Ever heard this, “The rich keep getting richer”? This comment is normally spoken with the underlying implication that such wealth increase is either illegal, unethical or at the least unfair. But I’d like to challenge that thinking.
A very wealthy man I once worked for postulated the following scenario, “What if we divided all the money in the country equally to everyone, then wait for ten years, what do you think we would find?” He declared those who have money now would have money then; and those who are poor now would be poor then. And I have to say, my life experience has proven him correct.
We see people receive windfall amounts of money from insurance settlements, lottery winnings, etc., enough money to clear up all debts and leave them with cash in the bank. Then we watch as they gradually spend themselves back into the same economic quagmire from which they had previously escaped. It is reported that 70 percent of the millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt. This is an eye opening reality to consider.
It is clear evidence of two truths — first money doesn’t fix all problems, and secondly financial illiteracy is the root cause of poverty, not the absence of money. In the book, The Millionaire Next Door, two college professors conducted a study in the USA seeking to find out who these millionaires are and how they obtained their money. Their findings were astounding.
First, they discovered that 80 percent of America’s millionaires are first generation millionaires. In other words, they made their money in their own lifetime. They did not inherit their money as most assume. Instead they took risk, believed in themselves, worked very hard and created personal wealth; character traits, which used to be normal in America. Perhaps the most common attribute they found is that millionaires consistently spend less than they earn. What a novel idea.
In contrast, the Democrat party prefers government dependence to the American dream of self-reliance and personal achievement. They promote the confiscation of wealth and its redistribution via the Federal Government’s endless social programs. Their policies don’t promote economic education or risk taking. They would prefer to have everyone equally dependent on them.
Today 47 percent of working age American adults pay no federal income taxes at all. They are the dependent class who rely almost entirely on the government for housing, food, and the basic necessities of life (as well as many luxuries such as cell phones, beauty shop visits and the like). What happens when that class becomes the majority in America? Hey middle class coal miner; you’d better pay attention.
The only money the government has to give away is money it has first taken from someone else through taxation. The rich are a whole lot more financially intelligent than the rest of us, so when you vote Democrat so you can “stick it to the rich”, be very careful because you may be cutting a larger percentage from your own paycheck instead.
Gary Lee Corns
Logan
We do not live under business Scenarios.
I you can't make it under The People's regulations, go find another occupation.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, enumerated powers of The People. "The rights to collect taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, declare war, support the military and establish lower Federal courts.
What about Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution don't you get.
Pay your taxex and stop crying.
Let's try this. If 2 x 3 = 6, then what does 4 x 9 =?
That is hypothetical. Reasoning is the putting forth of various hypothesis for testing truth. If a thing is truth, it will stand the test of reason and logic.
Please answer the questions.
How would you handle Boothe's Bread business?
I'd sincerely like to hear your answers.
Thanks
There is no free market capitalism, per the U.S. Constitution, there is a free market place, you can pick your ism.
If capitalism dominates the free market place, so be it. If another form of business "ism" dominates, so be it.
Hypothetical speaking, why would you advocate a system of "ism" that would turn the U.S. (We the People) government into a Oligarchy (Ruled by the few) or a Plutocracy (Ruled by the rich)?
I can only see you, callo and Doug as modern day Tories, whose motto is god, corporation and country, with corporation substituting King.
Yes, I am a Social Liberal and a Constitutionalist. You can not have one without the other.
Keep dreaming of your Corporate Utobia.
Why don't any of you guys answer the questions?
If free market capitalism is so bad; please explain how you would address the questions I posed?
Just answer the questions, please.
You got it, the great Ronald Wilson Reagan.
They were, once again, using Reagan out of context to try and prove their point.
Again, why do liberal democrats, EVERY time they wish to be taken seriously, and look like they have some substance, roll out Reagan?
Why not Slick Willie Clinton?
Why not Jimmy Carter?
Why, every time he wants to impress someone, or be taken seriously, or excuse his conduct and policies, does he cite Reagan?
