Are we created equal?

Inheriting a huge trust fund is "earning" to you?

You're saying we should measure Americans against the world's poor? I disagree with your opinion.

You're worried about how you're going to pay for health care for your kids and pay for their education, and fix car, and a hundred other things the guy netting $10 million doesn't have to worry about.

Baseless RW propaganda class warfare nonsense. Proved by the fact the economy was growing strongly in the early 1990s even before the internet started reaching mass markets.

Conservatives said the exact same thing in the early 1990s with Clinton's tax increase. They were totally wrong. They said the Bush tax cuts would spur great economic growth and create jobs. They were totally wrong.

And we have the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims being made by the 1% apologists today. Your post is a case in point.

Liberals were exactly right. After that huge tax increase, the economy kicked ass. After Bush's huge tax cuts the economy sucked.

Sure I did. Public education has helped educate tens of millions who otherwise couldn't have gotten an education.

 

No, being a good steward of your money and putting it somewhere that it's going to earn more money most certainly is.

It most certainly should be measured against the rest of the world as well. Because if it were not for those rich people dragging up the poor and middle class along for the ride, they would be living in the same comparable conditions as the rest of the world. The reason you're worried about a car and healthcare insurance and not what you're going to eat and drink and clothe yourself with is because you live in a country where the rich has increased the standard of living far and above what the poor and middle class could EVER achieve by themselves.

And I disagree with your opinion that your jealousy of those who do make a lot of money justifies stealing money from those people and giving it to those who are jealous.

So what?? The homeless guy with 2 kids is worried about all of those things too as well as wondering how he's going to feed, water and clothe himself and his children. I don't see you saying we should cut your income in half to pay for them. You only want to cut the income of the people that you are jealous of.

It's easy to give away other people's money isn't it? Not so easy when someone wants to take yours.

Conservatives said the exact same thing in the early 1990s with Clinton's tax increase. They were totally wrong. They said the Bush tax cuts would spur great economic growth and create jobs. They were totally wrong.

And we have the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims being made by the 1% apologists today. Your post is a case in point.[/QUOTE]

Your claims are ludicrous. First of all, Clinton didn't even institute his tax increases until '93 and the internet boom was exploding at that time. Second, By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.

No the economy is a LAGGER. When policy happens it takes a few years for the policy to show any effect on the economy. Hence why Clinton's tax increases started to slow the economy and push it into a recession weeks from the time Bush came into office.

The "education" they got was substandard by essentially ANY measure you want to provide. Not only is it substandard but it cost a FORTUNE to provide. As with ALL socialist programs, it is inefficient, costly and ineffective. Furthermore, the money that has been stolen from those people to provide this (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor education could be used to provide an education for their children with private education. And if private education didn't have to compete with FREE money that the public education receives, the costs for private education would be FAR lower than they are right now.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. IMO just not blowing daddy's inheritance does mean you "earned" it.

I didn't state that opinion at all.

If you are going to completely mischaracterize my posts over and over it's not worth the time. Lot's of people who cannot defend their position resort to this lame tactic.

I don't make $50 million.

No one like paying taxes.

There was no internet boom in 1993.

I agree the economy slowed in 2001 because of the overspeculation in the stock market, particularly the Nasdaq. But it was hardly a recession, where even in the worst year the economy grew by 1.3% real.

So tax policy changes take about 7 years to have an effect on the economy, is that your position? Just what to make sure we are clear on what you are saying.

In some places, it is I agree. In others not. But better opportunity than none at all.

 

Well your opinion is just great. It's wrong, but it's great. One of the biggest problems is, most millionaires are not millionaires because they inherited daddy's money. Especially, in this country. Most millionaires are millionaires because they EARNED it.

Call it jealousy, envy... whatever you want to characterize it as. You think it's not fair that someone makes $50M a year and you do not. You think it's not fair that you have to worry about education and your car and blah blah blah and the millionaire does not. If it's not jealousy or envy, then what is it?

And the homeless guy doesn't make $50,000. Why not cut your salary in half and give it to him so he doesn't have to worry about food and water?

Yeah well you're right. Nobody like a thief. Even liberals don't like a thief... that is until they're the ones doing the thieving.

In keeping with its birth at CERN, early adopters of the World Wide Web were primarily university-based scientific departments or physics laboratories such as Fermilab and SLAC. By January 1993 there were fifty Web servers across the world; by October 1993 there were over five hundred.

As I said, this was the beginning of the internet boom.

