gary,when will it register to you that taking other's money is wrong.
Mitt was right, there are more takers than makers. you're just another
taker, probably a government employee. here's a tip, get a job and give as
much of YOUR own money to the government.
Sorry GaryO:Don't believe the words of Obama.There
is equality in this country.I don't care what Obama says,
success is available to everybody. You are free to take it.
@Gary:Let's modify for accuracy."You seem to be
under the impression that low earners have no obligation to the nation, and
should feel no loyalty or appreciation to this great country."Low earners don't pay federal income taxes, and freeload.
Hey lost -Sounds like you're getting hysterical, and that
doesn't really help your position. Facts remain facts, whether
you like it or not. And the fact remains that Reaganomics was
supposed to enrich the middle class, and reduce income disparity. But it has had
the OPPOSITE effect. America was sold a false bill of goods by
"Conservative" leadership.Don't shoot the messenger.
GaryO,TOO FUNNY!!higher earniers are NOT fulfilling
their obligation?they already pay about 70% of federal income taxes
despite earning only 45% of total income. Seems to me they are paying MORE than
their share, but that's the way a progressive tax rate works and I have no
problem with it.Every citizen must adhere to the social contract.
So that's why the bottom, who make 12% of all income, only paid 2%? Who is
not pulling their share?despite your false claims, reality is
reality and facts are facts. the so-called wealth gap accelerated under BO.
the majority of jobs created during his bungling have been low-paying service
sector jobs. Why invest or take risks when the EPA will shut you down or BO
will claim "you didn't build that, the government did"?you seem to want the wealthy to not only pay 110% of all taxes, but 150% of
all their wealth, because they got it on the backs of the poor.go
back to JFK's famous quote, "ask not what your country can do for you,
but what you can do for your country" I would say paying 70% of all taxes
IS "doing for your country"
You seem to be under the impression that high earners have no obligation to the
nation, and should feel no loyalty or appreciation to this great country.EVERY citizen is must adhere to the social contract. That’s called
“Good Citizenship,” a concept that seems strange and foreign to
Right Wingers imbued with the ridiculous anti-Christian and anti-American idea
that Greed is Good.The government of the United States, as
established by the US Constitution, has set up a political, business, and social
environment within which high earners achieved their success.Consequently, those high earners OWE this nation, in the form of adequate
taxes.In spite of your false arguments, reality remains reality,
and facts are still facts. One pertinent fact is that after the implementation
of Reaganomics, income disparity increased at a much higher rate. Reagonomics, which was supposed to ensure success for the middle class, by
rewarding the rich with more money, OBVIOUSLY does not work.It’s not money that trickles down to the Middle Class.
Solving income inequality is great. I love the income of Peyton
Manning, or Lady GaGa.All that money for throwing a ball, or singing
is not fair.
GaryO,thanks for explaining. Now I see the root of your confusion.
TAKING less of what someone earns is NOT GIVING them more. The money the
wealthy earns does NOT belong to the government, so the government CANNOT give
it to them. Actually the government TAKES tax money from the wealthy and
inefficiently redistributes it to the poor.I'm glad I could
Hey Lost -Thanks for reaching out."The gap has grown
wider under BO because . . . " of inertia. Reagonomics is still in
effect.And the lingering effects of the GW's Great Recession
(also a product of "Conservatism") lasted will into Obama's time in
office. Undervalued real estate and undervalued stock were ripe for the picking,
and the only people in a position to benefit were the wealthy with all that
extra money lying around. They bought undervalued assets, the price went up, and
voila! . . . More income disparity."I do not get where you say
we are GIVING rich people more money."You don't get it huh?
Gosh, I thought I went through that a couple of times.Well,
I'll take a little more time and set the stage. Back when
Eisenhower was President, the highest earners paid a nominal income tax of 91%.
That was back when this nation was fighting a very expensive cold war and
building the Interstate Highway system, and we STILL balanced the budget.
That's because we had enough revenue.Reaganomics gives the
wealthy tax money that would otherwise help balance the budget.I'm glad I could help.
I wasn't sure about the Occupy Movement until I saw the actions taken
against them by highly militarized police forces attacking and brutalizing
people who were sitting in public places holding signs. From
coast-to-coast the police forces acted with orchestrated attacks, breaking up
protests with extreme prejudice, destroying confiscated personal property, and
inflicting injuries on restrained suspects. Once, in one place, is a
rogue police force going over the top. But the same response from New York to
Berkeley? Ordered by people who buy politicians with the same casual attitude I
might have in ordering a pizza. And the lack of Justice Department response? Not
a coincidence.The message was sent. You can protest gay marriage or
abortions or the environment or even the war. But if you shine a light on the
actions of the super wealthy you will be hurt, and hurt badly. And
dismissing the protesters as "dirty hippies" or "lazy" or
"college students" means you aren't even willing to look at what
happened and why.
GaryOright-wing reagan worshippers who are responsible for the income
inequality? The gap has grown wider under BO because the greatest
nummber of "jobs" created during his misadministration have been
low-paying service sector jobs, so why complain about conservatives?off-shoring - you mean because BO and his EPA makes it too expensive to
produce here?Thanks for recognizing that those willing to work and
sacrifice, take risks and create wealth are responsible for widening the gap,
but don't forget there are two sides to the gap. If one side does nothing
to increase their wealth, don't blame the other side for creating a
problem.I do not get where you say we are GIVING rich people more
money. Where do you get THAT idea? Could is be the $19,000 in social security
payments we are giving biden in addition to his $200k+ salary as VP? Could it
be the ground leases we are paying to the Kennedy family for part of the DC
metro system?please elucidate; explain what you mean by "giving
the rich more money". most rich people I know EARNED it, it was not given
to them by the government.
The whole focus of the Occupy movement was to point out income disparity, and
now that income disparity is more well known, it makes since that the Occupy
Movement should get some credit.Right Wingers who so loudly
disparage the Occupy Movement should get credit too . . . for making the Occupy
Movement so visible to the American Public.And of course it is
Right Wing Reagan worshipers who are responsible for that income disparity in
the first place . . . by successfully implementing ridiculous Reaganomics which
tells us that the best way to decrease the income disparity is by reducing taxes
for high earners, thus making the income disparity greater.Yeah,
that's right. "Conservative" logic tells us that giving the rich
more money will result in decreasing income disparity.To complement
that, they take money away from the poor and middle class by insisting that
companies should outsource American Jobs to other countries, thereby maximizing
corporate profit.So there you go. It is "Conservatives" who
should get the CREDIT for creating and maintaining America's income
disparity.Hey "Conservatives" - If that is what you were
going for . . . GOOD JOB!
OWS, and the ideology it promotes, is built off of envy, entitlement, and greed.
It is an ideology that has economically ravaged Western Europe as well as
everywhere else that it has been implemented, leading to high rates of
unemployment, social decay, malaise, inflation, debt, and ultimately deep
austerity cuts necessary to prevent the total financial collapse of nations, yet
nevertheless protested by ignorant, spoiled, childish college students and other
privileged groups less interested in providing for the common good of society
than leeching whatever they can off of the productive classes. The fact of the
matter is that in a free society there is and always will be some degree of
income inequality: those who work harder, are more intelligent, have better
skills and are more experienced will earn more money than those that are lazy,
uneducated, inexperienced or simply incompetent. And that is precisely how it
should be. A society neither thrives nor prospers by rewarding failure and
punishing success. Everyone has to be allowed to sink or swim according to their
own efforts, but those who can swim may (and morally should) help those who
might otherwise sink, if they VOLUNTARILY choose to do so.