He knows Reagan is the gold standard in recent American history.
Presidents have to work with the Congresses they are given; Reagan did well for what he had. He did cut the top rate, and the economy boomed; Clinton too reduced taxes, according to his #1 adviser Dick Morris, same result; Bush wanted tax cuts; got them; Obama asked that they be extended. Cutting taxes must be a good thing, otherwise, why do so many candidates ALWAYS promise to cut them, while campaigning? George HW Bush provides a lesson here...
It is foolish and demonstrable economic illiteracy to suggest cutting taxes results in deficits. Folks, please pay attention: TAX REVENUES TO THE GOVERNMENT INCREASE AS TAX RATES ARE LOWERED. Tax revenues shrink as tax rates increase. Why?
The key is spending. What big government, wasteful liberals love, more than anything except abortion, is to spend other people's money. Thus, they tax, tax, tax; but, then NEVER cut their spending; so, no matter what you tax, how much you steal from working people, you never cut spending, so you never balance a budget. Simple truth. The more you take from producers, the more money you take from hard working people who invest, buy, sell, create jobs; the more you take and put into the government waste machine, the worse the economy gets.
Just look at Barack BooHoover Obama and what we have right now. He inherited a mess and has made it 100X worse, with no end in sight and he is utterly clueless...
Just look at FDR and the New Deal. It began with 20% unemployment, and 8 years later had 25%. FDR taxed everyone to death, took the money, put it into govt. programs like the CCC and WPA, that did not grow the economy, nor create permanent, stable employment. Every dollar he siphoned off into the rat hole in DC was a dollar lost to the economy.
"Immediate reversal...private sector job gains...etc..." Really? No, really? Did you see last month's unemployment numbers?
Simple truth-Barack BooHoover Obama and his party held complete, overwhelming power the first two years of his presidency. Harry and Nancy had an additional two years before that. All they did was waste TRILLIONS of dollars; nobody could stop them; they had super majorities.
Currently, the R's only hold the House; again, they can pass what they want, but cannot stop anything. They cannot get anything past the Senate, in the hands of Harry Reid, nor the White House, in the hands of Obama. I wish I could find all this power the republicans allegedly have.
1. Of course, that is what unions do; they equalize everyone, nobody has a chance to excel, the deadbeat and the go-getter are treated exactly alike.
2. You mortgage your house and business to pay the raise, because if you don't, you are Hitler.
3. No. No business EVER raises it's prices on the final consumer, now do they? Any tax or cost a business incurs is NEVER passed on to the final consumer, now is it? Sure it is! So keep right on cheering next time you hear a liberal preach about taxing oil companies, energy, etc...but don't be puzzled about why your bill is so high. YOU, my friend, are sticking it to that evil company...
4. You get a government loan, through Nick Rahall or Jay Rockefeller's office, to subsidize your failure; pass it on to your neighbors, aka, taxpayers; at least some of them.
5. You send a contribution along to your local congressman, who then endorses the guy who is ruining you, so he can tell you how hard he is fighting for you. Make sense?
Thanks Lee.
Can you please give me a snapshot of your idea of economic equality? Let's play a game. Please answer each question specifically. It isn't difficult, but it may help us correct the failures of capitalism.
Let's say you own Boothes' Bread which employs 10 workers. One is a foreman, 4 are bakers, 4 are bakers' helpers and one is the janitor.
Would you pay everyone the same wage?
What do you do when the janitor and the four bakers' helpers join the AFLCIO and tell you they must have a $5 per hour raise? Do you give them the raise they demand?
If your wages and benefits costs become so high that you can no longer make a profit, do you raise the price of your bread?
If your bread price becomes higher than your competitor because of your labor cost increases, how do you keep your business open?
What do you do when the federal govenment tells you that the bread machine and ovens you just bought six months ago no longer meet the new federal codes? Then you discover that to get these machines into compliance, you must invest more money ... that you don't have. What do you do then?
