• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

America Has Now Become An Aristocracy Of Elites

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Oh really? Why do you say that? Obamacare?
Obamacare would be enough but lets not forget about him leading the charge in the class war, insulting and degrading business owners with his speeches, cap and trade, trying to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, and so on.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Obamacare would be enough but lets not forget about him leading the charge in the class war
Say what? This is a very wierd statement, where did you come up with that one? The class war started years ago, if anything he is trying to level the playing field again.


cap and trade.
Huh? Care to expand on that notion?


trying to raise taxes in the middle of a recession,.
Taxes are absurdly low at the top, it has to be done whether you like it or not. We have proven through years of trail and error that lowering taxes on the top does NOT create jobs.


insulting and degrading business owners with his speeches.
Dude, if you continue to spew this kind of garbage you are going to lose any credibility you have. Cutting two sentences out of a 45 minute speech and passing them off as the actual statement, rather than the out of context smear job it was, is almost as pathetic as the people who keep passing this off as proof of him being anti-small business. It's beyond a joke, it is a dangerous example of how easily lead and lazy our country has become.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,324
4
0
Apparently, the elite are not tolerant of the 12% or 15% they pay..they won't be happy until its zero...as a matter of fact..they are so smart and beautiful we should be paying them...
Well do you blame them, since 47% of the population pays 0%.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
I disagree with the OP's hypothesis. While the income concentration has at the top has gotten significantly worse over the last 30 years, income mobility has stayed the same or improved.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Where'd you go Matt? I thought we were having a discussion...
All you did was post your usual baseless theory. This is getting old....

Say what? This is a very wierd statement, where did you come up with that one? The class war started years ago, if anything he is trying to level the playing field again.
"Leveling the playing field" is still fighting the class war. Every other damn word out of his mouth is the rich need to pay their fair share, 1% this, 1% that and that is class warfare.

Huh? Care to expand on that notion?
I don't have time to educate you on Cap and Trade.

Taxes are absurdly low at the top, it has to be done whether you like it or not. We have proven through years of trail and error that lowering taxes on the top does NOT create jobs.
If cutting taxes on the lower class creates jobs than how does cutting taxes on the upper class not create jobs? Did you know Reagan created more jobs after his second tax cut? 1.57% job increase during his first term and 2.53% increase during his second. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms You can keep spewing your opnion as fact, but there are your numbers.

Dude, if you continue to spew this kind of garbage you are going to lose any credibility you have. Cutting two sentences out of a 45 minute speech and passing them off as the actual statement, rather than the out of context smear job it was, is almost as pathetic as the people who keep passing this off as proof of him being anti-small business. It's beyond a joke, it is a dangerous example of how easily lead and lazy our country has become.
Any way you slice his speech it was degrading to business. I will go by what you say the context of it was, that the businesses didn't build thise bridges. Seeing as how it was their tax $$$ that paid for it, they actually did build those. And why that speech was even directed at businesses and not factory workers proves my point.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
1) All you did was post your usual baseless theory. This is getting old....



2) "Leveling the playing field" is still fighting the class war. Every other damn word out of his mouth is the rich need to pay their fair share, 1% this, 1% that and that is class warfare.



3) I don't have time to educate you on Cap and Trade.



4) If cutting taxes on the lower class creates jobs than how does cutting taxes on the upper class not create jobs? Did you know Reagan created more jobs after his second tax cut? 1.57% job increase during his first term and 2.53% increase during his second. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms You can keep spewing your opnion as fact, but there are your numbers.



5) Any way you slice his speech it was degrading to business. I will go by what you say the context of it was, that the businesses didn't build thise bridges. Seeing as how it was their tax $$$ that paid for it, they actually did build those. And why that speech was even directed at businesses and not factory workers proves my point.
1) Baseless theory? I speak from historical fact. Right now we need to raise taxes, and continue government spending, and that helps prevent the total collapse of the economy during this rough spot brought on by Bush and Government Goldman.

2) We have to level the playing field because there is no economy without consumers, who have been robbed by the 1%. My father lost 40% of his retirement in 2008. How is that right, or fair, in any way? He's worked his whole life, been a good father and husband. He had a right to that money and he lost it because some assholes were gambling with it and sold him fake rated securities. THAT is class warfare.

3) I didn't ask for an education, I asked what you meant by that. In other words, make a point, don't just throw out shit and expect everyone to know where you're going with it.

4) Cutting taxes on the lower classes doesn't create jobs either. Taxes are low, or non-existant, there because those people cannot afford to pay anything. Have you recently tried to care for a family of 4 or 5 on $44,000 a year (the current poverty line)? It is impossible. Asking those people to pay taxes is akin to sending the Sherrif of Nottingham to their door. It's funny you bring up the Reagan era taxes, when the top earners back then paid 50% of their income in taxes until the last year or two Reagan was in office. Why do you think Bush, Sr raised taxes after he famously proclaimed, "No new taxes." while running for the presidency?

5) We ALL paid those taxes, the consumers paid plenty of that money. Why is it you hold the businesses up as the "people" who paid the taxes that built those bridges? We ALL built them, together, as a country.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
It's funny you bring up the Reagan era taxes, when the top earners back then paid 50% of their income in taxes until the last year or two Reagan was in office. Why do you think Bush, Sr raised taxes after he famously proclaimed, "No new taxes." while running for the presidency?
They were 70% untill Reagan cut them to 50. You can't possibly use that as an arguement. The one fact you actually used and you had to spin that. Sad. I have have had better debates with rock gardens.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
They were 70% untill Reagan cut them to 50. You can't possibly use that as an arguement. The one fact you actually used and you had to spin that. Sad. I have have had better debates with rock gardens.
They were 70% when he was elected, down to 50% by 1982, then down to 38.5% in 1987, then down to 28% in 1988.

That is not an argument, or a debate, that is a fact recorded as public record.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
They were 70% when he was elected, down to 50% by 1982, then down to 38.5% in 1987, then down to 28% in 1988.

That is not an argument, or a debate, that is a fact recorded as public record.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but you make it sound like taxes were High under Reagan till his last 2 years.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY