Taxes, are we ready for these new ones?

[rigney]

This will not effect me since I haven't made enough money in the past twenty years to be taxed that high. But will it effect you? Should we listen to this guy, or brush him aside as bigoted right wing nut case? I believe his name is Dick Morris.

Edited July 18, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

When my income goes up by 10X I'll begin to think of worrying...

[John Cuthber]

Well, if these data are right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png

then his choices of examples are above the household incomes of about 90% of the population.

 

Assuming he's right (and it would be good if someone checked that) then he's scaremongering for about 10% of the electorate.

Perhaps the other 90% will look at this video and thing "Great- maybe some of that tax money will get back to me somehow- better schools form my kids or better healthcare. I'm voting for Obama!"

 

Seriously, he only gives examples of people with incomes roughly 5 times and 3 times the national median income.

No mention of "normal" people.

He also fails to say what that money will be used for.

 

I'm leaning towards the idea that he's a right wing nut case- but it's possible that he genuinely doesn't know how most people live in which instance he's just very poorly educated.

Edited July 18, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

This reminds me of the tactics the Tea Party used after they were subjugated by the corporate special interest groups. They complained in all their rallies that Obama was raising taxes when he actually lowered them for 90% of the households.

[CaptainPanic]

1st example: 250,000 $/yr

2nd example: 150,000 $/yr

Claim: if you earn this modest income, Obama is gonna make you pay.

 

LOL! I know the USA is the richest country, but you guys are not THAT rich! That's not a normal income, as I'll show below.

 

Here's the actual average incomes per household in the USA in a wikipedia picture.

 

He talks about incomes 2 to 7 times the average. And please note that half the people earn less than the average.

 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 6.03 percent of individual over 18 and only 19.9 percent of households had incomes of $100,000 or more in 2010. (source)

 

This dude pretends to speak for all Americans, but instead is a manipulating bastard who speaks only for the richest few percent.

[ParanoiA]

When my income goes up by 10X I'll begin to think of worrying...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 - I sure hope someone unlike you is still left to take up for you when they come for your crap. Way to stand up for liberty for all.

 

Assuming he's right (and it would be good if someone checked that) then he's scaremongering for about 10% of the electorate.

Perhaps the other 90% will look at this video and thing "Great- maybe some of that tax money will get back to me somehow- better schools form my kids or better healthcare. I'm voting for Obama!"

 

Of course, as it was a major concern at the outset that when the people realized they could simply vote themselves money then that would herald the end of the republic. You just have to get a potential difference of money and minority on one side, and bigotry and majority on the other and viola! That's what we have today. Rationalizing hating a minority (rich) and then using that rationale to take their property.

 

We have a rich history of rationalization and hatred in this country. Another example is the xenophobia and bigotry we see associated with employing people in "foreign" countries. Here, the liberals and democrats, and even some republicans, actually have a problem with someone here hiring a destitute poor person in another country, who doesn't look quite like them.

 

Our GDP per capita, per wiki, rests at $48,387 while India's, a popular outsourcing destination, currently sits as $1,389 - that's 35 times less. We are ranked 16th in the world by that measure compared to India's 140th, almost at the bottom. They are ridiculously poor. Yet, liberals and democrats are free to spread the hate on this and disparage anyone who hires a foreigner.

 

So much hate, too few bullets.

 

Seriously, he only gives examples of people with incomes roughly 5 times and 3 times the national median income.

No mention of "normal" people.

He also fails to say what that money will be used for.

 

First rule of propaganda: Dehumanize your enemy. Your are demonstrating previously mentioned bigotry right here. Merely because of their income, they are not "normal" people. You have taken 1 single attribute, out of thousands about a person, and used that 1 single attribute to group and label them as non-normal.

 

Seriously, it's as if you believe no one deserves representation unless they are a majority. People with incomes roughly 5 times and 3 times the national median income are *people* dude. And in America, everyone is represented - not just the majority, not just token minority groups - but *everyone*. They are a minority group when grouping and labeling by monetary means only. That's it. But hatred is resilient, I'm confident they'll continue to be treated unfairly and always arbitrarily grouped as "rich" and perfectly ok to hate.

 

I'm leaning towards the idea that he's a right wing nut case- but it's possible that he genuinely doesn't know how most people live in which instance he's just very poorly educated.

 

He got Bill Clinton elected twice and served as his political adviser, the "feel your pain" president; the man considered the first "black" president. He is the architect of Clinton's Third Way policies. I'm not sure he's the one poorly educated.

