Posted on 09/25/2009 12:49:33 PM PDT by sdkruiser
Let the Progressive Democrats dream their redistributed wealth commie dreams because, sooner or later, reality always comes back to lay some serious bite marks on their asses.
Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.
Those currently in power in the Democratic party are from its Progressive fringe and that makes for a lot of rousing class warfare rhetoric during a campaign but doesn't translate well into being in charge of anything other than the bong.
Modern American Progressives have to live in a fantasy land where they ignore everything they were taught in school about history, economics, sociology and psychology, while constantly declaring intellectual superiority over those who disagree with them.
The present regime is an ambitious one, seeking to remake American domestic policy so radically that people won't have to visit Canada any more. It's an expensive makeover and the only real explanation President Obama and his minions have offered about how we're going to pay for it is "Tax The Rich!" Yes, there have been stories about paying for federal programs through "savings" but we're dealing with reality here. One might as well talk about paying for things with a surplus of Tooth Fairy collections.
(Excerpt) Read more at stephenkruiser.com ...
I read that this AM. But you know that George Soro’s will make up the shortfall and so will Hollywood.
ACORN and the unions can also help make up the shortages. Obama has been throwing money at them since he took the throne.
Aside from a few select candidates come 2010, I doubt the GOP is going to be rollin’ in the dough, either.
And that is as it should be. Grow up. Act like Conservatives. Quit spending OUR money. Walk the walk while you talk the talk.
We can smell a RINO and Rat a mile away. Lean times for all, thanks to the duplicity of both parties.
Call for Ms. Streisand! Call for Ms. Streisand! Please pick up the white courtesy phone to the DNC. Thank you.
Wait’ll the big buck donors find out “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd says executives must step down to allow blacks, browns, gays, and others, to take their jobs.
Well this part of the article is pretty sickening:
“There is a fundamental disconnect in far left American thinking. They don’t understand that without “The Rich” there is no “The Paycheck”, “The New Jobs” or “The Growing Economy”. It’s true, the illegal alien workers that Democrats are obsessed with taking care of at every turn aren’t providing a lot of seed capital to get this puppy going again.”
What a re-write of history. Americas isn’t a democracy. We are some sort of plutocracy where we must wait for the rich folks to come along and save us all.
I can just see some poor Arkie, whose home got blown away by a tornado, sitting there on a stump, and here comes CNN, and they ask him what he is going to do, and he don’t say, “pick up the pieces and rebuild”, he says “I’m going to sit here until some rich person comes along and gives me some money. Hope I don’t starve first.
Maybe somebody should have told the pioneers that they best not head West until some rich folks got there first to take care of them.
parsy, who gets ill when he reads wealthy-worshipping garbage like this
That’s not a rewrite of history, that’s reality. The #1 source of new jobs is new companies, in order to create new companies you need capital, capital comes from investors, investors are generally rich. So he’s exactly right, no rich means no new jobs, paycheck or growing economy.
It is a very simple logic. Liberal socialists like Obama gain power by making the dumb masses envious of others. They say they will ‘equalize’. They say. They do things that make their brother elite richer and more powerful and still keep the dumb masses downtrodden. IF THEY ‘EQUALIZED’ and improved their collective lot, there would be no more base for their power because the ‘poor’ would now have somethig to lose. Ergo, perpetual poverty.
“’The Rich’ are giving the finger back to Democrats.”
One hopes that it’s an awfully big finger that goes all the way.
IMHO
Hey! I'm not rich and I do it everyday.
>>parsy, who gets ill when he reads wealthy-worshipping garbage like this<<
You mean:
parsy, who gets his work, money, livelihood and goods and services exclusively from the poor.
