Rich Folks Are Just An Obama Diversion Tactic...

Obama has no record to run on, so he will continue his negative campaigning tactics. He especially likes to attack the rich. Please listen to the first 13 minutes of this Mark Levin podcast, and maybe you libs will finally get it: Mark Levin podcast from 7/31/2012.

 

[video=youtube;Wi-D24oCa10]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10[/video]

 

Friedman? Phillips Curve nonsense and bobbins inconsistency over the negative income tax? Dodgy relationship with right wing authoritarian country? You might want to celebrate supply side economics in general. Please do that! It will be entertaining (except for the poor who suffer because of it of course)

 

Friedman claims the rich devote their excess wealth to productive investment, but such claims are false, absurd and dishonest. They mainly bid up the prices of each other's rent collection privileges; suborn politicians to get government favors (especially reduction of their taxes); fund right-wing think tanks to concoct rationalizations for why they should be given more for contributing less, and pay less tax on it to boot; etc. Dr. Michael Hudson calculated that actual productive capital goods account for well under 10% of privately owned assets, and an even smaller fraction of the rich's assets.

 

they should pay the same % for every dollar that we pay for every dollar we earn, they should not be rewarded with extra super-sized tax cuts, being rich was their reward


.

 

I suggest you take that up with your elected officials. Folks just follow the more than 10,000 pages of tax code, loopholes, deductions and all.

 

How is that false, absurd and dishonest? Should rich folks be required to devote their excess wealth to certain things? Do rich folks not make investments and purchases that they pay taxes on?

 

By being different from the truth, wildly different from the truth, and known to be different from the truth when it was said.

No; but neither should their wealth be sheltered from taxation under a transparently false pretext that it is being devoted to productive investment. It's not.

Not nearly as often as claimed.

 

Are you describing our government?

OK then, quit blaming the rich, and start attacking the IRS and their tax code.

Once again, their money is not the government's money. They pay their taxes according to U.S. tax code, and the rest is theirs to do what they wish.

 

No.

Who do you think created the IRS and wrote the tax code for their own advantage?

What made it "their" money but the government privileging them to take it from the productive?

They wrote the tax code not to tax them. Duh.

 

Politicians.

The money is theirs until the government finds a way to take it.

Darn politicians.

 

False. The politicians were just taking orders from their rich, privileged, private owners.

Nope. Flat false. The money didn't start OUT being theirs, so how did it get to be theirs?

<sigh> What a feeble excuse for political consciousness.

 

On both sides of the aisle.

It got to be theirs through no help from the government. It certainly was not the government's money to start.

They are responsible. They write and pass the laws of the land.

 

Of course. And...? Both sides of the aisle are government, duh.

No, that's just a bald, flat-out falsehood, as I have proved many times. The greater the accumulation of private wealth, the more likely it was obtained mainly through government-created and -enforced privileges such as land titles, ownership of mineral rights and natural resources, broadcast spectrum allocations, patents and copyrights, bank debt-money seigniorage, corrupt government contracts, etc. The number of substantial private fortunes that have been acquired without government assistance of some kind is microscopic.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

It was created by private banksters empowered to do so by government fiat.

Nonsense. Right-wing "think tanks" established to serve the rich write the laws, and the rich pay politicians to pass them:

"I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money...and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money." &#8212; Senator Boies Penrose (R-Pa.), 1896, describing the relationship between politics and big business.

 

You clearly hate those with money, and are partisan as could be. Good day.

 

I hate the evil, greedy, privileged, parasitic filth who rob and enslave the honest and productive for their own unearned profit. I also hate the stupid, evil, lying swine who lie to rationalize, justify and excuse that robbery and enslavement. Hatred is the appropriate emotional response to evil, and I am indeed as partisan as can be: I hate evil and love good. You are also partisan as can be, because you hate good and love evil. I am a partisan for good, you are a partisan for evil. I'm not sure there is any clearer way to explain that to you.

 

Once again, a hateful, biased response. Hypocrite.

 

It is not biased. You are an apologist for greed. Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is the root of all manner of evil. You seek to rationalize, justify and excuse the forcible, uncompensated removal of people's rights -- systematic, institutionalized evil -- in order to satisfy the greed of rich, privileged, parasitic takers. That is service to evil, plain and simple, and should rightly be hated. There is nothing "biased" about hating evil and those who serve evil. They deserve to be hated. I'm not sure there is any clearer way to explain that to you.

There is nothing hypocritical in what I said, stop lying.

 

I hope you are not including all rich folks in your hatred. Most have made their money honestly. Most folks are employed by people/corporations with money. Poor folks do not employ people. Be honest with yourself.

 

You mean they should pay the same as the 47% that pay no income tax?

 

If they want more tax revenue, they need to expand the tax base by including the 47%.

 

Obama will not do that that does not fit his fascist class warfare rhetoric.

 

'Obama is a fascist' and 'Obama is a socialist'. Why do Americans find it so difficult to apply political economy correctly? Such ridiculous statements can only harm their attempt at argument (unless of course within a herd environment where validity is shunned)

 

Make your choice it depends on the day. GM bailout was more fascist than socialist

 

My choice? I prefer validity, rather than abusing political economic concepts because of political ideological limitation