 

But he is an asshole, just like any other liberty denying prick in this country.

 

1st example: 250,000 $/yr

2nd example: 150,000 $/yr

Claim: if you earn this modest income, Obama is gonna make you pay.

 

LOL! I know the USA is the richest country, but you guys are not THAT rich! That's not a normal income, as I'll show below.

 

Here's the actual average incomes per household in the USA in a wikipedia picture.

 

He talks about incomes 2 to 7 times the average. And please note that half the people earn less than the average.

 

And another one...

 

You all do realize that minorities are people too? That there's other people in the world besides the "majority"? Why are you surprised that someone besides the precious majority should get some air time? Nobody matters but the average?

 

You are revealing your bias against a minority group here. They aren't worth talking about, apparently, unless you're talking about taking their stuff? If anyone else takes up for them in any way, you are apparently dumbfounded because they are not "the average"? Is it your view then that it be weird for someone "not average" to speak or be spoken to, or about?

 

I'm genuinely curious why two of you thought it relevant than he wasn't speaking about a majority. Is there any reason gay people should not be taken up for, I mean, they only make up about 4% of the country, according to ABC News. I'm assuming in the interest of consistency and equitable treatment you would certainly criticize anyone speaking out for this measly 4% as nowhere near the average.

 

This dude pretends to speak for all Americans, but instead is a manipulating bastard who speaks only for the richest few percent.

 

You mean that part in the beginning when he says "if you and your spouse make $250,000 or more per year, here's what's going to happen" - is that the part where he "pretends to speak for all Americans"? (emphasis mine)

 

 

 

 

I've gotten a lot out of this thread already. The psychology of in-group/out-group is always fascinating, especially in this subject area and a couple of you have betrayed the mind of the bigot very well in your writing. I look forward to your inevitable denials and moral equivalencies.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ParanoiA

[CaptainPanic]

You all do realize that minorities are people too? That there's other people in the world besides the "majority"? Why are you surprised that someone besides the precious majority should get some air time? Nobody matters but the average?

I'm not saying we should shut up this guy on the video - I'm not against the freedom of speech. I am just warning the other 95% of the US citizens that he's not addressing them, but only the other rich people.

 

But for the rest, you're completely right here (even though you aim to mock).

Tax is a public system, and the public (i.e. everybody) is what matters. An average is a decent measure for that. We cannot go about having a tax system based only on the wishes of the rich. Luckily, a democracy is a system where once every while the entire population is asked for their opinion, and often the new government or president will then rule the country based on a sort of average of the population's wishes.

 

To listen only to the rich few percent is called an "oligarchy". I don't want that.

[Moontanman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 - I sure hope someone unlike you is still left to take up for you when they come for your crap. Way to stand up for liberty for all.

 

WOW! What blatant fear mongering, yeah, gotta fight giving money to poor people so they can get heath care and decent schools so they can have a chance to move up in the world... we persecuted rich people can't allow that... horse feathers...

 

 

 

Of course, as it was a major concern at the outset that when the people realized they could simply vote themselves money then that would herald the end of the republic. You just have to get a potential difference of money and minority on one side, and bigotry and majority on the other and viola! That's what we have today. Rationalizing hating a minority (rich) and then using that rationale to take their property.

 

More fear mongering, yes those poor persecuted rich people, i feel bad for them now for sure...

 

We have a rich history of rationalization and hatred in this country. Another example is the xenophobia and bigotry we see associated with employing people in "foreign" countries. Here, the liberals and democrats, and even some republicans, actually have a problem with someone here hiring a destitute poor person in another country, who doesn't look quite like them.

 

Complete strawman...

 

Our GDP per capita, per wiki, rests at $48,387 while India's, a popular outsourcing destination, currently sits as $1,389 - that's 35 times less. We are ranked 16th in the world by that measure compared to India's 140th, almost at the bottom. They are ridiculously poor. Yet, liberals and democrats are free to spread the hate on this and disparage anyone who hires a foreigner.

 

So much hate, too few bullets.

 

Yes, we think American companies shouldn't get tax breaks to outsource jobs from our people... Hire all you want who ever you want but you shouldn't get tax breaks for outsourcing jobs... simple as that.