Suppose I live in Hunk, Arkansas. I want to start my own construction company. I need $100,000 for tools and the first few months cash flow. I go to the First Nat’l Bank of Hunk. I put my farm land up for collateral. That covers the collateral aspect. The actual cash comes from the depositors into the FNB of Hunk. Truck drivers, small farmers, a few retirees, and a couple of guys growing pot. No rich folks in the bunch.
parsy, who says the “rich” have to save us all philosophy goes over better in places that have kings and noblemen
I am so sorry that you can not make it without some rich person taking care of you.
parsy, who is independent for the time being
Except of course that you can’t really start a construction business for 100 grand, not one big enough to create jobs, and there’s a really good chance you won’t get the loan because no bank manager with a brain in his head would look at the current economy and think a new construction firm has a chance, and if you did get the loan a significant portion of the depositors who have enough money in there to be useful would be counted among the rich.
It’s not about saying the rich have to save us. It’s about understanding that punishing the rich damages the economy. Angel round investors, that would be the first guys in on new ventures, need (in most states) to have $1 million in taxable income the previous year or $2 million in provable net worth. These aren’t bad guy kings and noblemen screwing the little guy rich, these are guys that put a little effort into making money, maybe got some lucky breaks, are often times veterans of startup companies themselves, and are looking to help some people out by giving new interesting companies a leg up. These also tend to be the people who get the most screwed by the tax policies pushed by people like Obama and Clinton and Carter because they tend not to hire tax lawyers to shelter their money, and then people wonder why the economy tanks.
No problemo ... since the Demonkats are running the Goobermint, if they don’t have enuf campaign funds, they will just print the necessary money, and haul it right out the back door.
Thank you for your reasoned response to an obviously confused class-envy populist.
I did a few years in a startup, learned a lot about how jobs are really made. Sadly we never quite jumped it to the next level. So now I’m at a former startup, like most of us that have non-government jobs (everybody was a startup once).
First, I don’t put all the rich into one category. I am sure some portion of them came by it honestly. Some people scrimp and save money. Others invest well. Others get good jobs and make high salaries and save a good part of it. There are inventors, and people who have created good businesses.
All that being said, America is not an aristocracy and we don’t have to tiptoe around and not insult the rich because we might end up in the dungeon.
And “punishing” the rich isn’t the point. Its making good progressive tax rates that keep the wealth imbalance to something reasonable. A country where the richest 1% have 25% of the income, is a country where things have gone kaa-kaa.
Richard Fuld, who made about a million per week while leveraging the heck out of AIG is a good example.
As a practgical matter, where the rich get too rich, they seem to screw up the whole country. They over invest money in the stock market, and the inflow of cash makes bubbles.
A lot of this can be reduced by higher minimum wage laws, higher taxes, and a whole bunch of political attention to try to keep gov’t from wasting the crap out of the money.
Ask yourself what would have happened if Reagan had lowered income tax rates by just 1/2 of what he did, and then worked to run a fiscally responsible gov’t? Kept the deficit down, and repaired infrastructure. Raised minimum wages and instead of helping shove mfg’ing jobs overseas, led the fight to keep jobs here.
You think the rich are necessary for capital. I think a good strong middle class nation will also save money, and there will be capital for investment. By spreading the wealth around the middle classes more, I think you will see less speculative bubbles, and a stronger commitment to the system.
parsy, who has these opinions
Funny how your second paragraph proves the lie of your first. Nobody is talking about an aristocracy we should tiptoe around and not insult. We’re talking about not shunting money to the government that would be more useful in the hands of the original owners.
Punishing the rich is actually the entire point of the progressive tax rates. A country where the richest 1% have 25% of the income is one where even under a flat tax that 1% is going to be paying 25% of the taxes already, there’s no reason to make the tax rate progressive so they pay over 75% of the taxes like they do now other than punishment. You’re not maximizing tax revenue, the Laffer Curve proves that, you’re just arbitrarily declaring some people as “too wealthy”.
As a practical matter when the world of politics even believes in the concept of “too rich” the country is screwed.
If Reagan had lowered income taxes by less it would have taken even longer for us to get over the Carter Recession and we wouldn’t have been on a track that kept us in a mostly booming economy for a quarter of a century. Reagan’s tax rate didn’t increase the deficit, they DECREASED it, tax revenues under Reagan nearly doubled. Taxes are a burden on the economy, tax cuts allow the economy to grow, by taking a smaller piece of a bigger pie they actually result in more tax dollars. Again, the Laffer Curve.