Please, please answer these very simple questions for me. I'm a capitalist through and through and I sincerely don't see how we can have a viable economy by any other means. Perhaps if you answer these questions for me, you can convert me. But my bet is that you won't answer them at all but will instead attempt to divert and redirect the questions into a generalization of the evils of conservativism and trickle down economics.
Come on, take the challenge. Answer the questions. I dare you!
But if you want Reagan-talk, I'll be kind and give you Reagan-talk. Even if we had finally canned the top tax bracket parts of the Bush League's reverse-welfare scheme, the top tax brackets even now, under President Obama would've still been LOWER than they were under Ronald. So perhaps, Reagan is the one that your gang should be calling a "socialist" all the time, and Obama is the one that Reagan should've hoped to emulate...!
So laughable, all that coNNservative twaddle about the deficit, even as they defend the top bracket giveaways that did so much to increase the deficit over an entire decade. Is there ever ANY limit to coNNservative hypocrisy?
The only Hoovers in the picture are yourself and Corns, vacuuming more coNNservative trash to then dump on the world, and that 21st century economy killer, the Crawford, Texas Bush-Bum. I'm used to the idea that you can't deal with the reality of a total crash in the last year plus of the Bush League, immediate reversal of that trend as soon as more intelligent leadership took over, and over a year of private sector job gains under President Obama before the coNNservative corporate crony clown Congress screwed things up again. CoNNservatives will ignore the "coincidence" *wink-wink* that things slow down again after several months of the RepubLIEcan wrecking crew CoNNgress.
Just stopped by wondering if Gary's definition of "working age" includes the many elderly who've had to come out of retirement after the fine residents of Corporate America bailed on pension promises, and "family values" coNNservatives played enabler to that betrayal of so many families...?
I know, I know, using facts to argue with your crew is like signal flags to communicate with a blind person.
Economic injustice is as old as the Rich Fool in Luke, on down through medieval serfdom, slave plantations, and on to the early industrial era exploitation of child labor. (A real TRIUMPH of the "limited government" era that last one was, yes sir!!!)
Let someone with a social conscience dare to condemn such abuses and fight for a more just society, and soon they'll automatically get accused of "class warfare." Thank you ever so kindly Mr. Corns, for helping to remind us that the REAL top-down "class warfare" exists, in the form of today's coNNservatives! Most of the time that label only gets trotted out when the peons dare to fight for positive change. Like early UNION MEMBERS who fought for the 5 day week, opposed 12 hour days being worked by mere children in sweat-shops, etc.
God forbid that Gary or the coNNservative chorus stop to consider how many of his so-called "dependent class" are in that position because of failed coNNservative policies that allow tax breaks for large corporations even as those corporations ship American jobs overseas. God forbid they listen to Warren Buffet's remarks on how American business was stronger a few decades ago when corporate taxes were actually much higher than they are now. God forbid he see that Forbes cited Denmark as having the BEST BUSINESS CLIMATE IN THE WORLD, at least two years in a row - even though the Danes benefit greatly from the exact same things that cause US CoNNservatives to scurry around in hysterical fits, frothing at the mouth with terrible cries of "socialism." Things like like *gasp* universal health care, a *gasp* vastly more reasonable ratio between executive pay and average salaries, and *double gasp!!* cutting edge environmental reform! You know, the sort of commitment to the environment that coNNservative ""logic"" claims to be an economy-killer. Best business climate in the world, and the source was Forbes, not Mother Jones or MoveOn. Poor old Forbes, now the Corns and Calloway Crew will be labeling it as a "liberal source" too. *snicker*
Hey, a break from all that, cue Mr. Trebek, let's play "Jeoperdy!"
CoNNservative Follies, for $200!
- "900,000 next yr, 1.7 million by 2014."
(WHAT is the number of JOBS THAT WILL BE LOST because of the Paul Ryan / RepubLIEcan budget...?!?)
