Still Trying to Make Trickle Down Work

[houndawg]

We're all in this together,

It's gotten to the point where, in this country, that's what people say when they fail and want the society to bail them out.

The problem is that we're not really all in this together. We're in a situation where 20% or less of the population is carrying the load. The rest are "in this together" only in that they are enjoying the benefits of having the government hook the 20% or less who are pulling the load to the wagon and going along for the ride.

You're such a drama queen, John. You really are.

If poverty is such a sweet gig, John, why don't you try it? You've been pulling the wagon, you've earned a free ride on the gravy grain.

[JohnStOnge]

You're a selfish man, John.

Whatever. Look, we've got a situation here where a demagogue occupying the Presidency is about to yet again infer that the "top 1 percent" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. But they account for almost twice the Federal tax liability as 60 percent of the population. As of the latest numbers I can find at the CBO web site, the top 1 percent accounted for 24 percent of all Federal Tax liabilities (not just income tax) while the bottom 60 percent accounted for 13 percent.

So you've got 60 percent of the population contributing 13 percent of what's being collected in taxes and 1 percent contributing 24 percent and you've got this demagogue saying the 1 percent isn't contributing it's "fair share."

It's absurd. We've developed this system whereby we just keep saying the government will solve everything and those "rich people" will pay for it. It's totally morally corrupt. There is no legitimate right to the fruits of other people's labors.

And by the way the disparity I mentioned is in no way proportional to incomes. The bottom 60 percent generated more than twice the income as the top 1 percent (29% vs. 14%).

That shouldn't matter anyway. The idea that you should have to pay more to sustain the government because you make more is grossly unfair. If we were really "all in this together" we would all be paying equal shares to sustain the government instead of having most people saying "OH don't worry the rich people will pay for it."

[kalm]

You're a selfish man, John.

Whatever. Look, we've got a situation here where a demagogue occupying the Presidency is about to yet again infer that the "top 1 percent" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. But they account for almost twice the Federal tax liability as 60 percent of the population. As of the latest numbers I can find at the CBO web site, the top 1 percent accounted for 24 percent of all Federal Tax liabilities (not just income tax) while the bottom 60 percent accounted for 13 percent.

So you've got 60 percent of the population contributing 13 percent of what's being collected in taxes and 1 percent contributing 24 percent and you've got this demagogue saying the 1 percent isn't contributing it's "fair share."

It's absurd. We've developed this system whereby we just keep saying the government will solve everything and those "rich people" will pay for it. It's totally morally corrupt. There is no legitimate right to the fruits of other people's labors.

And by the way the disparity I mentioned is in no way proportional to incomes. The bottom 60 percent generated more than twice the income as the top 1 percent (29% vs. 14%).

That shouldn't matter anyway. The idea that you should have to pay more to sustain the government because you make more is grossly unfair. If we were really "all in this together" we would all be paying equal shares to sustain the government instead of having most people saying "OH don't worry the rich people will pay for it."

You have funny morals, John. Where do the come from?

[JohnStOnge]

You have funny morals, John. Where do the come from?

Not funny at all. It's not fair to make people pay more just because they make more. And it's not fair to have a country where politicians essentially try to buy votes from the majority of the population by isolating and demonizing those who have been successful while also making them carry the overwhelming preponderance of the load so they can give other people stuff without making them pay for it.

[kalm]

You have funny morals, John. Where do the come from?

Not funny at all. It's not fair to make people pay more just because they make more. And it's not fair to have a country where politicians essentially try to buy votes from the majority of the population by isolating and demonizing those who have been successful while also making them carry the overwhelming preponderance of the load so they can give other people stuff without making them pay for it.

Jesus doesn't agree. Where do you get your morals from?

[Baldy]

Not funny at all. It's not fair to make people pay more just because they make more. And it's not fair to have a country where politicians essentially try to buy votes from the majority of the population by isolating and demonizing those who have been successful while also making them carry the overwhelming preponderance of the load so they can give other people stuff without making them pay for it.

Jesus doesn't agree. Where do you get your morals from?

Jesus believed in generosity and charity.

Do you think the government should be thought of as charity?

[houndawg]

You're a selfish man, John.

Whatever. Look, we've got a situation here where a demagogue occupying the Presidency is about to yet again infer that the "top 1 percent" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. But they account for almost twice the Federal tax liability as 60 percent of the population. As of the latest numbers I can find at the CBO web site, the top 1 percent accounted for 24 percent of all Federal Tax liabilities (not just income tax) while the bottom 60 percent accounted for 13 percent.

So you've got 60 percent of the population contributing 13 percent of what's being collected in taxes and 1 percent contributing 24 percent and you've got this demagogue saying the 1 percent isn't contributing it's "fair share."

It's absurd. We've developed this system whereby we just keep saying the government will solve everything and those "rich people" will pay for it. It's totally morally corrupt. There is no legitimate right to the fruits of other people's labors.

And by the way the disparity I mentioned is in no way proportional to incomes. The bottom 60 percent generated more than twice the income as the top 1 percent (29% vs. 14%).