Wrong again.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/rec2001.htm

And there was overspeculation... based upon what? THE INTERNET... or as it's called now, the dotcom bubble. The SAME speculation that had driven the massive increase in the markets and the economy during the 90's. The SAME concept that overcame the burden of Clinton's tax increases for years until it couldn't sustain itself in the face of those increases anymore and went into recession.

Well it does when it has the dotcom boom making up for the deficiencies in tax policy for years. However, eventually even the strongest and largest driver of an economy since the wheel could not overcome the detrimental policy of Clinton's presidency.

So let me just make sure I understand your position. It's better to punish the VAST majority of the population, who otherwise could have afforded GOOD education for themselves and their children, just so that we can say that we provided a substandard education for the minute percentage of the population that couldn't afford that education on their own?

I shouldn't be surprised, this is EXACTLY what the left is doing with healthcare. You want to say that you provide healthcare for EVERYONE, while the vast majority who already did have healthcare get the quality of their healthcare decreased while the cost of their healthcare increases.

Socialism is a DISEASE.

 

Depends on how you define "EARNED". So what is your point?

Utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It is typical of the 1% apologists to defend their own greed by baselessly attacking others as being jealous.

Because I don't make $20 million. Tell you what. Set me up to inherit a few hundred million so I can "earn" $20 million in investment income, and I'll gladly take the "punishment" of paying half that income in taxes.

Who said anything about thieves?

LOL, 500 web servers is your big economic boom?

The dot-com bubble (also referred to as the dot-com boom, the Internet bubble and the information technology bubble[1]) was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

As I said, there was no significant economic boost from the internet until the late 90s.

Wrong again. Your data is out dated.

Year - Real GDP 2009$
2000 12,565.2
2001 12,684.4

Increase: 0.95%

Source: http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Never denied it. That happened in the late 1990s, as I proved above. The economy was doing just fine with the Clinton tax increase before then.

Well it does when it has the dotcom boom making up for the deficiencies in tax policy for years. However, eventually even the strongest and largest driver of an economy since the wheel could not overcome the detrimental policy of Clinton's presidency.

So when conservatives told us over and over that Clinton's tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs they were completely wrong. Got it.

You don't understand it. I never said we should punish anyone.

False conclusion based upon false premise. There's no evidence that the vast majority will get the quality decreased.

Then don't be a socialist.

 

CEO's and outsourcing specialists (like Romney...the Republican offering for POTUS), would disagree with your premise. They make lots of cash off of other people's work, outsourcing it for profit, or simply taking it via massive exploitation and near slave-like conditions. Rome wasn't built in a day but, it eventually burned.

 

The point is you don't take something from someone else that you didn't earn simply because you feel as though you're entitled to it. Also, you continuously point to people who inherited money when they're an extremely small percentage of the population when compared to those who EARNED their money.

Then I'll ask you again, if it's not jealousy or envy then what is it? And while we're at it, define jealousy or envy for us.

And the homeless guy says, I tell you what, you set me up to make $50,000 a year and I'll gladly take the "punishment" of paying half that income in taxes. So why is that not acceptable?

Uhhh the person who feels as though he can take from someone else simply because he feels as though he's entitled to it... like yourself.

No I said this was the beginning of the internet boom. This is when the internet started to grow and become a driving force in the economy. This is when people started to see the benefits and the advantages and the monetary producing capabilities.

Quit DELIBERATELY confusing two separate ideas. You're now talking about the BUBBLE. The internet boom didn't start out as a BUBBLE. Nice try at deception though.

As with all of your "points" you are being deliberately deceptive. Recession is not calculated based upon year it's calculated by quarters.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/08/the_2001_recess.html
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/09/Kliesen.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=azwhJVa5rWhU
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/2002/brief015.pdf
http://www.gold-eagle.com/article/2001-2002-recession
http://www.bis.org/publ/work148.pdf
http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2002/nov-dec02/spotlight.asp

I could go on and on and on.

You proved nothing above except for your willingness to manipulate data and claim that the "bubble" was the same thing as the beginning of the internet boom.

No they were absolutely correct. They simply didn't foresee the internet coming in and compensating for Clinton's horrendous tax policy.

Of course you did. You just admitted it's better to have substandard opportunity than no opportunity at all. The problem is that MOST people had opportunity before. They also had the opportunity to have opportunity that was NOT substandard. However, you took that opportunity away from them and provided them now with substandard opportunity just so that you can say that the people who had no opportunity before now at least have a little.

That is PUNISHMENT of those who were doing well to begin with.