 

 

First rule of propaganda: Dehumanize your enemy. Your are demonstrating previously mentioned bigotry right here. Merely because of their income, they are not "normal" people. You have taken 1 single attribute, out of thousands about a person, and used that 1 single attribute to group and label them as non-normal.

 

Again, who is arguing this?

 

Seriously, it's as if you believe no one deserves representation unless they are a majority. People with incomes roughly 5 times and 3 times the national median income are *people* dude. And in America, everyone is represented - not just the majority, not just token minority groups - but *everyone*. They are a minority group when grouping and labeling by monetary means only. That's it. But hatred is resilient, I'm confident they'll continue to be treated unfairly and always arbitrarily grouped as "rich" and perfectly ok to hate.

 

yes, those poor pitiful rich people... being taxed! How horrific!

 

 

He got Bill Clinton elected twice and served as his political adviser, the "feel your pain" president; the man considered the first "black" president. He is the architect of Clinton's Third Way policies. I'm not sure he's the one poorly educated.

 

But he is an asshole, just like any other liberty denying prick in this country.

 

So the rich should be taxed less than the poor... because they are rich and practically have absolute control of everything? makes us pricks for wanting a bit more of a level playing field?

 

 

 

 

 

And another one...

 

You all do realize that minorities are people too? That there's other people in the world besides the "majority"? Why are you surprised that someone besides the precious majority should get some air time? Nobody matters but the average?

 

You are revealing your bias against a minority group here. They aren't worth talking about, apparently, unless you're talking about taking their stuff? If anyone else takes up for them in any way, you are apparently dumbfounded because they are not "the average"? Is it your view then that it be weird for someone "not average" to speak or be spoken to, or about?

 

I'm genuinely curious why two of you thought it relevant than he wasn't speaking about a majority. Is there any reason gay people should not be taken up for, I mean, they only make up about 4% of the country, according to ABC News. I'm assuming in the interest of consistency and equitable treatment you would certainly criticize anyone speaking out for this measly 4% as nowhere near the average.

 

 

 

You mean that part in the beginning when he says "if you and your spouse make $250,000 or more per year, here's what's going to happen" - is that the part where he "pretends to speak for all Americans"? (emphasis mine)

 

 

 

 

I've gotten a lot out of this thread already. The psychology of in-group/out-group is always fascinating, especially in this subject area and a couple of you have betrayed the mind of the bigot very well in your writing. I look forward to your inevitable denials and moral equivalencies.

 

 

The rich are a down trodden minority? I hope this was tongue in cheek, hard to believe someone could be so wrong about so much and not be trying to be funny... no one is saying the rich should be taxed excessively but why should they be taxed less than everyone else, why are they in such desperate need to tax relief? I get paying those huge grocery bills is killing them, and the price of gas... how can you fill up your gas tank when you only make $250,000 a year? has to be difficult....

 

I once had a rich relative tell me that that i needed to live within my means, he gave me along hard speech about how we people needed to be satisfied with our economic system and how we needed to live with in a reasonable means...

 

he of course and this is no lie, owned four cars, a vacation home, a large RV, a huge regular home on a golf course, he collected antique motorcycles, I could go on and on but the point is that he and his wife owned more stuff than I could imagine and he was saying we all had to live with in our means but still cried like a baby if his taxes went up even a tiny fraction because he was afraid the money might go to some welfare queen, his words...

 

Now I don't really begrudge him his stuff, he earned them one way or another I am sure but his insistence that "us people" needed to learn to live with less pissed me off... He had no idea of the struggle necessary to make ends meet when you make a tiny fraction of what he made and how "little things" like health care or student grants can make a huge difference in peoples lives for just a small fraction of his income in taxes. he was so consumed with protecting what he had he was totally unaware of the struggle to live that poor people go through, he assumed they were all free loaders and deserved what they got... if that...

 

i would never advocate a crushing tax blow to any group but the rich can afford to pay more in taxes if they would just throttle back on their spending... don't you think... easier for them than me, cutting back for me would mean living under a bridge someplace...

 

yeah I know ParanoiA I am not in your league when it comes to politics and I know you will wear me out in a debate but the idea that the rich are being persecuted is just silly, they have had the ball in their court for quite sometimes and as they gained more and more control and tax breaks the economy has gone down.