That shouldn't matter anyway. The idea that you should have to pay more to sustain the government because you make more is grossly unfair. If we were really "all in this together" we would all be paying equal shares to sustain the government instead of having most people saying "OH don't worry the rich people will pay for it."

But the idea that you an me should subsidize those making the most isn't unfair at all.

Listen to you all henny-penny and the sky is falling.... such a drama queen..

[kalm]

Jesus doesn't agree. Where do you get your morals from?

Jesus believed in generosity and charity.

Do you think the government should be thought of as charity?

We the people. Yep.

[Baldy]

Jesus believed in generosity and charity.

Do you think the government should be thought of as charity?

We the people. Yep.

Nope.

Ironic that you quote the Constitution when James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", said this:

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

[JohnStOnge]

But the idea that you an me should subsidize those making the most isn't unfair at all.

We are not, on balance, subsidizing them. Not even close. They put way more into the revenue/outlays equation of the Federal government than they take out of it.

[YoUDeeMan]

We're all in this together, John and people benefit greatly to varying degrees from our form of government and all the resources we have. It is indeed about morals...

That is utter nonsense.

If you want to talk about morals, then I will ask you this:

Would you walk up to someone an take their money and rob them so that you could buy a phone that you think you need?

My gut says you'd reply, "No."

But, you have no problem letting the government forcibly take money from people in order to let some other people have a phone.

In one case, you'd be stealing if you forcibly took someone's money. But, because you hide behind the idea of a government middleman, you say it isn't stealing...and it is somehow, "moral."

[YoUDeeMan]

Jesus believed in generosity and charity.

Do you think the government should be thought of as charity?

We the people. Yep.

Now you are simply being a dunce...and it has to be intentional.

Jesus did not tell everyone that they HAD to give to others.

Wow.

[mrklean]

As George Bush would say, Voodoo Economics. No one gives money back.

[kalm]

We the people. Yep.

Now you are simply being a dunce...and it has to be intentional.

Jesus did not tell everyone that they HAD to give to others.

Wow.

I think it's in the state's best interest to provide some form of a safety net. That would also happen to be in keeping with the gospels. But obviously it's gotten out of control. I agree with the gipper on this one.

[CID1990]

Who gives a fuck what the gospel or Jesus say?

[Chizzang]

Who gives a fuck what the gospel or Jesus say?

65% of the Republican Party...

(in case you were seriously asking)

[Baldy]

Who gives a fuck what the gospel or Jesus say?

65% of the Republican Party...

(in case you were seriously asking)

Link?

[JohnStOnge]

esus doesn't agree. Where do you get your morals from?

I am an agnostic. However, as I've said before, the Jesus character in the Christian Gospels never said anything like "go forth and create a government that will force other people to take care of the poor."

He said, in so many words "YOU take care of the poor."

The idea that having a government that forcibly takes money from some in order to provide money to the poor or anybody else had nothing to do with the Jesus of Christianity.

[DSUrocks07]

65% of the Republican Party...

(in case you were seriously asking)

Link?

I know Chizzy pulled that number out of thin air but from 2006:

http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many ... -politics/

And while there are some partisan differences on this issue, both parties are deeply divided along ideological lines. Roughly half (49%) of conservative Republicans say the Bible should trump popular will, but just 29% of moderate Republicans agree. And 77% of liberal Democrats say the people’s will should determine the laws, compared to 60% of moderate and conservative Democrats.

[kalm]

esus doesn't agree. Where do you get your morals from?

I am an agnostic. However, as I've said before, the Jesus character in the Christian Gospels never said anything like "go forth and create a government that will force other people to take care of the poor."

He said, in so many words "YOU take care of the poor."

The idea that having a government that forcibly takes money from some in order to provide money to the poor or anybody else had nothing to do with the Jesus of Christianity.

Governments redistribute wealth in many ways. If only Jesus had the foresight to say "yous" then he would have fit perfectly into the corporations are people meme.

[Chizzang]

Link?

I know Chizzy pulled that number out of thin air but from 2006:

http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many ... -politics/

And while there are some partisan differences on this issue, both parties are deeply divided along ideological lines. Roughly half (49%) of conservative Republicans say the Bible should trump popular will, but just 29% of moderate Republicans agree. And 77% of liberal Democrats say the people’s will should determine the laws, compared to 60% of moderate and conservative Democrats.

Oops shoot me - I took a guess - so its 50% of Republicans
Because there are no more "moderate Republicans left standing" from 2006

[CID1990]

I know Chizzy pulled that number out of thin air but from 2006:

http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many ... -politics/

Oops shoot me - I took a guess - so its 50% of Republicans
Because there are no more "moderate Republicans left standing" from 2006

I am much more comfy with what 50% of Republicans want than I am with what 50% of Democrats want.

Hell, while we're pulling things out of our asses, I'll wager 50% of Democrats want guys who look like me placed in reeducation camps.

[Chizzang]

Oops shoot me - I took a guess - so its 50% of Republicans
Because there are no more "moderate Republicans left standing" from 2006

I am much more comfy with what 50% of Republicans want than I am with what 50% of Democrats want.

Hell, while we're pulling things out of our asses, I'll wager 50% of Democrats want guys who look like me placed in reeducation camps.

Sounds reasonable....