It's not about limiting their "earnings". It's about eliminating their bloodsucking privileges. You eliminate those and the market will take care of the rest.
I believe we should not be denied or disparaged in our privileges and immunities if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates.
By charging them full market value for the locations that permit use of EBT and Obamaphones. The fact is, no one has ever been able to provide a consistently defensible justification for private property in land, and that will not be changing.
They own wealth roughly comparable to total GDP. On a global basis, HALF OF ALL WEALTH is owned by the top 0.01%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.svg No one is talking about limiting to a specific amount. We are talking about removing their privilege of taking wealth without earning it. That is nothing more than evil, "blame the victim" filth.
We disagree. America has not witnessed the concentration of wealth like we have today since the late 1800's. I hope we agree just things as, "too big too fail" and "too big to prosecute" are not healthy entities for the American economy. Monopoly laws need to be enforced. Divestment should be required when an entity is - "too big too fail", because it is a national threat. We have witnessed our RepubloCratic Party offering ObamNey choices. No economic differences. "Gee, who does that protect", "Oh I don't know, could it be - the 1%"? YOU are aware those five banks that admitted to Guilty but Not Guilty please or was it visa versa - were fined 3 days profits. 3 days profits for bringing down the national economy if not world. Wow! That is as harsh as Cartman getting grounded for 2 weeks for trying to expel all the Jewish people of South Park. 3 days profits and No Jail time for the economic ruin their insider deals costs victims. Does that compute? Finally, as a Populist I believe if a poor man has a $1 , he is likely to spend it, driving the economy. When the wealth have a $1, they invest or save it to little of the acclaimed benefit to "us". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k He built more schools with free textbooks, roads, bridges, hospitals, universities, then anyone imagined. He was a Populist. Moi
I think you are making a false equivalency. Bush would never have passed a health care plan that provided coverage to more poorer Americans. He never would have presided over a tax increase on the richest 1%. Obama wanted to and would have done more but for the obstructionist Tea Party determined to protect their 1% benefactors and undermine the economy for their political gain. That's not Obamas fault.
Obamacare won't help the poor. It's just another tool to make the medical industrial racket bigger and more engulfing so that its rich owners can make more big bucks.
Iriemon You are aware that candidate Obama got record, RECORD WALL ST. campaign donations, aren't you? What is the difference to "us" between Tax Breaks for the Rich and Bernanke Dollars for the Rich ? Please tell me. ObamaCare is a Health Care mandate, not socialized or national health care. We are required to pay a profit to private health insurance companies. A nice Republican style health care law. ObamaCare is nothing to brag about when you witness how a "Silver Plan" covers a working class family. $45 - $65 co - pay per office visit and $20 per Rx although the true cost is much, much less. Imagine the costs to a family of five, on top of their premium, if they have "the virus" the same paycheck month. Read me now and believe me later, ObamaCare is going to hurt the working poor. Really hurt. ObamaCare is a plan only a profiteering 1%er could love, for the coming profits to Blue Cross, Aetna, etc. Think RepubloCrat. Think ObamNey choice and economic police. What choice? Y'see? Oh, and please do - REMEMBER Obama's first Congress was a Democratic Congress. And Obama's failure of leadership was glaring then. Moi
Enough influence to make even those who are aware that there is something awfully wrong the distribution of wealth advocate all the wrong taxes rather than what would really fix this issue. So those who like to think they're fighting unequal distribution of wealth are just advocating taxes which will barely make a dent in the rich's unearned piggy banks.
"By charging them full market value for the locations that permit use of EBT and Obamaphones." Taxcutter says: The government sets the Section 8 rental rates. The moochers pay nothing in rent.