 

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-14/news/30093395_1_tax-rates-tax-shelters-income

Edited July 19, 2012 by Moontanman

[rigney]

I like ambiguous B.S., because it tells you more about a fella's morality, ambition and personality than anything else you will ever find out about him. All of us use it in one fashion or another. If I'm sitting with a good looking gal having a slurpee or frappe, of which I hate both; I'll tell her how much I love the crap; just to pleases her. But politics, national security and personal property issues are things that should not be elided so easily. Our entire nation depends on the caliber of men we elect to protect us. But we have elected some real shitheads over these past few years. Being at the poverty level for any of us is not a good thing. But to think we can correct our nations problems by digging the playing field to basement level is the damndest thing i can think of. Perhaps the majority of us in a systems pecking order will never believe of it as being done right, but I just can't take that mind set and think it's foolish of those who do. And by the way, I have an income of $20,000.oo a year. Hopefully I'll be able to keep that coming in for the next few?

Edited July 19, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I'm not a fan of the term, "level playing field" when it comes to wealth. I feel it implies that we want to take the excess money from some and give it to those who don't have very much, and I think many people feel that's the issue here. There is no "excess money". Everyone earns their bucks but everyone should pay their taxes too.

 

I think "fair share" is better terminology for taxing people. A progressive tax ensures that fairness, since the wealthiest will pay more but usually get more out of the system. They have the most to lose so defending the country is more important to them. The infrastructure benefits them more since travel and commerce on the roads, rails and airports is usually proportionate to your wealth. Same with energy, the wealthy use more and should do more to support it. Even if you can afford to send your kids to private schools, your companies gain a disproportionate benefit from better publicly educated employees.

 

And, of course, there's all the subsidization and wealth generated from lobbying, but I'd like to see that go away. It would be interesting to see how robust we could make our economy if we could lift that particular foot off our necks.

[swansont]

Of course, as it was a major concern at the outset that when the people realized they could simply vote themselves money then that would herald the end of the republic. You just have to get a potential difference of money and minority on one side, and bigotry and majority on the other and viola! That's what we have today. Rationalizing hating a minority (rich) and then using that rationale to take their property.

 

It's terribly convenient to write this off as hatred of the rich, but the main problem in that attribution is that it permits one to simply ignore any of the arguments (which can be written off as rationalizations) put forth. Poisoning the well tends to do that.

 

We have a rich history of rationalization and hatred in this country. Another example is the xenophobia and bigotry we see associated with employing people in "foreign" countries. Here, the liberals and democrats, and even some republicans, actually have a problem with someone here hiring a destitute poor person in another country, who doesn't look quite like them.

 

But why should the employment of persons in a foreign country be our concern? Again, it's convenient to write this off as bigotry and xenophobia, but that's just more poisoning the well.

 

First rule of propaganda: Dehumanize your enemy. Your are demonstrating previously mentioned bigotry right here. Merely because of their income, they are not "normal" people. You have taken 1 single attribute, out of thousands about a person, and used that 1 single attribute to group and label them as non-normal.

 

Since this is a discussion about income and taxes, that's the attribute that is relevant. Someone in the 90th percentile or above is not typical (or normal).

 

You all do realize that minorities are people too? That there's other people in the world besides the "majority"? Why are you surprised that someone besides the precious majority should get some air time? Nobody matters but the average?

 

You are revealing your bias against a minority group here. They aren't worth talking about, apparently, unless you're talking about taking their stuff? If anyone else takes up for them in any way, you are apparently dumbfounded because they are not "the average"? Is it your view then that it be weird for someone "not average" to speak or be spoken to, or about?

 

Given the position, recently reinforced, that money is speech, the rich are not in the minority when measured by how much influence they have with the government. They can, and have, stacked the rules in their favor, in order to perpetuate their advantage.

[ecoli]

It's terribly convenient to write this off as hatred of the rich, but the main problem in that attribution is that it permits one to simply ignore any of the arguments (which can be written off as rationalizations) put forth. Poisoning the well tends to do that.

I agree inasmuch that hatred is too strong of a word. But how often do you here people say things like: "well he's rich he can afford it." Those kinds of statements, to me, are equally poisonous. Firstly, income is not necessarily deterministic of net worth, and where does the voting populace get off making normative judgments about someone based on their income?

 

 

But why should the employment of persons in a foreign country be our concern? Again, it's convenient to write this off as bigotry and xenophobia, but that's just more poisoning the well.

I think what paranoiA was saying is if we care about people and poverty and if poor people need jobs, it should be irrelevant if that poor person happens to live in the US. Exporting jobs is one of the most humane things we can do, therefore.

