the luxury of not having to work for money, but to get it through dividends and capital gains. There is something inherently wrong with this country's tax system when the wealthiest 1% pay a lower percentage in taxes on capital gains, than working stiffs do on their wages.

Also look up Roger Smith, if you need an example where someone got paid millions for piss poor work as a CEO. He got paid $7 million a year by GM to run the company into the ground. He shipped US jobs to Mexico, and put thousands of UAW workers in Flint Michigan out of work. Prime example where you can destroy peoples lives to earn your millions. He also made the obnoxious quote "Were in the business of making money, not making cars". Mitt Romney was also part of a company that would lay off all the employees after buying a new company and then sell it for a profit. He made his millions through denying US workers a job. Now with CEO's putting Americans out of work, and getting richer, why should I support them having more tax cuts? If you make your millions through employing Americans, I have less of a problem with you being well off, than if you make your millions through laying off and firing thousands of Americans.

We gave the wealthy in this country tax cuts so they would create jobs. Clinton created 25 million jobs with a higher tax rate. GWB created only 3 million jobs and ballooned the debt. I think its safe to say that your fiscal and economic ideology has proven itself to be a complete failure, if you look up the facts.

One more example, the Koch Brothers of Koch industries have gotten massively wealthier in the past 2 or 3 years than before. But there has been no correlation between there rise in financial wealth, and job creation for their company, contrary to popular belief, wealthy people getting wealthier, does not correlate to more middle class jobs. You don't get rich by writing checks for employees, and you don't hire more employees because you got a tax cut one year over the previous.

Anytime someone brings up raising taxes on the wealthy, the Republicans automatically call that person either a socialist, a marxist, a communist, or someone engaging in class warfare. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world is by any measure of the word, NOT a socialist, and he thinks that we need to raise taxes a lot on the wealthiest .3%. The fox news pundits immediately started accusing him of being a socialist. Jon Stewart said calling Warren Buffet a socialist because he thinks the taxes on the wealthy need to be raised is like saying "You know that George Clooney, always banging different broads...What a queer!"

Jimmy I appreciate your response but disagree with you. I have several points but just one main one. First most people don't inherent their wealth but become wealthly thru their own hard work. You talk about Pujols and the Wal-Mart but I don't think anything is wrong with that. Plenty of people work hard and will never get ahead, and I agree that some wealthy people hardly work. This country was built on "to each according to his ability." so people who are smarter, more skilled in high value trades, and willing to take more risk are going to better. It is not a companies job to creates but rather to make a profit for the owners. If a company becomes more productive it might hurt workers that get laid off but it helps the company's customers that now will save money.

The biggest issue is propert rights and the rights that each person has to his own labor. If someone is committing fraud there is a law for that. Throw their *** in jail. However I work to provide for my family and myself. To suggest because someone is successful that they forfeit the right to own some more of their labor is ridiculous. I give to charities that are important to me don't try to force those choices on others, I think that we would be a more prosperous country if our federal gov functioned the same way.

 

[Kevatc]

Well thats the thing, a lot of wealth is inherited so no work was done by the offspring for massive amounts of wealth. Lets take Albert Pujols, he just signed a $253 million contract with the Angels. He "works" just as hard as a guy who loads boxes for Walmart for $20k a year. In terms of sweat and labor, both people work, but one person is worth $253 million and the other isn't worth anything.

Also CEO's often times will run their company into the ground, or make horrible decisions that affects lots of peoples live (enron, haliburton, Union Carbide, BP) And more often than not, they pay little to no consequences for how many lives they ruined, because they are essentially above the law.

A lot of the 1% did not work hard to get there, it was inherited or done through capital gains. Most of the richest 1% have the luxury of not having to work for money, but to get it through dividends and capital gains. There is something inherently wrong with this country's tax system when the wealthiest 1% pay a lower percentage in taxes on capital gains, than working stiffs do on their wages.

