We're all in this together!

[Ibby]

The only real difference is that our elite class gets a little more leeway to call themselves self-made, most of the time, and that power tends to hang around only two or three generations rather than for hundreds and hundreds of years. And that most of our elites can stay out of the limelight if they want to, more than those connected to british nobility at least, I think.

[richlevy]

Wow. It's a close tie between Dana and TW for 'The Cellar's shortest poster'.

Seriously, a great post. While it's no surprise how coddled politicians with no financial or health care worries can make such decisions, it is instructive as to how coddled some of them were before they got into office.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Ibram

The only real difference is that our elite class gets a little more leeway to call themselves self-made, most of the time, and that power tends to hang around only two or three generations rather than for hundreds and hundreds of years. And that most of our elites can stay out of the limelight if they want to, more than those connected to british nobility at least, I think.

They might call themselves self-made, but few are. Money begets money. The ability to move upward in the US is diminishing.

From Wiki

Several studies have been made comparing social mobility between developed countries. One such study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[5][15][16] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)

[Stormieweather]

There comes a point, doesn't there, where a person has enough money to live more than comfortably, to invest and create and luxuriate in? And beyond that, making even MORE money is rather obscene and irrelevant, except to those without.

So excuse the fuck out of me if I don't sympathize with cutting tax rates on the wealthiest, while reducing benefits to the poor and sick. It's pure greed, plain and simple. The people in charge, elected and otherwise, need to realize that greed will do them (and everyone else) in, eventually.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

There comes a point, doesn't there, where a person has enough money to live more than comfortably, to invest and create and luxuriate in? And beyond that, making even MORE money is rather obscene and irrelevant, except to those without.

So excuse the fuck out of me if I don't sympathize with cutting tax rates on the wealthiest, while reducing benefits to the poor and sick. It's pure greed, plain and simple. The people in charge, elected and otherwise, need to realize that greed will do them (and everyone else) in, eventually.

I think it's an illness, that need for more and more power and money. It makes no sense to me, and I don't think you'll find it in whatever DSM is the next one because it's all entangled with that whole "american dream" (or whatever is comparable in your homeland) thing, and those who would dare find such insane wealth and power, well...insane, are nothing more than the greenest of envious (guilt and shame have been successful stomping boots since the beginning of mankind, though they're usually employed in religion as tools to scare us into submission.)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

There comes a point, doesn't there, where a person has enough money to live more than comfortably, to invest and create and luxuriate in? And beyond that, making even MORE money is rather obscene and irrelevant, except to those without.

So what part of our US Constitution gives you a right to take from others and give to someone else? I can't follow your logic.

So excuse the fuck out of me if I don't sympathize with cutting tax rates on the wealthiest, while reducing benefits to the poor and sick. It's pure greed, plain and simple. The people in charge, elected and otherwise, need to realize that greed will do them (and everyone else) in, eventually.

Explain "greed", and "enough money" and "comfortable" and what is "MORE money"? as compared to what? Who gets to decide? Describe and define the term "Wealth" and "Fair Share" as the POS president like to use all the time. What is it to you? What should it be to the masses? Under our current Constitution of the United States where does is describe these definitions? In a Free Market Economy who gets to say what the tax rates should be on the "Wealthiest"? Who are they compared to your income? Who gets the Authority to define that?

GO!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

So excuse the fuck out of me if I don't sympathize with cutting tax rates on the wealthiest, while reducing benefits to the poor and sick. It's pure greed, plain and simple.

Its more than that. It is how jobs get destroyed.