Users who Dugg This
Deivide (descobridordosMundos)
50 Followers
woods j ransom
836 Followers
ObaAdeleJan 14, 2012
“I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like.” Quite room? How insensitive can a man be, he thinks we are idiots and the same guy who told us that the wars he is so eager to fight how come none of his 5 bboys were not in one, he said they were helping the country by helping him win election, what an ego, what are insensitive, insincere and plain unresponsive to the needs of the nation.
savage727Jan 15, 2012
"in a quiet room"?! Hell no! I want it out in broad daylight so everyone can see and hear exactly what these scumbags have done. Every unethical thing they have done, every pay off they have ever made, every person they have manipulated, every tax they have gotten out of paying when they didn't need it, all in the name of profit.
FACT: The wealth divide is just as great as it was during the Great Depression. The only thing that would make it worse is if unemployment and food stamps were taken away. And they would gladly do that as well. Because according to them everyone who uses those programs are lazy. Arrogant a$$holes.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
Are you saying everyone that uses food stamps is an arrogant assh**e? Just kidding. Your government cannot keep people from poverty. They take your money and they tell you its the social safety net. Unemployment, food stamps, whatever. They're not effective. In 2009, the government spent $591B on means tested, anti-poverty programs. With census data, that comes out to be more than $14K for every poor man, woman or child in America. The poverty level in 2009 was just under 11K. So it cost America 3K/person to keep everyone at poverty level. I'm sure glad Obama is on the job. We could have mailed every poor person a check for 11K and saved some money. I should be careful what I say. That might be the 99%'s next demand.
savage727Jan 16, 2012
Tell that to someone who is unable to work due to a disability and can't afford to pay for groceries, rent, and their healthcare. THEN tell me it's not effective.
What is not effective is deregulation as a means to job creation. It's a form of wealth creation for the upper echelons of society.
What Congress needs to focus on is ways to create jobs. If people are working at a decent wage that they know has a chance of going up at a decent rate (average wages have not increased in 50 years) then maybe people wouldn't be stuck on these programs. Our policies over the past 50 years are killing us. Our attitudes toward policy MUST change.
Don't believe me? Here's some info to chew over.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
It's interesting you have that position. These same policies that you condemn were the exact policies in place during the Clinton WH (but for the Bush tax cuts, oops Obama tax cuts). Deregulation. Yet during his re-election bid, the campaign slogan was, you guessed it, "it's the economy stupid!". How can something successful and praised by the left be ridiculed NOW?? Clinton was president when the budget forcast was "balanced". Kudos to him. I just don't get it.
savage727Jan 16, 2012
You are assuming I'm a Democrat. :)
I'm not.
I don't like either Democrats or Republicans. I think they are the same thing just taking different positions when it's convenient. When you get right down to it, they are working on the same team.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
This author is a convicted felon for guess what? Securities fraud. He has an ax to grind of course he's going to be angry for being jerked from a lifestyle he won't ever have now. He's trying to get his gold ring another way.
ferrellcreationsJan 15, 2012
Thats why I'm voting Obama 2012, these presidential candidates don't offer this country a better choice at all, their views are very oldschool!!
Angry_MuppetJan 15, 2012
Sticking with failure doesn't help either. Our nation electing Obama is like launching the shuttle on a cold January morning with fingers crossed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusJan 15, 2012
Marx wrote specifically about the majority of wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a minority at the top and that this would result in an ever shrinking middle class to the point where there are only two classes left: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or the haves and the have-nots. This is the road to socialism he said.
Every study of income distribution in this country shows that this is what is happening. The wages of average working class Americans are in decline or stagnant, while the wages of the top earners has grown greater and greater every year. Not only that, but the cost of goods and services continues to rise disproportionately to wages, which has helped to create a society that runs on credit. As of August 2011, total consumer debt was over $11 trillion. Add that to the total national debt of $15 trillion+ and these numbers get even more absurd.
Just how big is $1 trillion? Well, if I pay you $1000 a day for 1000 days, that would be $1 million. If I pay you $1000 a day for 1 million days, that would be $1 billion. $1 trillion would therefore be equal to me paying you $1000 a day for 1 billion days. Now remember, we are talking about $11 trillion+ and $15 trillion+, so take that 1 billion days and multiply it by 26 because we have $26 trillion+ in total debt. Just for fun, divide that total by 365 to see how many years it would take to reach that amount at $1000 a day. Needless to say, those numbers are outrageously huge and nearly incomprehensible.
