John Kerry: MORE class warfare

[MattTheSkywalker]

What's up brobots?

I watched the Kerry speech last night. And after a lot of hullabaloo about VietNam, his entire speech could be summarized as

"More class warfare".

Taxes will stay low unless you earn over $200,000. So much for individual achievement and the American dream, huh? Can't build yourself a house on the hill? Don't worry, other people will do it for you!

That's all he was really saying: other people will do it for you.

This is inherently anti-human, as the most productive will be keeping less of what they produce. Kerry will make you a slave to others, if, of course, you have the skill to actually produce anything.

if you don't, fear not, other people will do it for you.


How does anyone vote for this stuff?

 

[bluepeter]

I believe you are also engaging in class warfare my friend. How is it wrong to give a tax break to people who work full-time for a lower wage?

You and I both know that it never truly works that way but you always seem insulted by this. I'm all for giving a guy who works his ass off but can't catch a break a tax cut. Nothing wrong with that. That said, I don't agree with giving a break to all those under a certain income bracket because many of those are not hard working Joe. The problem lies there, not in simply giving some people a break.

Many of the rich in America are rich simply by association/inheritance etc. (you don't think someone like Paris Hilton should have to pay more taxes than someone who works 60 hours a week for minimum wage?)

That doesn't mean I think that someone who HAS worked his ass off his whole life to build a successful enterprise should be penalized heavily for it. There is no easy solution but it is certainly not to just tax everyone equally and let the rich get richer..........you want to accumulate more wealth? Work for it, that should be rewarded.

I'm well aware this is an idealist view by the way

 

[havoc]

How does anyone vote for this stuff?

How does anyone vote for either side?

Do you see the people hooting and hollering when all the fake reps of the dems come to the podium, they are hooting and hollering for garbage, same goes for the repubs when they have their geigh convention, in all seriousness it has to be one of the saddest and gayest spectacles I have witnessed, a travesty to one's own self, I mean WTF?

 

[big4rt]

I couldn't agree with you more. I simply cannot grasp the concept of punishing those who work their tails off. Whatever happened to the flat tax?

What's up brobots?

I watched the Kerry speech last night. And after a lot of hullabaloo about VietNam, his entire speech could be summarized as

"More class warfare".

Taxes will stay low unless you earn over $200,000. So much for individual achievement and the American dream, huh? Can't build yourself a house on the hill? Don't worry, other people will do it for you!

That's all he was really saying: other people will do it for you.

This is inherently anti-human, as the most productive will be keeping less of what they produce. Kerry will make you a slave to others, if, of course, you have the skill to actually produce anything.

if you don't, fear not, other people will do it for you.


How does anyone vote for this stuff?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I believe you are also engaging in class warfare my friend. How is it wrong to give a tax break to people who work full-time for a lower wage?

It is wrong when the government decides that it must "make up for" the revenue lost from a lower - income tax cut by taxing higher income earners still more.

Why is it wrong:

The government does not have a RIGHT to any money. Thus a decrease in available tax revenue should be accompanied by a decrease in spending, but never is. The decrease is offset by taxing rich people additionally.

You and I both know that it never truly works that way but you always seem insulted by this. I'm all for giving a guy who works his ass off but can't catch a break a tax cut. Nothing wrong with that. That said, I don't agree with giving a break to all those under a certain income bracket because many of those are not hard working Joe. The problem lies there, not in simply giving some people a break.

I am all for giving a tax break to lower wage earners. Just decrease the spending along with it. This is of course politically untenable in the age of giveaways, so rich people pay for these cuts. "Class warfare 101" as the lower wage earners support this.

Many of the rich in America are rich simply by association/inheritance etc. (you don't think someone like Paris Hilton should have to pay more taxes than someone who works 60 hours a week for minimum wage?)

Inherited money was earned at some point, so it has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again...and again...and again. Paris's trust fund should be tax free; however, money she earns from her medica shenanigans is and should be taxed.

That doesn't mean I think that someone who HAS worked his ass off his whole life to build a successful enterprise should be penalized heavily for it. There is no easy solution but it is certainly not to just tax everyone equally and let the rich get richer..........you want to accumulate more wealth? Work for it, that should be rewarded.

I'm well aware this is an idealist view by the way

The easy solution is that people have the right to that which they produce. A flat tax is an alternative, as is a consumption based tax.

What Kerry and his ilk do not realize is by these types of programs, they build walls between rich and poor, because as people succeed they yank their money off to tax havens.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

How does anyone vote for either side?