BS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2201659/posts

There is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that. And those are just from socialist programs in other country's.

BTW how are you going to provide healthcare that hasn't reduced quality when you have 30M more people to treat and few if any more doctors, nurses, CNA's, admin, etc etc etc? I can't wait to hear this.

I would love nothing more. Unfortunately the socialists feel as though they have the right to shove their disease down everybody else's throat.

 

I never said you should.

If you are talking about taxes, taxes are completely legitimate and so are progressive taxes rising based on income. Providing safety nets to offset some of the harshness of the capitalist system that allowed the billionaires to "EARN" their money by leveraging the efforts of others is also completely legitimate.

What is what? The reason I think that the 1% having 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth is too much? It is based on historical fact as well as the negative effect a dwindling middle class has on the economy, and yes, my own opinion as to what is fair.

So how much more than 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth do you think the 1% needs? Is it greed or selfishness or what? And while we're at it, define greed for us.

Yeah, I agree he'd probably be thrilled for that kind of "punishment".

1) I've never said anything about someone taking something from someone else simply because he feels as though he's entitled to it.
2) You know nothing about me. Do you always spout bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about things you know nothing about? It's becoming clearer by the post.

.

Prove that the internet was a "driving force" in the economy in 1993-97. That's bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

The bubble is what caused the economic effect.

Two quarters in a row, to be more exact. Look at the BEA link and you'll see it didn't happen.

And prove what? I never denied that it was declared to be a "recession". But revised economic data shows it was barely one, if one at all.

On the other hand, the 2001 recession was barely a recession at all. Output only shrank for two, non-consecutive quarters, and in each the rate of contraction was barely over 1%. The unemployment rate never got above 5.9% during the recession, and it subsequently peaked at 6.3%. Relative to the late 1990s, that seemed like a very high unemployment rate. Relative to the 25 years before the late 1990s, that looked like full employment, or close to it

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/09/Kliesen.pdf

There was no "internet boom" before then.

Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93:
believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93: Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter...

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat...

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.

Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93: ...This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93: ...will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93: ...a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.

On jobs:

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93: ...your economic program is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93: The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93: The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93: The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93: Come next year... we're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.

Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93: I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.

Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93: ...It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit....

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93: ...It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.


http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/15/92441/0913/399/636

++++

"Absolutely correct" eh? Instead of these predictions coming true, we had the longest period of sustained growth post GD, 22 million net jobs added, the lowest level of poverty ever, stock markets tripled, unemployment dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s.

Could the conservatives have been more wrong?

Nonsense. Many could not afford school if there was no government provision for it.

Nonsense. That is semantics.

Citing Free Republic? A Freeper, eh? It's becoming clearer by the post.

An op-ed from the "Free Republican" is not evidence. Sorry to disappoint you.

Let me guess. The Freepers told you that too, right?

Democracy sucks, eh?

 

Didn't you give Obama credit for getting Osama? I sense a strong partisan blur in your view - shocking!

 

:

Yup, I'm partisan. I despise all things right wing. You guessed it. Congratulations. :applause

Forgive me but, wasn't it George who claimed 'mission accomplished', some years earlier? It WAS Obama who was President when OBL was killed, was he not? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

Well hell, why not just tax 100% of everything that everybody has... because that's fair... right? And then the government can just tell us what we all can and can't purchase. That has just as much legitimacy as your argument does.

The dwindling middle class is not a function of the rich becoming richer. In fact historically the evidence shows the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Historical evidence shows that as the rich get richer they pull everybody up with them. The difference being that as more and more wealth is created the income gap between the rich and the poor grows higher. But we would EXPECT that to happen because the rich are the ones who have the intelligence and willingness to put their money to work for them.

The dwindling of the middle class is a function of the welfare state and entitlement mentality that people such as yourself have brainwashed into the poor and middle-class of society.

Then why do we stop where you think we should stop? Why not stop where the homeless guy thinks we should stop and he thinks we should tax people like you at 50 or 60%

So then why don't you try justifying your argument for taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Because as far as I can see your entire argument was based on entitlement.

I know enough to know that you believe in income redistribution and it's an ideology that is based solely on envy and jealousy.

That's ludicrous, it was a driving force BEFORE. People began to see the capability of the internet and began to invest enormous sums of money into preparing for the possibilities. Many jobs were created and many millions of dollars were invested far before 1997.

Two quarters in a row, to be more exact. Look at the BEA link and you'll see it didn't happen.

As I said it was a recession and it was caused by the internet boom no longer being capable of warding off the unsustainable tax hikes under Clinton.