 

Since this is a discussion about income and taxes, that's the attribute that is relevant. Someone in the 90th percentile or above is not typical (or normal).

But isn't that the characterization that paranoiA is objecting to? You're making a normative judgement based on someone's income. It's just a statistic that doesn't say much about the person it applies to.

 

Given the position, recently reinforced, that money is speech, the rich are not in the minority when measured by how much influence they have with the government. They can, and have, stacked the rules in their favor, in order to perpetuate their advantage.

Money can be speech, but does the 200k dividing line make sense to 'counteract' this effect with taxes? Consider that someone making $200,000 in New York could have the same lifestyle as someone making $115,000 in Cleveland. http://www.bestplaces.net/col

[padren]

Why is it every time we discuss how to pay our "national utilities bill this year" we get accusations of "hatred for the rich" being the deciding factor in how to split it?

 

 

It's a bloody bill - we wanted all these bombs, troops, police, courts, social programs and infrastructure (at least we live in a democracy where we have some choice in the matter) and whatnot... but when it comes to pay the bill suddenly all the wealthy people (not really - just a few who pretend to speak for all of them) freak out and play the victim card.

 

It's a bill.

 

It has to be paid.

 

We all benefit from these expenditures, and we can discuss how best to cover this bill without resorting to either (A) calling people evil or (B) pretending the only reason we want to talk about the bill is to "hurt those much hated rich people"

 

 

I don't mind giving rich people a break where possible, but bottom line is they need infrastructure as much as anyone and they wouldn't have made a bloody dollar somewhere like Somalia. If they want to get something out, they have to put something in.

 

The only real topic is what's "fair" to put in, and we have to be able to talk about this without it turning into a game of recriminations.

 

Sadly, the less capable we are of discussing the issue as adults, the more we actually deserve the treatment we get... which won't be that great coming from Dems or Republicans if it's born out of this much wharrgarbl.

[ecoli]

padren - your point is well taken, but I think that the class issue comes up because its still such a deciding factor. Paying the bills is essential, but how big a bill can we afford is the real question. Pawning yet more of our bills off on "rich people" is an option, but is it a viable one and does it provide the most benefit for the most people? And what does it really mean to be rich in this country, anyway.

 

Luckily, these are empirical questions and we don't have to resort to name-calling or judgments.

[Phi for All]

I agree inasmuch that hatred is too strong of a word. But how often do you here people say things like: "well he's rich he can afford it." Those kinds of statements, to me, are equally poisonous. Firstly, income is not necessarily deterministic of net worth, and where does the voting populace get off making normative judgments about someone based on their income?

In this instance, it's not so much a normative judgement as it is using income as a basis for figuring income taxes.

 

I think what paranoiA was saying is if we care about people and poverty and if poor people need jobs, it should be irrelevant if that poor person happens to live in the US. Exporting jobs is one of the most humane things we can do, therefore.

This is our tax revenue, and we have a great deal of that money already set aside as foreign aid. When we give subsidies and exemptions to companies that further offshore work our own workers could do, it further reduces the strength of public revenues and weakens wage growth while prices continue to climb.

 

But isn't that the characterization that paranoiA is objecting to? You're making a normative judgement based on someone's income. It's just a statistic that doesn't say much about the person it applies to.

Again, it's not a normative judgement. Someone who is in the top 5% of wage earners is NOT normal, nor is the person who is in the bottom 5%, specifically in regards to their income.

 

I don't mind giving rich people a break where possible, but bottom line is they need infrastructure as much as anyone and they wouldn't have made a bloody dollar somewhere like Somalia. If they want to get something out, they have to put something in.

padren, great post, but I still maintain that the wealthy need MORE of the infrastructure we all pay for. They have more to lose if we fall, they use more of it, and as you said, if they want to do business here instead of Somalia, they need to pay the bill.

[rigney]

When i hear our president reply to a small business owner who probably worked his ass of to get the business started; by castigating and saying to him: "You didn't build that business, the people who work for you did", I'd like to kick him straight to the gonads, and hard! What a fukkin' idiot.

Edited July 19, 2012 by rigney

[JohnB]

You guys get to claim your home repayments as a deduction?

 

Wow! We only get the interest as a deduction and only then if the house is an investment and not the primary place of residence.

[uncool]

When i hear our president reply to a small business owner who probably worked his ass of to get the business started; by castigating and saying to him: "You didn't build that business, the people who work for you did", I'd like to kick him straight to the gonads, and hard! What a fukkin' idiot.