Also look up Roger Smith, if you need an example where someone got paid millions for piss poor work as a CEO. He got paid $7 million a year by GM to run the company into the ground. He shipped US jobs to Mexico, and put thousands of UAW workers in Flint Michigan out of work. Prime example where you can destroy peoples lives to earn your millions. He also made the obnoxious quote "Were in the business of making money, not making cars". Mitt Romney was also part of a company that would lay off all the employees after buying a new company and then sell it for a profit. He made his millions through denying US workers a job. Now with CEO's putting Americans out of work, and getting richer, why should I support them having more tax cuts? If you make your millions through employing Americans, I have less of a problem with you being well off, than if you make your millions through laying off and firing thousands of Americans.

We gave the wealthy in this country tax cuts so they would create jobs. Clinton created 25 million jobs with a higher tax rate. GWB created only 3 million jobs and ballooned the debt. I think its safe to say that your fiscal and economic ideology has proven itself to be a complete failure, if you look up the facts.

One more example, the Koch Brothers of Koch industries have gotten massively wealthier in the past 2 or 3 years than before. But there has been no correlation between there rise in financial wealth, and job creation for their company, contrary to popular belief, wealthy people getting wealthier, does not correlate to more middle class jobs. You don't get rich by writing checks for employees, and you don't hire more employees because you got a tax cut one year over the previous.

Anytime someone brings up raising taxes on the wealthy, the Republicans automatically call that person either a socialist, a marxist, a communist, or someone engaging in class warfare. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world is by any measure of the word, NOT a socialist, and he thinks that we need to raise taxes a lot on the wealthiest .3%. The fox news pundits immediately started accusing him of being a socialist. Jon Stewart said calling Warren Buffet a socialist because he thinks the taxes on the wealthy need to be raised is like saying "You know that George Clooney, always banging different broads...What a queer!"

GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!! + a zillion billion.

Jimmy I appreciate your response but disagree with you. I have several points but just one main one. First most people don't inherent their wealth but become wealthly thru their own hard work. You talk about Pujols and the Wal-Mart but I don't think anything is wrong with that. Plenty of people work hard and will never get ahead, and I agree that some wealthy people hardly work. This country was built on "to each according to his ability." so people who are smarter, more skilled in high value trades, and willing to take more risk are going to better. It is not a companies job to creates but rather to make a profit for the owners. If a company becomes more productive it might hurt workers that get laid off but it helps the company's customers that now will save money.

Taken at face value your bolded statement is hard to argue with. However, there is a fairness issue at play. If some CEO type (Romney) comes in and does things to make the business more profitable like send all the jobs overseas then he has essentially done things to enrich a few at the expense of those who made it possible for that business to be a success. In this case, this form of capitalism is as un-American as anything I can think of.

I don't have a problem with rich people. Good for them. However, when their actions cause them to increase their wealth at the expense of worker types who helped them get rich ... well, I have a problem with that.

And honest to goodness, how can ANYONE support a tax structure where Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than an employee who makes $60k/year???? For the life of me I can't understand the mentality that thinks this is perfectly OK.

 

[JimmyS1985]

If you liked that post, check out this epic Jon Stewart commentary, from a few months ago. Ive watched a lot of Jon Stewart and this is one of his best, funniest, commentary's on the hypocrisy of Republican deficit cutters ever.

I strongly recommend you watch this, you will laugh your *** off, and totally get where I am coming from.

Daily Kos: INCREDIBLE Jon Stewart piece on right-wing class warfare!!

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/18/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

I couldnt find the whole op-ed in one solid video, but if you do these two links you can essentially watch the entire thing.

I like how he points out how the Republicans act like a raise in taxes on the wealthy, which amounts to $700 billion over 10 years is small potatoes and should be ignored, but then they act like Obama is spending the country into the ground over $1.1 million bullet/bomb proof buses for US presidential candidates. Obama could buy 700,000 of those buses before it would add up to the same amount in lost revenue from not going back to the Clinton tax rates.

Its complete hypocrisy to act like $700 billion in raised revenue is nothing, but Obama catches heat because he spent just over $1 million on some buses.

 

[MikeE]

If you liked that post, check out this epic Jon Stewart commentary, from a few months ago. Ive watched a lot of Jon Stewart and this is one of his best, funniest, commentary's on the hypocrisy of Republican deficit cutters ever.

I strongly recommend you watch this, you will laugh your *** off, and totally get where I am coming from.

Daily Kos: INCREDIBLE Jon Stewart piece on right-wing class warfare!!

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/18/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

I couldnt find the whole op-ed in one solid video, but if you do these two links you can essentially watch the entire thing.