Outside of two or three of them overestimating how quickly it would occur and underestimating the impact of the internet, they were absolutely correct. Hence why the economy started to falter even though the internet was bringing in more money than we'd ever seen before in the late 90's. It simply couldn't sustain the absurd policies coming out of the white house in the 90's.

Capitalism can only compensate for socialism for so long.

Really? And how many is "many"?

It's not semantics when you're the one being punished.

Obviously you didn't look at the link. It's not an opinion piece.

Clearly you didn't look at it. It's a list of articles that are describing the deficiencies of the socialist healthcare system from the newspapers and media outlets of the country's that participate in them such as Canada, the UK and Australia. Free Republic is not giving their opinion.

How about you attempt to refute the point made instead of attacking the ones making the point.

No the democrats did.

It's not democracy when 60+% of the populace doesn't want it.

 

And so much so that it blinds your view as you create double standards. It's a cyclical partisanship. See I'm generally conservative, but it's because I have some underlying principles that comes clearly through in my posts. When I look at your posts, I don't see any real underlying principles. It's cyclical. You hate the right wing because it's bad, the right wing is bad because it's right wing - there's no underlying principles. Now obviously I'm not saying that you don't have any underlying principles, but they're rarely expressed and don't come through coherently and consistently in your writing.

Dude, over a DECADE later, you still haven't figured the facts out? Bush never said mission accomplished. He said, "Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations".

Go ahead and check the transcript of his speech. That is one of only two times that he even uses the word 'mission' in his speech. The only other time he said, "Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace."

Mission Accomplished was put up by the Navy, under no direction by Bush.

Heck, I'll even get you a link to the speech.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-speech-01-05-2003/

Yep, he was. Now let's see, you're saying that Romney doesn't do any 'real' work or deserve any credit for the management decisions that he makes, since he's really just making money off the backs of workers, but you'll give Obama full credit for what the Navy Seals do? ^_- Do I really need to spell out how bs that is? Do I need to explain the double standard any more clearly?

 

That would take all financial incentive away.

It is, where the richest 1% are now taking 20% of the nation's income, double form 30 years ago and the 99% getting 10% less of the pie.

So how much more than 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth do you think the 1% should have? More is never enough to the greedy, is it?

That must be it. Americans just got lazier except the 1% who worked twice as hard.

Conservatives make sense. If you ignore reality.

Because we don't need to tax everyone at 50-60%.

Capitalism is a great engine of innovation and economic growth that works by providing fabulous rewards to those who provide what the market wants. These rewards incentive work, effort, and risk taking that provides innovation and efficiency. We should not destroy that element.

The problem with capitalism is that it does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence. Capitalism doesn't care if they starve to death or bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance. Capitalism is only interested in profit. Capitalism doesn't care if our skies and waters and beaches are polluted or that our resources are mismanaged or that the unprotected are abused. Capitalism just cares about profit.

"Leftists" like me recognize that profit and incentive are important and need to be maintained for an effective economy. But we also believe people have a value that is not simply based upon the current market value for their skills or services. We recognize that clean air and water have values over just profit margins. We like the fact that hordes of the aged or infirm or temporarily down on their luck are not living under freeways begging for food at stoplights, that our air and water are cleaner, that workers and investors and consumers have some basic rights and protections against sweatshops and ripoff and frauds, that people don't bleed to death outside a hospital because they don't have health care coverage, and that a little boy doesn't have to forego education because his parent is too poor. And so we believe that society is enhanced when you provide social programs and regulations that limit some of the defects of laizzes-faire capitalism.

And you can have a system that both provides tremendous rewards, but also provides tax revenues to support the safety nets and regulations that limit those defects of laizzes-faire capitalism.

And I know that you object to billionaires paying taxes and it's an ideology based solely on greed and selfishness.

I'm sorry. You've confused your unsupported, baseless blather for proof. As for proof of your claim, you've provided none.

You say all kinds of baseless, silly things.

Ah. The conservatives who predicted the Clinton tax hikes would wreck the economy and destroy jobs when we had the best economy since the 1960s and the best job creations, lowest unemployment, and lowest poverty in decades, were just "overestimating" how quickly the effects would occur. But the real effects 7 years of properity later, when we had a slow down in 2001.

So that must mean that the Reagan tax cuts caused the 1991 recession, and the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008 recession. Right? Or does you 7 year delayed reaction only come into play when you want it to?

Don't know exactly. But have you checked out the cost of private schools lately?