I KNOW the rich are necessary for capital. Who else is going to be angel round investors? In 2007 angel investor pumped nearly 30 BILLION dollars into small companies and created tens of thousands of new jobs. That is how you spread the wealth around in the middle class. Rich guy helps fund a company, company hires a guy who otherwise wouldn’t have had a job and pays him middle class wages.
Congrats to the investor. He did a good thing. IMHO, a wealthy nation where the wealth is spread more around the middle classes and less concentrated in the hands of a few, is going to be a stronger and more secure nation.
Imagine, a rich man who has 10,000 acres of farm land, and 100 share croppers each farming 100 acres. Now imagine that same 10,000 acres with 10 sharecroppers and 90 people who own their own farms. Which community is going to be stronger and more invested in the community as a whole?
parsy, who says this is the problem in a nutshell
Now that’s INVESTORS. Lots of them too. Putting 26 billion dollars into 57,000 companies at angel round investments (which are almost never above half a million dollars) takes a lot of investors.
You’re right about having a a better middle class makes the nation stronger. But you’re wrong about how we get a larger wealthier middle class. We get that middle class by not hosing the rich and letting them spend their money their way. Even if they aren’t investing it they’re still doing useful stuff. The yacht industry in New England collapsed in the late 90s, right after Clinton hammered through a new luxury item tax, thousand of middle class guys lost their jobs.
In your scenario you’ve just turned a bunch of people into farmers, hands down worst industry in existence for generating wealth. Farming is a lot of hard work that generates very little money. Better to have the land owned by one guy with a more efficient more automated system that’ll take less man power to create more food and let those other people get jobs in manufacturing or software or other things more likely to make them middle class. Your first community will be stronger.
bookmark
“There is a fundamental disconnect in far left American thinking. They don’t understand that without “The Rich” there is no “The Paycheck”, “The New Jobs” or “The Growing Economy”. It’s true, the illegal alien workers that Democrats are obsessed with taking care of at every turn aren’t providing a lot of seed capital to get this puppy going again.”
I can just see some poor Arkie, whose home got blown away by a tornado, sitting there on a stump, and here comes CNN, and they ask him what he is going to do, and he don’t say, “pick up the pieces and rebuild”, he says “I’m going to sit here until some rich person comes along and gives me some money. Hope I don’t starve first.
Maybe somebody should have told the pioneers that they best not head West until some rich folks got there first to take care of them.
parsy, who gets ill when he reads wealthy-worshipping garbage like this
Well you should be ill, because your thinking is about as left ward as it gets. The paragraph you are "getting ill" about is absolutely true.
Without the people expanding business and creating jobs we would all be in the poor house. The same Arkie you are talking about wouldn't get very far rebuilding his home if he didn't have a job some "rich" person hired him for.
Ditto the pioneers you think some how got across 3,000 miles of trackless wilderness without the money to take them there, and where did they get it? Either they were merchants or farmers themselves, racking up wealth or they worked for someone who was a merchant or farmer to get it.
When they talk about the rich in the context of creating jobs and so forth they are talking about business people, big or small, who are, and have always been, the backbone of America.
BTW, we are not a democracy but a democratic republic. There is an immense difference. To rail about this paragraph in the manner you have is to show your ignorance of how capitalism works, but of course I've seen your liberalistic statements before so I am not surprised.
Sharecropping communities with a plantation owner are stronger?
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2202
Let the GOP say bye-bye, now.
parsy, who left in 2001
“When they talk about the rich in the context of creating jobs and so forth they are talking about business people, big or small, who are, and have always been, the backbone of America.”
This is where you are going wrong. The rich are just that, the rich. Small business owners usually aren’t up there in the top 1% or even top 5%. They are the “non-rich” who are busting *ss to make it, and they don’t need some rich angel for them to make it.
parsy, who says you ought to be ashamed to think of your fellow Americans as such a bunch of cattle they need a rich overlord to take care of them
“Wait’ll the big buck donors find out “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd says executives must step down to allow blacks, browns, gays, and others, to take their jobs.”