Do you see the people hooting and hollering when all the fake reps of the dems come to the podium, they are hooting and hollering for garbage, same goes for the repubs when they have their geigh convention, in all seriousness it has to be one of the saddest and gayest spectacles I have witnessed, a travesty to one's own self, I mean WTF?

Agreed it is the height of geighness, people giving away their individuality to an ideology that cares not for them.

That said, sir, you;ve worked hard to be successful at a young age, and it might be in your interest to see what your elected "leaders" are planning to do with your money.

You didn't work hard to see it re-appropriated.

 

[bluepeter]

It is wrong when the government decides that it must "make up for" the revenue lost from a lower - income tax cut by taxing higher income earners still more.

Why is it wrong:

The government does not have a RIGHT to any money. Thus a decrease in available tax revenue should be accompanied by a decrease in spending, but never is. The decrease is offset by taxing rich people additionally.




I am all for giving a tax break to lower wage earners. Just decrease the spending along with it. This is of course politically untenable in the age of giveaways, so rich people pay for these cuts. "Class warfare 101" as the lower wage earners support this.



Inherited money was earned at some point, so it has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again...and again...and again. Paris's trust fund should be tax free; however, money she earns from her medica shenanigans is and should be taxed.



The easy solution is that people have the right to that which they produce. A flat tax is an alternative, as is a consumption based tax.

What Kerry and his ilk do not realize is by these types of programs, they build walls between rich and poor, because as people succeed they yank their money off to tax havens.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this one except you seem to be saying that Bush et al are not just as bad. Neither ones economic policies work in terms of what we are discussing.

 

[timwillt73]

If by my twenties, I am not a Democrat, then I have no heart.
If by my thirties, I am not a Republican, then I have no brain.

Or something like that.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this one except you seem to be saying that Bush et al are not just as bad. Neither ones economic policies work in terms of what we are discussing.

I never said anything about Bush. Both Kerry and Bush are politicians through and through.

As to economic policies, Bush has cut taxes, and it has had a growth effect on the economy. He has cut taxes for almost everyone - not Bush's fault if a $40K earner saved $600 and a $1.5M earner saved $140,000.

Bush has also run up massive deficits, not inherently bad, but he has done so to fund entitlement programs like a prescription drug benefit and the like. Bush has increased spending and borrowed to do it. I disagree with these policies so I don't approve of any funding mechanism for them.

However, Bush and co. realize that countries like Japan and China are buying up assloads of our debt. Borrowing aggressively now is actually a sound economic policy, because China, Japan etc. will have to continue to buy goods from us in order to make sure our economy can repay the debt. So Bush's economic policy has effectively opened up some of the world's largest emerging markets to US goods. You rarely hear that on CNN.

I'd like Bush to show some restraint on giving still more to old people. But the way he is doing it is the soundest way possible.

 

[bluepeter]

I never said anything about Bush. Both Kerry and Bush are politicians through and through.

As to economic policies, Bush has cut taxes, and it has had a growth effect on the economy. He has cut taxes for almost everyone - not Bush's fault if a $40K earner saved $600 and a $1.5M earner saved $140,000.

Bush has also run up massive deficits, not inherently bad, but he has done so to fund entitlement programs like a prescription drug benefit and the like. Bush has increased spending and borrowed to do it. I disagree with these policies so I don't approve of any funding mechanism for them.

However, Bush and co. realize that countries like Japan and China are buying up assloads of our debt. Borrowing aggressively now is actually a sound economic policy, because China, Japan etc. will have to continue to buy goods from us in order to make sure our economy can repay the debt. So Bush's economic policy has effectively opened up some of the world's largest emerging markets to US goods. You rarely hear that on CNN.

I'd like Bush to show some restraint on giving still more to old people. But the way he is doing it is the soundest way possible.

I know you didn't mention Bush but don't tell me you don't know you're promoting him by bashing Kerry

Anyway, I strenuously disagree. When Bush took office, the federal government had a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. Three years later this surplus has disappeared, replaced by a 10 year projected deficit of over $2.8 trillion.

Numerous states are experiencing severe budget shortfalls.

Americans are facing higher medical costs, lower wages, and pension systems that are in bankruptcy. Governments on each level are reducing services.

In this time of increasing need, Bush proposes cutbacks in federal programs including job training. In order to offset budget shortfalls many states are seeking to raise taxes. I don't see this as being positive economically, do you?

Keep borrowing, spending and invading George.