It's semantics to claim that a guy who gets to keep $10 million a year has been "punished".

Because more is never enough for the greedy.

A Freeper article of a list of anecdotes by a guy named "Libloather"?

Really? That is the kind of thing you cite as evidence?

Let me know and I'll see if I can find some nice "moveon" articles I'm sure you'll be impressed with.

 

There's a double standard in political rhetoric? I would have never guessed that, based on the right wing's incessant whining about Obama since his inception, nor their 'overlooking' that fact that their own nominee, Bush, was the biggest liar in recent history.

See, I don't advocate a double standard. I just like to highlight the consistency of the right wing, and all they stand for. I know both sides are hypocritical. It's the right though, that pretends they're so much 'above' everyone else and their standards.

Example of right wing rhetoric:

Bush never lied. Obama always lies.

See one there?

Such examples are rampant in the right wing FOX world of bubble land and I like to point it out. I use extremes, and if you take everything I say so very literally, and can't decipher that from anything else I say, then I can't help you.

The right, always I've said many times prior, EXCLUSIVELY represents the richest of the rich (of which, I am not one, nor is the bulk of average working people), so I have little interest in seeing their 'agenda for the rich' being implemented. The left, on occasion, lends a helping hand to the poor. The right's ONLY interest, are the very wealthy. Sorry you can't reconcile that in your own mind but, that's your issue to deal with.

 

There is not such thing as equality in nature, it's the mean of evolution, the weak and inepts are at a disadgvantage. Some people might however dream of a world were people are actually equal, meaning not to be identical to each other, but all having a good basis where to start to, both physical, economical and cultural, and i'm among those people. We should all seek to build up a world like this.

 

I think you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. One lays out our government from A to Z, and the other doesn't.

 

Yep we are created equal and what you do with it after that is up to you.

 

No what is the double standard?

How about Bush always lied Obama never lied, is that a double standard of such?

 

Great post.

The problem with the "people are fundamentally equal" argument is two-fold. First, it makes it legitimate for someone to blame another person for every failure they have ever made in their own life, which is ridiculous. Second, even the most die-hard liberal will acknowledge that people aren't born equal physically, which boils down to them valuing physical traits only and not valuing mental traits because any superior or inferior mental traits are the responsibility of teachers, and by teachers I mean those who won't give the teacher's union more money, since the left never actually blames teachers for anything individually.

 

Are you still trying to deny there was a slowdown/recession which began in the 3rd quarter of 2000 and lasted until the 3rd quarter of 2001? Along with the dot.com bubble bursting and 9/11?

Yes when you have a President and a Congress which knows how to properly react to such economic conditions that is what happens, when you don't you get what we have now.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/09/Kliesen.pdf

And yes the economy and the recovery was much stronger than we knew at the time yet Clinton's tax rate increase slowed down that recovery and the resulting tax revenue growth from as strong upward curve which peaked at 9% and then fell to 7% at the higher rate. Are you going to again try to deny that fact?

 

Gosh for a 3.94 you seem to have slipped quite a ways.
The answer is "it all depends", if someone owns property in my town, I expect that they help pay for the police and fire and schools, even if they never call the police or the fire or have kids in school, because they own property in my town.
If someone earns that money in my state, I expect them to help pay for the roads and public colleges and social safety net programs, because they earned that money in my state. And if someone earns that money in my country, I expect them to help pay for the infrastructure, the military, the national parks, the social safety nets because they earned that money in my country, and if someone earns money outside the country but is a citizen of my country, I expect them to pay taxes too.
So I personally don't have any claim to what they earn here, but certainly the various levels of government do.

 

We were not created at all.

The only equality should be political equality. No one is entitled to be supported by everyone else. Welfare is a gift or a privilege, not a right.

 

Read the thread before you post silly questions.

Great point. Which is why the economy kicked ass with Clinton and his tax increase and sucked with Bush and his tax cuts.

RW Propaganda nonsense.

 

NO...... I have no issue with taxes for LEGITIMATE purposes that are specifically enumerated within the constitution.

We didn't create this country to redistribute earnings from one who earned and handed to another who didn't DUH.

 

If it's outsourced then you didn't perform the labor did you? DUH.....

Well, I know this is going to be hard for progressives to swallow but the next level of economy after a manufacturing economy is..... Services and financing.

Some people get it and others are still attempting to get rich off of flipping burgers.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Can you point out in the constitution where the federal government is supposed to redistribute earnings/wealth from those who earned and handed to others who didn't?