I like how he points out how the Republicans act like a raise in taxes on the wealthy, which amounts to $700 billion over 10 years is small potatoes and should be ignored, but then they act like Obama is spending the country into the ground over $1.1 million bullet/bomb proof buses for US presidential candidates. Obama could buy 700,000 of those buses before it would add up to the same amount in lost revenue from not going back to the Clinton tax rates.

Its complete hypocrisy to act like $700 billion in raised revenue is nothing, but Obama catches heat because he spent just over $1 million on some buses.

Great stuff, bro ("you food chilling mother f@#%s!").

 

[dmancornell]

We gave the wealthy in this country tax cuts so they would create jobs. Clinton created 25 million jobs with a higher tax rate. GWB created only 3 million jobs and ballooned the debt. I think its safe to say that your fiscal and economic ideology has proven itself to be a complete failure, if you look up the facts.

This is pure, absolute idiocy. The economic growth in the 90's can be attributed to two facts, firstly, the creation of the computing and internet industries, and secondly, the plummeting price of oil, neither of which is related to the Clinton administration in any way.

The government does not create jobs. The private economy creates jobs in spite of interference from the government. Trying to link economic growth to the policies of individual presidential administrations is absurd and is nothing more than empty partisan rhetoric regurgitated by brainless party hacks.

 

[rufus]

Ha, jimmy is Superjew! The libby troll is back. I thought he was banned?

 

[jbett98]

I commend you to the late Justice Louis Brandeis warning to the nation that " We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." We have to make up our minds to restore a higher, fairer capital gains tax to the wealthiest investor class-- or ultimately face increased social unrest.

 

[rufus]

So the top 1% don't pay enough?

You guys want them to pay more? :huh:

 

[Grunwald]

If you liked that post, check out this epic Jon Stewart commentary, from a few months ago. Ive watched a lot of Jon Stewart and this is one of his best, funniest, commentary's on the hypocrisy of Republican deficit cutters ever.

I strongly recommend you watch this, you will laugh your *** off, and totally get where I am coming from.

Daily Kos: INCREDIBLE Jon Stewart piece on right-wing class warfare!!

World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/18/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

I couldnt find the whole op-ed in one solid video, but if you do these two links you can essentially watch the entire thing.

I like how he points out how the Republicans act like a raise in taxes on the wealthy, which amounts to $700 billion over 10 years is small potatoes and should be ignored, but then they act like Obama is spending the country into the ground over $1.1 million bullet/bomb proof buses for US presidential candidates. Obama could buy 700,000 of those buses before it would add up to the same amount in lost revenue from not going back to the Clinton tax rates.

Its complete hypocrisy to act like $700 billion in raised revenue is nothing, but Obama catches heat because he spent just over $1 million on some buses.

By including a link to the Daily Kos you've show that you are so far off in the left field, that even those who fly the red flag with the hammer and sickle would be afraid of being occused of being right wing extremists. The Daily Kos is about as credible as some neo-nazi website, and the only thing that they have in coomon is that they are both out of their freaking minds.

 

[SonicBlue03]

And honest to goodness, how can ANYONE support a tax structure where Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than an employee who makes $60k/year???? For the life of me I can't understand the mentality that thinks this is perfectly OK.

Apparently the supporters of the GOP party do.

Which gets us back to the original reason for this thread - the GOP-initiated bill that found bi-partisan support and a President who will acquiesce and show a weakened resolve. A trifecta of fail that - while not sending us necessarily down the slippery slope of the good ol' USSR, certainly doesn't give a lot of comfort.

It really is a pity the two-party system effectively murders any chance of a third (or fourth) party becoming viable. It's why I always encourage people with one kid to have two; give the little b@$t@rd some competition.

 

[dmancornell]

And honest to goodness, how can ANYONE support a tax structure where Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than an employee who makes $60k/year???? For the life of me I can't understand the mentality that thinks this is perfectly OK.

Completely false statement. Buffet pays more in absolute terms, less in percentage terms.

Of course the correct solution is to lower everyone's taxes to the minimum possible to only support Constitutionally approved government functions, as opposed to raising the taxes on people who pay less percentage-wise in a sick game of "rob the rich guy so I feel better". The government exists to serve the Constitution, not to steal money to appease class warriors.