We are living in and perpetuating a system that is ultimately unsustainable. Unless something is done to correct the trajectory we are on, we are heading toward socialism/communism or far worse - the collapse of our economy, the value of our money, and the fall of the American empire. The top earners can no longer act as parasites and hoard their wealth; rather, they must recognize that without us, they could not exist and therefore they must work with us in a synergistic, not parasitic, way to ensure not only our survival, but theirs.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
Every study in this country. Study. Look at Europe. That's socialism. That's reality. That's unsustainable.
NeosopheusJan 16, 2012
I'm not advocating socialism, if that is what you are implying. I am simply pointing out that we are heading that way if the top earners continue to make more and more while average working Americans are making less. The debt we are accumulating and how quickly is unsustainable and unless we do something about it, the consequences are going to bad.
rthakidnJan 17, 2012
Ok. I agree with you in principle. Still not sure about the details of you point though. I too believe there isn't an individual out there that is worth more then a couple of million dollars a year. I won't however refuse him the opportunity to make it, or punish him for getting it (in the form of even higher taxes). In a truly capitalistic economy, profits (consequently compensation) are tied to the consumer. If people resent Bill Gates for being rich, everyone should stop buying ANY windows product, etc. Why do athletes or hollywood stars get the money they do? No one complains about them making 30m a year?
The debt is unsustainable. We do need to do something about it, but it needs to be appropriate. We cannot fix the debt problem without first figuring out how we got here. To blame it on undertaxing of the rich puts us right back to where we started. It is not a fair and thoughtful stance. It is emotional and based as much on greed as the rich saying they don't want to pay more in tax. If the politicians in DC could come to an agreement on a 1 to 1 compromise, 1 added dollar in tax revenue for 1 dollar in spending cuts, we might make some headway on the debt.
NeosopheusJan 17, 2012
I didn't outline the details of what I think should be done - I just wanted to point out the reality of what is going on. If people aren't ready to acknowledge the problem, talking about a solution will be futile. I do have a solution, though, and it is one that you have alluded to in your response.
number1greenJan 15, 2012
Would journalists be happy with the same salary as the janitor? Would movie stars be willing to split their take with the maid? Would the president share his government paycheck with his cook?
Greed IS what gives our country its edge. When we're all satisfied, it's over.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 15, 2012
but you think this is sustainable?
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg
nobody want everybody to earn the same but with en average of 16% income rise in 30 years compared to 281% then clearly not everybody is sharing in the wealth or the economic growth. (and I hope that 16% is with inflation adjusted dollars, if not its tactually a drop in income)
arpadJan 15, 2012
Aw, what's the matter? Race card not working so well any more so you thought you'd try to breath some life into class warfare?
countess666Jan 16, 2012
so you do think that this is sustainable?
aw, whats the matter? no actual counter argument so you're going to accuse me of using talking points?
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
Arpad, don't you know, if you throw enough s**t out there, something is bound to stick. Victimhood is a powerful thing!
sanmanJan 15, 2012
There may be a difference between what you feel you're worth and what others feel you're worth. You may want to be paid a lot of money, but others may not be willing to pay you that much.
If you want more money, make sure that others see you as worth more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
For the life of me, I don't understand why you've been buried. It's pretty basic logic. Be, make or do something people are willing to pay for. Be the best. Get paid the most. Oh, I forgot, everyone is equal. There is no best. Sorry. Your kids teacher is okay, but not the best. You understand don't you?
sandylandersJan 16, 2012
Sanman states the obvious. You gain value by what you are able to contribute. Liberals think that just because someone exists they have value and must be supported by others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mistermysterJan 15, 2012
This is funny because I was studying to become a journalist. Most journalists DO make as much money as a janitor. Even less.
Journalism used to be about months-long projects taken in a very in-depth look in order to get a story. And those stories were the leading edge against fight corruption and other injustices.
Now, everyone is require to dish out a story in less than half a day. And the pay everyone gets who is not the leading editor or the pundits in the studio would make anyone not to pursue a journalism career. And what you write has to be approved by the head editor, so your work becomes the opinion of that editor. The hectic work atmosphere and the little money they get to show for it is insane. You make more money cleaning out the bathrooms than writing a story.
To make matters worse, news agencies revenues wholly revolve around advertisement. That's the most money they get. So in order to please the sponsors, they have to keep everything clean and never dive into those beasts. This this kind of s**t, parred with the little time anyone has to conjure up a story, that drove the media from actual journalism to nothing more than a gossip-fellating conglomerate.
Only internet-driven news sites have a shred of journalistic integrity and they do not make much money either. But at least they get a peace of mind for the work they do.
sandylandersJan 16, 2012
"...gossip-fellating conglomerate." Like the New York times?