CoNNservative Follies, for $400!
- "Fmr McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi."
(WHO is the source of that sobering forecast?)
CoNNservative Follies, for $800!
- "Blame Obama."
(WHAT will coNNservatives do about the brutal impact of their own budget plan?)
I'm not suggesting, and never have, that everyone should have the same amount of money, or earn the same amount of money. But the US now has BY FAR THE WORST INCOME INEQUALITY OF ANY DEVELOPED COUNTRY. That situation has been made infinitely worse since our economy was INFESTED by the ugly viruses known as Reaganomics and the Bush reverse-welfare tax scheme. 66% of income growth during the Bush League years (before the complete collapse, lol) went to the top 1%. Not the top 5 or 10%, the top ONE percent.
Keep that crap up gang, and we're headed towards being a third world economy, with a tiny segment of fabulously rich people offset by the MANY MILLIONS of WORKING Americans who don't earn ANYTHING CLOSE TO A LIVING WAGE in exchange for their labor.
The same coNNservatives who claim to despise the ""welfare state"" pursue policies that leave the American people with LESS reward for working. The working middle class has been left behind ever since Saint Ronald, and so many who are working, even full time, at minimum wage service jobs struggle mightily just to earn enough to pay their bills.
Many of the same coNNservatives who love to bash ""welfare bums"" have turned 180° to attack large groups of well-employed Americans, E.G., public employees or union autoworkers. Apparently tax breaks that give most of the ""benefit"" to a tiny percentage of Americans are A-OK, but average working people who DARE to fight for pension and medical coverage or a living wage, oh no, THEY are greedy...!
Witness RepubLIEcan US Senators who ripped union autoworkers - even AFTER the unions made huge concessions. Witness teachers and other public employees, even police and fire personnel, people with the most vital of vital jobs, being treated like welfare bums by RepubLIEcan coNNservatives in several states.
[For as often as coNNservatives attack teachers' unions, it's interesting to note how strong union Northeastern states have better educational achievement than Southern anti-union states...]
Thankfully, SOME Americans are waking up to the consequences of that SICK little fraud known as coNNservatism. Scott LieWalker had the gall to attend an event celebrating 100 years of technical education in Wisconsin - shortly after gutting funding to technical colleges by 30% and stripping faculty of their bargaining rights. Let's just say that he received the kind of reception that he richly deserves...! ;) http://vimeo.com/2634967
A couple of predictable falsehoods from Wisconsin's official plantation overseer: - http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/10/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-public-employee-unions-false/ (AND)
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/03/scott-walker/gov-walker-says-2-years-ago-we-had-largest-deficit/
Wisconsin Repubs, whilst slashing & burning most public employees, must have found money to pay Walker a bonus for each additional falsehood...!
See a business executive's astonishment at how his own state senator was bullied into supporting the Badger State Betrayal - http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/125323448.html
There can be no argument over the fact that America's middle class was faring wayyyyyy better when unions were strong. There can be no argument over the fact that America's middle class enjoyed the kind of steady income growth during the 60's and 70's that it has NOT had ever since the Reagan DEVOLUTION, followed by the Bush welfare-for-the-wealthy tax plan. There can even be no argument over the fact that America's middle class was much stronger at the height of "Great Society" social programs than it has been ever since government-bashing became coNNservatives' REAL religion.
I do have to concede something to the Corns and Calloway Crew though. CoNNservatives routinely prove me wrong about ONE thing. Whenever I think that the coNNservative movement couldn't possibly reach even greater DEPTHS of absurdity - it happens anyway.
Liberals, here is your chance: sign up now, call Nick Rahall or Jay and tell them to double your rates, you are on board for Obamacare, and you want to do more than your fair share, in the true spirit of liberalism.
Jack, if you ever decide to sell that coal shovel Mother Jones autographed for you, let us know.
It will take more than 5 more years to correct the disaster that the above caused, and you want more of the same.
If you want more recession/depression, vote Conservative/Republican.