You might want to know what he actually said.

 

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.[/QUOTe]

In other words "that" is referring to the American system - including great teachers, roads, bridges, the Internet, etc. Not to the business.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

You might want to know what he actually said.

 

 

In other words "that" is referring to the American system - including great teachers, roads, bridges, the Internet, etc. Not to the business.

=Uncool-

If I may reply subjectively, "Bull Shit" Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

When i hear our president reply to a small business owner who probably worked his ass of to get the business started; by castigating and saying to him: "You didn't build that business, the people who work for you did", I'd like to kick him straight to the gonads, and hard! What a fukkin' idiot.

 

I'm going to need a link for that quote. Is it meant to be the quote that uncool offered?

 

I agree inasmuch that hatred is too strong of a word. But how often do you here people say things like: "well he's rich he can afford it." Those kinds of statements, to me, are equally poisonous. Firstly, income is not necessarily deterministic of net worth, and where does the voting populace get off making normative judgments about someone based on their income?

 

That's how we, constitutionally, decided to do it.

 

I think what paranoiA was saying is if we care about people and poverty and if poor people need jobs, it should be irrelevant if that poor person happens to live in the US. Exporting jobs is one of the most humane things we can do, therefore.

 

That's a separate question, though. Business is not there to be humanitarian organizations, and government is there to serve the interests of its own people. People who pay taxes to the government.

 

But isn't that the characterization that paranoiA is objecting to? You're making a normative judgement based on someone's income. It's just a statistic that doesn't say much about the person it applies to.

 

I'm making a judgement as outlined by the 16th amendment.

 

Money can be speech, but does the 200k dividing line make sense to 'counteract' this effect with taxes? Consider that someone making $200,000 in New York could have the same lifestyle as someone making $115,000 in Cleveland. http://www.bestplaces.net/col

 

 

Consider that someone in NY might be getting paid more because s/he is in NY, as opposed to Cleveland.

[Phi for All]

If I may reply subjectively, "Bull Shit"

You're keying on a few words that fire up your emotions. Granted, Obama probably should have said, "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that alone", but go out and try to build a business with no publicly-educated employees or customer-base, no publicly built roads, no airports and no other publicly funded infrastructure.

[swansont]

If I may reply subjectively, "Bull Shit"

 

Um, no. He didn't say what you quoted. You don't get to manufacture quotes just because you don't like him, and to justify calling him a "fukkin' idiot"

[iNow]

You might want to know what he actually said.

 

In other words "that" is referring to the American system - including great teachers, roads, bridges, the Internet, etc. Not to the business.

=Uncool-

Elizabeth Warren said roughly the same a little under a year ago... at which time the Tea Party attacked her for being a communist socialist nazi feminist horned devil with wings... or something.

 

 

And as for class warfare... it's already happening, but it's happening by the rich on the rest of us.

 

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/the-class-warfare-election/

 

 

So like it or not, we have an election in which one candidate is proposing a redistribution from the top — which is currently paying lower taxes than it has in 80 years — downward, mainly to lower-income workers, while the other is proposing a large redistribution from the poor and the middle class to the top.

 

So the next time someone tut-tuts about “class warfare”, remember that the class war is already happening, in real policy — with the top .01 percent on offense.

[rigney]

Elizabeth Warren said roughly the same a little under a year ago... at which time the Tea Party attacked her for being a communist socialist nazi feminist horned devil with wings... or something.

 

 

And as for class warfare... it's already happening, but it's happening by the rich on the rest of us.

 

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/the-class-warfare-election/

 

And I should wonder why I lean to the right?

 

Um, no. He didn't say what you quoted. You don't get to manufacture quotes just because you don't like him, and to justify calling him a "fukkin' idiot"

Would you give me a better description of his words, if you will.

 

You're keying on a few words that fire up your emotions. Granted, Obama probably should have said, "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that alone", but go out and try to build a business with no publicly-educated employees or customer-base, no publicly built roads, no airports and no other publicly funded infrastructure.

When a man of his supposed intellect and status makes such a meaningless and derogatory statement, I can only reply with my first and only statement; "Bull Shit". Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

And I should wonder why I lean to the right?

Because you like having things like roads, fire departments, cops, and clean drinking water but refuse to pay for them? Because you wear the badge of fiscal responsibility but forget to practice it? Because math is hard and stuff?