In any case, there's only one sane choice: Ron Paul. Voting for anyone else is to support the status quo of state theft and murder.

 

[JimmyS1985]

This is pure, absolute idiocy. The economic growth in the 90's can be attributed to two facts, firstly, the creation of the computing and internet industries, and secondly, the plummeting price of oil, neither of which is related to the Clinton administration in any way.

The government does not create jobs. The private economy creates jobs in spite of interference from the government. Trying to link economic growth to the policies of individual presidential administrations is absurd and is nothing more than empty partisan rhetoric regurgitated by brainless party hacks.

My dad worked as a GS13 for the federal government for 25 years. Does that not count as a job? Is the house that was bought that I am residing in, does not count? That is statement is bubblegumming ridiculous.

And Newt Gingrich likes to take credit for 2 out of the 4 years that the budget was balanced under Clinton. But Clinton passed a 1993 budget bill that raised the taxes on the wealthy, from 1992. Newt Gingrich predicted that bill would bring about the next great depression and it garnered zero Republican support. What happened? We had 7 years of uninterrupted economic growth, despite the handicap of higher taxes on the wealthy. If I were Clinton in 1998-2001, I would of allowed no republicans to be seen next to me signing off on the balanced budgets, since they had no support for the tax increases that began in 1993. They deserve zero credit for it, considering the opposition to tax increases that brought about the exact opposite of the great depression.

No rufus, I was not banned because I broke no rules. An admin pointed out that while some of my threads may have been unpopular, since I was breaking no rules, I was not going to get banned.

Right wingers aren't the only ones who enjoy firearms, contrary to popular belief. You should be happy that there are liberals that like firearms, but also vote in the best interest of the working man. Unless you are a millionaire, its safe to say you don't think or vote in your own self interest. With Republicans in power, the country has proven itself to be completely impotent and incapable of producing new revenue.

I would rather be the guy making $50 million a year and paying 15% capital gains tax, than the guy making $10k a year and paying no tax.

Compared to what the richest 1% historically paid, no they do not pay enough. I am an Eisenhower Republican, a liberal by todays standards. In 1954 the wealthiest tax bracket paid 94% over $250k. $250k could buy a lot of stuff in the 1950's, but the 94% tax bracket put a brickwall to outlandish CEO pay like we see today. We also had a much stronger middle class in those days. Today, the United States is a banana republic, with a super wealthy upper class, and a constantly getting poorer, bottom 80%. These are facts people, I am not making any of this up.


The point of the dailykos link was not the website I got it from, but the video inside, unrelated to dailykos and from comedy central. Jon Stewart accurately, and humorously depicts the Right Wings feigned concern for the debt when they rake Obama over the coals for million dollar buses, but deny the importance of raising $700 billion in revenue. He even criticizes the democrats in the link for not standing up enough for increasing revenue as a means of cutting the debt. I vote for which candidate is most likely to either balance the budget or do as little damage to the debt as possible. Every Republican presidential candidate since 1980 has shown almost zero concern for the debt. And most of the Republican candidates in the current crop of presidential candidates, have tax plans that would exacerbate the debt problem rather than make it better. Starve the Beast has proven itself to be a complete failure of an ideology.

 

[dmancornell]

My dad worked as a GS13 for the federal government for 25 years. Does that not count as a job? Is the house that was bought that I am residing in, does not count? That is statement is bubblegumming ridiculous.

That's not a job, that's workfare funded with money stolen from the private economy. If you consider a thief selling stolen merchandise back to the store he robbed as a "wealth creator", then your government workfare positions can be considered "jobs".

I know pictures are easier to understand for the mentally handicapped, so here, you are the ones circled red:

 

[JimmyS1985]

So I guess you are opposed to the armed forces as well since those are tax payer funded as well. Tell every uniformed marine corp soldier that he is robbing the working class of valuable equity by protecting this nation.

btw i completely ignore your right wing propaganda, I wont even entertain it, if you think that a job in the corp of engineers for 25 years does not count. Better he work for a government by the people for the people than do nothing.

BTW fascism is generally accepted as both authoritarian and right wing. I think most of todays Republican's beliefs are rooted in fascism rather than democracy.