We're all in this together!

[Rhianne]

Stormieweather has said everything I'd like to.

[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!

[DanaC]

Well, apparently the wealthy do. Thats the problem.

[TheMercenary]

Cool. Define "Wealthy".

[TheMercenary]

So would "Wealthy" be someone who makes 1) $100 a week more than you? 2) $200 a week more than you? 3) $400 a week more than you? 5)$1000 more a week than you? 6) Or someone who just is not on public assistance? 7) for fun... $10,000 more a week than you?

[piercehawkeye45]

How are you suppose to define terms that are completely subjective?

In a civil society, everyone is going to get fucked over one way or another. It just depends on how you look at it.

[TheMercenary]

My point exactly. SO what is "Wealthy"? Because that seems to be the watch word in this day and age. Please define. That seems to be the term that defines those who think they give enough and those that don't.

[classicman]

Is this your senior year - PH45?

[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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My point exactly. SO what is "Wealthy"? Because that seems to be the watch word in this day and age. Please define. That seems to be the term that defines those who think they give enough and those that don't.

I know that is your point. I agree that wealthy cannot be defined as 'someone who makes more than me'. Yet, there has to be some benchmark that determines whether someone is wealthy or not in the eyes of the state. A benchmark that both makes practical economic sense (yes that is subjective as well) and will not get people marching with pitchforks. This benchmark is going to end up being completely subjective anyways so trying to find a rational one is pointless.

Honestly, I feel that most of the anger is not against people who make more than them but the feeling that they are disproportionally bearing the load (many possible definitions) while these "other" people are not. The "poor" are just mooching off your tax dollars. The "rich" are just using the law and society to make them money for themselves without paying back. This is not fair but any 'debt solution' must take this feeling into account. The details are not important. What is important is that the "poor" feels like the "rich" are going to pay more in taxes and the "rich" need to feel that the "poor" are not mooching off their tax dollars. It is more symbolic than anything.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Is this your senior year - PH45?

My senior year was two years ago. I am planning on completing my Master's in a month and going to move on to a PhD once that is completed.

I don't mean to come off as an arrogant d-bag (it is largely tone which can be hard to pick up online) but why you ask?

[classicman]

No reason really - I kinda thought/remembered that you were close to graduating
I just effed up the masters part. Congrats!

[piercehawkeye45]

Thanks! I appreciate it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I know that is your point. I agree that wealthy cannot be defined as 'someone who makes more than me'.

Cool, define it. TO date no one can do it.

Yet, there has to be some benchmark that determines whether someone is wealthy or not in the eyes of the state.

In a Free Market Economy the "State" has no legal or Constitutional Right to define it.

A benchmark that both makes practical economic sense (yes that is subjective as well) and will not get people marching with pitchforks. This benchmark is going to end up being completely subjective anyways so trying to find a rational one is pointless.

Well, sort of depends doesn't it? Homeless dude with no income teamed up with the disgruntled Anarchist who went to Harvard and can't pay his educational degree in French Lit off.... who is more worthy?

Honestly, I feel that most of the anger is not against people who make more than them

Not how the press is making it out to be...

...but the feeling that they are disproportionally bearing the load (many possible definitions) while these "other" people are not.

Great, define it in quantifiable terms that can be measured and studied for validity.......

The "poor" are just mooching off your tax dollars. The "rich" are just using the law and society to make them money for themselves without paying back. This is not fair but any 'debt solution' must take this feeling into account. The details are not important. What is important is that the "poor" feels like the "rich" are going to pay more in taxes and the "rich" need to feel that the "poor" are not mooching off their tax dollars. It is more symbolic than anything.

What is really "symbolic" here is the idea that the "poor" exists.... Bull shit.... fucking DEFINE IT!. "This is not Fair"... fucking someone define "FAIR". "Feeling" My ass. Where in our Constitution is shit defined as "Fair"? This is totally manufactured BS for a collective re-election campaign. And guess what? In 4 years the poor will still be poor, and the disadvantaged will still be disadvantaged..... It is fucking Kabuki Theater....