Well, we have a black, effeminate communist POTUS, who worries that me might get too wee wee’d up, don’t we??
Societies with less people involved in agrarian business are stronger. Agrarian business doesn’t generate a middle class.
It was an example. Do I need to change the example to something different? OK, lets make it a town. There’s this little town of 1000 people. There are 5 guys who own mostly everything. there’s a lumberyard, and a small coal mine. There are no small business people. There are just employees of these 5 guys. All the people in the town are mostly on minimum wage. They pay rent to the five guys who own all the houses, and the only grocery store in town is owned by one of the rich guys. The gas station is owned by another rich guy. Try as they might, it just seems to take every cent to scrape by from paycheck to paycheck.
On the other side of the mountain is another town of 100 people. There are 5 or 10 rich people, but they are nowhere near as rich as the 5 rich guys on the other side of the mountain, and they do not own everything in town. there is a lumberyard and a small coal mine. Here, there are small businessmen, and most people own their own homes. A few people rent. There are two grocery stores and three gas stations. There are three garages. Salaries range from minimum wage type jobs to upper middle class ranges. Most people make enough to set some aside and have deposited money in the local bank.
Now, in the 2010 election, the communists come to this little area. They want to vastly redistribute wealth, and take over the means of production. They want to overturn the system.
Where do you think they will get the most votes? Where do you think people are happier? Where do you think those with the most wealth are the most safe?
parsy, who hopes this is easier for you.
No, you shouldn’t even use examples, because in the end they’re nothing more than creating a false choice logical fallacy and the only thing they successfully prove is just how convoluted a pretend world you have to make for rich people to be a problem.
Meanwhile, out here in reality, rich people are still the engine that drives economic growth.
If you disagree, may I suggest the local union hall or Democratic party clubhouse (yes, we still have the latter in NYC).
OMG! I have been assaulted by Randdroids. Here is you a new prayer to say when you go beddy-bye:
And now I lay me down to sleep.
I pray the Lord the Rich to keep.
And I will say with every breath,
Without the Rich, I’d starve to death.
parsy, who wrote this all by himself
>>I am so sorry that you can not make it without some rich person taking care of you.<<
I provide services of value and people with money (the eevil rich) reward that with money. It is called Capitalism, you should read up on it.
>>parsy, who is independent for the time being<<
Which means you are a lazy and stupid trust fund baby or you got your “independence” through rolling drunks in the parking lot. I can 100% guarantee you that if you are “independent” (yeah, right), it is completely as a result of rich people. If you own a house, drive a car, brush your teeth, all these things are possible ONLY by the eeevil rich. I is impossible for you to be “independent” except as the result of the eevil rich (and if you are truly “independent” guess what? You are rich and hate yourself — standard liberal).
It is so nice of JR to allow libtards on the board to demonstrate in their own words how stupid and vapid liberalism is.
Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost!
>>parsy, who wrote this all by himself<<
Yeah. You clearly have no knowledge of economics, wealth or capitalism.
And you missed the point of the OP anyway.
And you have yet to even define “rich” — your posts say your definition of “rich” is “anyone who has more wealth than I do.”
Funny how these rich liberal progressive democrates do not consider themselves rich “ we’re for the poor” as long as we keep them poor we can continue to be rich. HYPOCRITICAL DESPICABLE HUMAN WASTE! When will the impoverished realize they are slaves to these morons, 40 or more years of promises and crumb throwing to keep them down and silent. These are your enemies.
Hollywood? People aren’t buying DVD’s or going to movies... they’re yesterday.
Dude, sit back and read what you wrote:
“If you own a house, drive a car, brush your teeth, all these things are possible ONLY by the eeevil rich. “
Now I ask you. Is this even American? You must have read that crazy *ss Russian’s book, Atlas Shrugged.
parsy, who says think about it.