Isn't it amazing that any time you attempt to debate a liberal on substantive issues using fact and history, they ALWAYS attempt to divert the issue into something else? No one in this discussion ever mentioned morality, virtue or the like. The topic was plainly the misrepresentation of the economic status and abilities of the rich verses the concept of redistribution of wealth. But, in typical liberal fashion, they cannot find logical or historical evidence to support the success of redistribution; so they attempt to make personal attacks at Republicans. HUH?
Like I said before, nothing prohibits them from paying MORE TAXES. If they love Big Brother so much, give him more of your own money.
By the way, are rich people citizens? Don't they have the same rights as the poor? Why is being rich equal to being evil in liberal minds? Of course their own rich (Gates, Buffet, Streisand, Clooney etc. are exempt). Why should the ingenuity, hard work and determination of rich people be punished? Why should the shiftless, lazy and irresponsible be rewarded? Something is backwards here don't you think?
In nearly every other sphere of life we reward and praise acheivers; eg athletics, education, charitable organizations etc. But somehow, when it comes to economics, liberals believe those people should be punished? Why? Don't the rich provide capital investment, industries and jobs?
Oh, I forgot, to liberals, the beloved government is the only one who should be in control of every industry. Of course this is based on the fact that they have been so successful in the past managing things like Welfare, Medicade, Social Security etc. They surely need to be in charge of the whole economy! Afterall, who is better to suited to run the whole of the country than a community organizer?
Also, Bush did finish at least one thing, the 2004 election, which at the time he received the highest vote total in a presidential election.
PS-he is Barack Boohoover Obama. He cries all the time-"WHAAAAAAA it was mean old Bush, it is all his fault, WHAAAAAA the other guy did it, WHAAAAAA give me 5 more years and I will fix it, etc, etc, etc...
Say what you want about Bush; undeniable fact is, the unemployment rate under W was nearly 5%, which according to economists is statistical full employment. Perhaps he was not a business genius, but, he knew enough at least to accomplish what he did, which included non-existent inflation and record low interest rates, to go along with that Great Depression like unemployment rate of 5%.
BTW, the Rangers are winning now, aren't they? Didn't they win the American League last year? Hmmmm....perhaps the residents of "Kominskey (Soviet version) Park in Chicago, Obama's team, might benefit from W owning them?
Forget the National Guard. Bill Clinton forever solved that problem for Republicans. "I loathe the military," those were Bill Clinton's words. End of story.
Thank God for a good wife. Hope everyone has one that strong and dependable, that can help a man with a weakness like alcoholism.
Name calling? No; accurate descriptions of philosophies. Obama is a Marxist in philosophy. Now if I went into a racist rant or something against Obama, THAT would be name calling; like when Senator Joe Biden said it was great to actually have a "Clean and Articulate" black man in the 2008 presidential race, like the norm is dirty and stupid?
Who did Bush hire or fire? What books did he ever keep? What private sector job did he ever have? He did make an attempt to run an oil business, but ended up merging it with another company because it failed. The Securities and Exchange Commission investigated his involvement with the sale of the company. As President, Bush refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the investigation. When the Rangers franchise was sold for $250 million in 1998, at a total profit of $170 million, Bush personally received $14.9 million.
Bush's involvement with the Texas Rangers media relations and the construction of a new stadium in Arlington, TX, was protested that the stadium was paid for with public funds, and when the stadium title was given to the Texas Rangers Organization, it effectively allowed Bush to criminally cash out public funds. Some say this was evidence of organized corruption.
He didn't even show up over half the time he was in the National Guard.
His alcohol problem, arrests for drunk driving and his alleged drug abuse took up his time. He lived off his family's money. He never finished anything he started. It was not until Laura Bush gave him an ultimatum to quit drinking or she would leave that he made the effort to quit.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is simple. Democrats care about people, Republicans do not.
Your name calling is typical. It is juvenile, nothing grownup about it.