MusicManGPJan 15, 2012
Many many people do their jobs (even jobs that pay out quite a bit) without a hint of greed. They do their job because they love it, not to get the biggest payday possible. To imply that greed is the sole motivator for successful people is ludicrous.
rockcosmosJan 16, 2012
Gordon Gekko, is that you?
bille3Jan 14, 2012
Keeping everyone focused on the "income inequity" serves to keep them diverted away from debt, deficit and the failing economy.
Once the economy, and the dollar, go under your incomes will be irrelevant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 15, 2012
if income inequality get to large it will cause economic failure, which will make the debt unsustainable.
this
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg
is in no possible way sustainable.
spatula7Jan 15, 2012
Income inequality is an indicator of a problem, but instead you and your conservative friends try to pass it off as some kind of righteous punishment of the poor and underprivileged for not pulling their weight and being lazy.
Others like me think it is an issue of those in privileged positions attacking government programs and regulations and exploiting their socioeconomic position causing harm to others. Intentionally or not, doesn't matter, ignorance is no excuse.
I see nothing wrong with raising the base of the pyramid and flattening it out so those at the bottom do not get crushed. Ironically when this has been done in the past, those at the top do better overall and tend to be much happier lives. It actually feels good to share and help others.
If you agree with this, then it is an argument of how. But I don't see anyone on the right agreeing that a better society has a much less steep pyramid and a much higher base...all I see and hear is how wrong socialism and government is and how they will destroy our lives...how can that ever be taken seriously?
I'm not buying a free for all with save us all attitude, there is too much history of Mafia and organized crime that has caused too much harm in the past. Unfortunately, as broken as our government appears to be at times, its is the best thing we have. Instead of attacking it, we should be asking (and never stop asking) how can we make it better, less bias and less corrupt. I'd be more than happy to vote for a Republican who can present a case that follows this line of thinking, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
arpadJan 15, 2012
Income inequality is just the new name for class warfare and it's what you lefties have been using for a long time to instill hope in people that maybe, just maybe, if they sign up with you guys they can get what they have no claim too.
Of course as history has shown repeatedly the actuality of the sort of socialist utopia you dream of is of an authoritarian regime in which the few live extremely well *because* the many live lives of impoverished desperation. Does the name "Fidel Castro" ring a bell? How about any despot from every communist regime? All the same. All living very well because they sit atop a pyramid scalable only by sufficient viciousness leaving the likes of Vladimir Putin and Joseph Stalin in charge.
Those monsters, like 'em or not, are you heroes.
fairdinkummateJan 16, 2012
"As history has shown..." - Are you for real?
Income distribution in the US is the worst it's been since the great depression!
History has shown that the country doesn't just do better when income distribution is flatter, as it was in from the 40's to the 80's, but much, much better. Even when the top tax rate was 90%, the country as a whole was doing better economically & even those paying the 90% were doing well(& don't take that out of context, I'm not advocating returning the top rate to 90%)
Has the US ever been socialist? No. But when someone advocates returning income equality to historical norms, even during periods of Republican control, the right wing screams socialism & starts talking about Castro & Stalin(Putin, by the way, has never led a communist party or country).
If you want to talk about models, try finding one of a stable country with opportunity for people to work hard & succeed that has a higher level of income inequality thatn the US right now. You can't & that should give you pause for thought if nothing else.
grannysrightJan 15, 2012
If you don't like the inequality in wages then get rid of unions.
dreamboy2012Jan 15, 2012
Be sure.
rthakidnJan 15, 2012
Warren is full of s**t, just like this guy. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But, I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Everyone benefited from the road, school and police too. It's not the CEOs job to make sure every individual is as successful as he is. Every worker took that road to his job that paid his rent and bought his groceries. Every worked could go to work with peace of mind that the police would protect his property while he was at work. Every worker's child got to go to school and learn. A school made possible by the property tax paid by the factory and the income tax paid by the workers (made possible ONLY by the owners of the factory).
This jackass needs to wake up and so does Warren.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 15, 2012
how are you contradicting anything he said?
his factory wouldn't work in somalia. point made.
he benefited from the stuff taxes paid for, so how is it wrong to ask him to pay something to sustain it.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
I suppose you're right. His factory that makes rubber ducks won't work in Somalia. How does that make a point? He benefits, so do the hundreds of employees that take the roads to work. So does the school bus his property taxes helped pay for. So do the teachers who educate the kids of the workers at this guys plant. So do the 99% who take the road to protest at the guys plant. He HAS given back by employing the people in the town, by paying his property tax, by paying his income tax. I'm not sure what's with liberals. They claim they want equal treatment when they in fact are asking for others to be treated differently. What would happen if we said blacks have to pay more? You expect a certain class to be treated differently. You pick on the wealthy, because they are a minority. What happens when you apply your logic to a different minority? If Warren wants this guy to pay for the road. Let him build it HIS way. Not as some politician says. Let him charge tolls. Honestly, do the rich have to do everything for you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jan 16, 2012
"He benefits, so do the hundreds of employees that take the roads to work."