You’re just not comprehending. Unless you tore it from the earth and crafted it using only other implements from the earth all on your own everything you have was provided by at least 3 companies: the guys that made it, the guys that moved it, and the guys that sold. And there’s probably the 4th: the guys who paid you the money you used to buy it. Corporations, created by guys hoping to be rich and sometimes succeeding at being rich, make modern life possible. Which is a good thing, because otherwise we’re back to the Stone Age.
>>parsy, who says think about it.<<
Read “the Wealth of Nations” and get back to me. And the fact you put down “Atlas Shrugged” tells us all that not only have you not read it, that even if you did you wouldn’t understand it.
You have no concept of what wealth is, where it comes from and what it does for society.
Go back to 1980s USSR where your philosophy held sway.
Like I said — liberalism is stupid and vapid.
And thanks for confirming you are a trust-fund baby who has never worked a real job in your life.
If I am not mistaken, most investment money today comes from pension plans, not the rich. Your examples only back up the fact that in a society, we rely on each other. And we pay each other with money. It is our labor which provides the money. If we had no rich, we would all still work, and swap dollar bills around, and some of us would save up dollar bills and we would deposit it with a bank, and after a while there would be capital again built up with our own labor.
I don’t know where conservatives have gotten this idea that we all have to have the rich around to suck off of or we would starve unless it is that darned infernal Ayn Rand.
parsy, who says this belief is utterly perverse
I read Atlas three or four times. I have a signed copy of The New Intellectual, and a copy somewhere of Anthem(?) in an old sci fi pulp magazine. I named my first born dtr after Ayn. What happened was I just grew up.
parsy, who can stand the truth
You would be mistaken. Pension plans go into normal stocks, that’s post IPO companies, not the kind that really builds the economy.
My examples show that you’re wrong. When you start spouting off about being independent of the rich you are ignoring basic facts. We might still LABOR without the rich, but we’d be back at that agrarian society that doesn’t create middle class people.
We got the idea that we all have to have the rich around because that’s REALITY. As I’ve already explained to you. Conservatives aren’t sucking off the rich. Progressive taxation does. Conservatives understand that the rich’s role in raising the tide.
Parsy really needs to spend less time coming up with psuedo-witty tag lines and more time PAYING ATTENTION. The rich are the building block of economic growth, if we tax them out of existence we stop growing the economy. If you doubt that look up our economic statistics from after Carter pegged the marginal tax rate at 90%.
You are confusing the “rich” with “capital”. Just because the rich have a whole lot of money, doesn’t mean they have all the money. Ordinary, everyday Americans have savings accounts and pension accounts and paid for property. Most of us are not lazy, and have some sort of skills. We don’t have to fall on our knees and worship multi-millionaires. We are not helpless.
parsy, who says for heaven’s sake, develop some pride
No, I’m pointing out where capital comes from. Savings and pension accounts don’t go into angel or even venture capital rounds of investment, neither does paid for property. I didn’t say anybody was lazy or lacked skills. And I’m not saying anybody has to worship anybody else, or that anybody is helpless.
Parsy once again shows a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Go back and reread my posts. Read ONLY what was written and add NO content from your own head.
I’ve noticed that the loudest shouting in favor of “spread the wealth” comes from people who have already amassed great wealth and continue to accumulate even more. How many millions of dollars do you think Michael Moore is going to make from his latest anti-capitalism movie? This past Spring, Congress voted to give themselves some hefty raises. If, according to them, rich people are evil, shouldn’t they follow the example of John Mackey(?), the head of Whole Foods who decided that he had more than enough wealth and has therefore been receiving a salary in the amount of $1.00 per year?
Parsifal has a thing for wanting portions of others lives taken from them arbitrarily at the point of a gun.
I’ve noticed. It’s kind of funny.
The elite lefty’s out here for the most part are trust babys or grandbabies.
Any work on their part is usually a hobby presented as work for appearances and tax deductions.
So they would be glad to hear about: “Wait’ll the big buck donors find out “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd says executives must step down to allow blacks, browns, gays, and others, to take their jobs.”
Since most of them have never really worked at a real job or had to perform as an exec whose job depends on running profitable organization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.