Moi said "Divestment should be required when an entity is - 'too big too fail', because it is a national threat." Does that apply to the government? Any successful society will have many large organizations. The success of those organizations is the success of the society. To find places with nothing too big to fail, you must visit the Third World. I wouldn't want to live where the only large organization whose continuity was assured was the government. That's the aim of the left: an all-powerful government surrounded by ants (you and me). Part of the American political legacy is the separation of powers, not only within the government but within society. State, county, and municipal governments, the big businesses, the big non-profits and universities, the big religions, and all the many movements, parties, clubs, etc., are all centers of power. They balance one another and stop power from being concentrated in a few dangerous hands. That's what the Founders feared. Our liberty depends on our ability to come together in many voluntary associations to accomplish what we can't do alone. Moi, if you beat down most of the independent powers in America, as you propose, who would wield all the power? The Federal government? Do you want that? Would you be safer and freer if a few hundred pols and civil service mandarins had total control of your life? I want someone able to talk back. Diverse power means that we can experiment with many ways of doing things to see what works best. That's crucial. If there's only one way, decided by a few DC insiders, what happens to the country when they're wrong? People always make mistakes. Better those mistakes should be limited than drag down the whole country. At this time, the impulse of the left to concentrate power and bypass the Constitution is a far greater threat than Goldman Sachs being the biggest investment bank.
How did you reach your conclusion? From one perspective, it could be the result of the right wanting to lower costs for free, and allow unfettered concentration of wealth.
"...I'm telling you that landlords are the more significant moochers." Taxcutter says: That is so invalid that I wonder if you are not just throwing something incredibly stupid out there for purposes of diverting attention from the excesses of the free stuff industry. ""Divestment should be required when an entity is - 'too big too fail', because it is a national threat." Does that apply to the government?" Taxcutter says: Absolutely!
They're poor that is what they do. They are dependents of society. The money given too them is to keep them from becoming competitive, and to remain poverty stricken. Nobody loses wealth by paying taxes unless they try to cheat their way. And nobody gains wealth from government subsidies, except the already wealthy who already own the government. Poor people do not gain wealth from government welfare, they gain complacency, and more poverty.
I would wager that most of the 1% that are politically active try to buy influence in both parties. It only makes sense. If you have the cash to spare, you can guarantee that, no matter who enters office, you'll have favors to call in.
Many, many, many give equally to both campaigns. Pfeizer Pharmaceutical for example. That is how tax laws, economic policies, enforcement of banking crimes is not to be seen for decades. Tilting the economic playing field ever so slightly to be barely preceptable to us and significant to the 1% and their addiction to acquire more and more wealth beyond comprehension. Our "tax cuts" are barely "dinner and a movie" and what did we sacrifice for them. Now, imagine what those "tax cuts" are to the 1%. Yup! This is what I term, "corporationism". They promise the "benefits" will "trickle down" to all of "us". I never, ever witnessed it. Well the "second coming" is coming too. Have faith and wait. To accomplish this phenomena they rely on a well oiled media to support their goals. So people parrot their party line. RECENT HISTORY The Greatest State of California has suffered budget problems all through the Arnold years and before. Our Jerry Brown got his referendum on the ballot and suddenly, last April 2013, California has a surplus. April, when income tax is due and that surcharge tax on the super rich occurred. AND not one of the Super Rich have lost an estate or extra home. SOCIAL CONTRACT America affords a safe, secure place to acquire and hold a fortune. Safe from marauding pillaging from private group or government. For this security we all pay a fair tax. Not an equal tax but a, spread the pain more evenly tax. The 1% have violated their part of the social contract. I remember when the Bank Of America in Santa Barbara was fire bombed. No one was hurt. I am not opposed to such demonstrations today to make the point on those "paper pushers" who destroy are freedom with economic servitude and economic terrorism via illegal, unenforced - therefore permitted crimes. BTW remember those 5 banks that brought down our economy and created so much suffereing by their "crimes" settled with our government for a fine of 3 days profits. No one going to jail. Get it ! & ! POINT: Stop supporting the one and only RepubloCratic Party that offers ObamNey choices. There was NO Choice on economic policy. ObamaCare will milk more money out of the working poor to pay for the uninsurable. No wealthy person will be inconvenienced as if it were National Health Care. Wake up. Wake up and smell the Moi Please, listen to this video. A few minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k