and they get some wages for it and they pay taxes on that to pay for those things.
and he benefits from those workers being able to take that road.
he benefits from his workers being able to go to work in safety, he benefits from his workers being able to get a good nights sleep, a steady supply of food on the table, he benefits from their medical care.
they do to of course, but clearly the the factory operators benefits as well. in absolute terms, far more so then the workers.
the factory operator also gets a far far larger pay-check, increasing in size every year, far faster then his employ pay-checks are. yet he's effective taxes is far lower.
so it is any wonder that more and more wealth is accumulated by the wealthy leaving over less and less for the rest of the nation?
the republican idea is that that wealth then trickles down to the rest of us eventually... but clearly that hasn't happened. so the factory operator is taken out of the system far more then he is putting back in.
that is not sustainable.
"You expect a certain class to be treated differently."
of course. not all people are the same. you can't except the poor to pay the same as the middle class, or the middle class to pay the same as the rich.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
you're unbelievable. however I do like your comments that people are not the same. So because I pay more in taxes I should get some benefit? I shouldn't have to wait in line at the dmv? i get an express lane at the GWB? I like the way you think. The boss already has paid more in tax than the workers because there is a graduated tax code here. He's paid more, so he gets to benefit more. I'm using your logic here, because he's NOT the same as you've stated. We haven't even discussed his other contributions of creating jobs and other tax sources. this isn't trickle down economics, this is economics 101. people who take the bigger risk get the bigger payoff, unless of course you donated to obama then you don't have to risk anything ala Solyndra. Let me ask you a question. If you were in an office pool for the lottery. Everyone was able to donate whatever they wanted. Some $10 some 5 others 1. If they win, does everyone get an equal share or only a percentage based on what they put into the pot?
Yeah, I thought so.
countess666Jan 17, 2012
you get more money for the things you do so you are already benefiting more.
fairdinkummateJan 15, 2012
Warren's not suggesting that a CEO has to ensure everyone is as successful as he/she is.
What she's suggesting is that a part of the social contract is that the CEO pays his/her fair share of taxes which in turn make sure that the janitor's son has access to an education that makes sure that if he puts in the effort, he can become a CEO or a pilot or President.
The system today(& the studies referenced in the article) is showing that isn't the case and the best indicator of whether you'll become a CEO, pilot, President or janitor, isn't your ability or lack of it, or a result of how hard you do or don't work, but who your parents are & how wealthy they are.
Not even the right wingers amongst us can think that this is good for America.
rthakidnJan 16, 2012
She's full of s**t, and it looks like you were in the same line. The CEO pays his income tax, he employees hundreds of people who pay THEIR income tax, his company pays property tax on the physical plant that supports local schools. His trucks buy fuel and pay a s**tload of tax on that. What Warren (and you I guess) is saying is that in spite of that, he's just not paying his fair share. Well guess what, I hope the CEO moves his f**king business to India and Warren will get NOTHING! The employees will get nothing. The school gets nothing. The truck driver gets nothing. The guy who sells fuel gets nothing. The feds get nothing. Warren and you have a great idea. Warren and the left are the party of envy. f**k working hard to get ahead. Just legislate everyone to middle/upper class.
fairdinkummateJan 16, 2012
A CEO doesn't "employees"(sic) anyone. The company that employs him does.
And you just hit the nail on the head - "The CEO pays his income tax..."/ The problem is, he pays his(significanntly reduced due to tax changes & write offs) income tax on his $250,000 salary. He then pays much lower capital gains tax on his $2 million stock option 'bonus', which he receives whether the company has a record year or files for bankruptcy, making it by definition salary rather than a bonus.
Now with regard to moving to India, Warren has nothing to do with it. Name one company that hasn't outsourced some of its labour to a cheaper country(India, Mexico, China, etc), not because of cost, logistics or any of the other million possible reasons , but because they thought it was unfair? What a crock!
sandylandersJan 16, 2012
What parallel universe do you live in Fairdin? Do you really think paying more in taxes to the government is going to "guarantee" some janitors children and education?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fairdinkummateJan 16, 2012
For one, please show where I wrote "guarantee"? Typical right winger, can't make your point so you make stuff instead.
Secondly, how do you think public education is funded, if not by taxes?
I also notice that you didn't even touch the fact that in today's America, who your parents are is more important in determining where you end up than how hard you work or how smart you are? Isn't that eerily similar to the British system that a war was fought to get away from?