Thread: The class warfare argument

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

...so i asks ye, why this slavish devotion to yer masters?

- MeadHallPirate

If I bought in to your premise... which I do not... the answer would be simple enough:

I take their money. The more that is taken from them the less they have to spend on... me.

Originally Posted by tsquare

If I bought in to your premise... which I do not... the answer would be simple enough:

I take their money. The more that is taken from them the less they have to spend on... me.

ahoy Tsquare,

i see...

*does some quick work on his ondeck abacus*

that would mean, then, that since taxes have been sinkin' o'er the last decade, wages hath increased once inflation hath been adjusted fer, right? the table i linked in post #196 kinda contradicts that, aye?

tell me, Tsquare....are ye thinkin' with yer gut and not yer noggin'?

i mean, good gracious, the number 'o folks who sail on this vessel seem to really like thinkin' with thar gut.

YARRRRRRR!!!! MIGHTY GUTS I SAY, AVAST YE!

- MeadHallPirate

ps - i gotta go and stimulate Mexico's economy, matey...me ounce just came in, so i've got to set sail to me dealer. wind at yer back, wish me luck on me perilous ride home.

Originally Posted by kwilliam10

You CAN, however, have the top 1% of the wage earners paying more than 40% of the tax revenues. I believe THAT is what was said.

The fact that THIS needs to be explained is rather amusing.

No. The top 1% of wage earners paying a disproportionately high share of taxes makes perfect sense. Even with a regressive tax system. No explanation needed.

Now, if you're arguing that everyone should pay a fixed dollar amount in taxes, I'll be happy to dismiss your views on the subject.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

That's right, words have meanings. The quintiles that were indicated in the post we are all referencing refer to income quintiles. That is, the divisions are based on income level, not "number of people within that income."

Frankly, I'm a little disturbed that I have to explain that to you, but I guess someone's gotta do it.

No they don't. Try again.

I've got a little excersize for you to elaborate on this. If Bill Gates makes a million dollars, and that's the highest income in the US, then the top quintile is $800,001 to $1,000,000 and the bottom quintile is $1 to $200,000. That's of course, under your explanation of things. Trouble is, $200,000 is actually well within the top quintile. Around the top three percent to be exact.

Originally Posted by goober

Really? you've never seen a post where a left leaning poster calls for reduced military spending?
Welcome to the Forum....

Of course. I've seen all kinds of posts suggesting that we cut the bejesus out of defense spending.....one of the few things that government is supposed to provide.

Originally Posted by michael h

Lol, It does stress the point that class warfare exists as it always has existed by law. I can't top Mel Brooks though.

I offer this ... an 80% reduction in military spending, removing all troops from foreign countries and returning them to defend our borders. Now that's a serious chunk of change, and the only thing stopping it is the need to control other countries.

I consider why I approved of Reagan tax cuts ... because tax rates were unjust on the wealthy. With where Reagan moved rates ... I do not see a lack of justice. I see lower corporate taxes paid ... I see no injustice.

Citizens before war ... you want lower taxes ... stop the infernal war machine. Lets not neglect that trade policy has enriched a few and caused downward pressure on wages ... stagnant for 30 years. Productivity hasn't been stagnant.

The kings still king and the knights still a knight ... minus the shiny armor. They are not calling for reduced spending ... Americans are. As economic policy demonstrates the Elite agenda is still in force ... with offerings of moldy bread(not employment), food stamps and unemployment benefits.

Willingness? Whose agenda are we living when a worker has his job H1B'ed, or jobs are outsourced? Didn't the wealthy benefit from those actions? Illegal immigration whose benefiting when American jobs are lost? Offshoring ... did that enrich the already wealthy? Willingness to be inclined to pay for the mess you created?

I can only recommend nobody pays taxes and let the chips fall where they may. Nobody likes government ... one side says cut defense ... the other cut social services. That sounds like a call for the Feds to go bye bye. I can live with that.

An 80% reduction in military spending is absolutely unreasonable. One of the most important reasons to have a strong military is for the deterrent effect.

I have no doubt that military spending can be cut and it wouldn't break my heart to see some of our overseas commitments reduced but there is no way that we should eliminate those commitments.

I don't want to get into a long and drawn out commentary on what I believe our military commitments and capabilities should be in this thread but, in brief, I think that it is very important for us to be able to project significant offensive capabilities worldwide and to be capable of strong engagement in any three theaters simultaneously at any given time.

Originally Posted by lutherf

I've noticed, after nearly 200 posts in this thread, that none of those who are all for raising taxes on the wealthy seem to be too keen on cutting anything that those taxes are being spent on.

ahoy Lutherf,

as Goober pointed out, matey, a good number 'o left leanin' posters hath suggested cuttin' the military. the constitution does not empower our captains on the bridge to spend endlessly, recklessly, and heedlessly on our nationan offensive forces.

also, i think many swabbys that lean to the left agree that our healthcare entitlement programs need to be reformed. by reform, i'd mean that they have to dole out less monies.

ironically though, only a single poster on USPO agrees that thar own benefits ought to be cut, as witnessed in this thread; to the USPO senior citizens, ahoy!!!!

all i hear from the right be cuttin' NPR and Planned Parenthood, HOORAH fer reducin' the debt by .0006%, aye?

....aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Lutherf,

as Goober pointed out, matey, a good number 'o left leanin' posters hath suggested cuttin' the military. the constitution does not empower our captains on the bridge to spend endlessly, recklessly, and heedlessly on our nationan offensive forces.

also, i think many swabbys that lean to the left agree that our healthcare entitlement programs need to be reformed. by reform, i'd mean that they have to dole out less monies.

ironically though, only a single poster on USPO agrees that thar own benefits ought to be cut, as witnessed in this thread; to the USPO senior citizens, ahoy!!!!

all i hear from the right be cuttin' NPR and Planned Parenthood, HOORAH fer reducin' the debt by .0006%, aye?

....aye.

- MeadHallPirate

As always, you hit the nail right on the head!

Originally Posted by lutherf

An 80% reduction in military spending is absolutely unreasonable. One of the most important reasons to have a strong military is for the deterrent effect.

I have no doubt that military spending can be cut and it wouldn't break my heart to see some of our overseas commitments reduced but there is no way that we should eliminate those commitments.

I don't want to get into a long and drawn out commentary on what I believe our military commitments and capabilities should be in this thread but, in brief, I think that it is very important for us to be able to project significant offensive capabilities worldwide and to be capable of strong engagement in any three theaters simultaneously at any given time.

Rather then a long blob on spending ... just who are we deterring?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Tsquare,

i see...

*does some quick work on his ondeck abacus*

that would mean, then, that since taxes have been sinkin' o'er the last decade, wages hath increased once inflation hath been adjusted fer, right? the table i linked in post #196 kinda contradicts that, aye?

tell me, Tsquare....are ye thinkin' with yer gut and not yer noggin'?

i mean, good gracious, the number 'o folks who sail on this vessel seem to really like thinkin' with thar gut.

YARRRRRRR!!!! MIGHTY GUTS I SAY, AVAST YE!

- MeadHallPirate

ps - i gotta go and stimulate Mexico's economy, matey...me ounce just came in, so i've got to set sail to me dealer. wind at yer back, wish me luck on me perilous ride home.

The table you linked to has little or nothing to do with taxes paid... and even less with tax rates...

It shouldn't anymore, but it always amuses me the people the confuse the two... willfully or not.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Lutherf,

as Goober pointed out, matey, a good number 'o left leanin' posters hath suggested cuttin' the military. the constitution does not empower our captains on the bridge to spend endlessly, recklessly, and heedlessly on our nationan offensive forces.

also, i think many swabbys that lean to the left agree that our healthcare entitlement programs need to be reformed. by reform, i'd mean that they have to dole out less monies.

ironically though, only a single poster on USPO agrees that thar own benefits ought to be cut, as witnessed in this thread; to the USPO senior citizens, ahoy!!!!

all i hear from the right be cuttin' NPR and Planned Parenthood, HOORAH fer reducin' the debt by .0006%, aye?

....aye.

- MeadHallPirate

First off, government spending isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It's both and in more or less equal amounts.

Second, military spending has been inflated over the past decade due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these endeavors could have been handled differently - and much less expensively - but they weren't. The political motive of having a "safe and painless" war is what drives the cost up so significantly and protracts the engagement for so long. If you want a faster, cheaper war you have to be prepared to accept a lot more blood on your hands.

As far as cutting medical costs, the current proposal is to further limit reimbursements to medical providers. I'm sure that will make our medical practitioners very happy. The rest of the medical proposal is a pipe dream of full blown government control of the entire medical industry. That, to me, is entirely unacceptable just on principle. It is also unnecessary as we have seen such medical procedures as corrective surgery on eyes and cosmetic surgery - things which are generally not covered by insurance or medicare - become not only safer over the years but also less expensive.

Originally Posted by michael h

Rather then a long blob on spending ... just who are we deterring?

Well, China hasn't taken over Taiwan recently and the NORK's are still on their side of the 38th parallel. Israel is still standing but I'm not sure how much longer that's going to last. Iran is all kinds of froggy but, so far, they haven't jumped.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Well, China hasn't taken over Taiwan recently and the NORK's are still on their side of the 38th parallel. Israel is still standing but I'm not sure how much longer that's going to last. Iran is all kinds of froggy but, so far, they haven't jumped.

China ... We give them advanced technology and they produce our goods.

NK can't feed themselves.

Israel has nukes and a superior military force to take care of themselves.

Iran ... they got their own problems and war with words.

Nothing I see where it justifies an insane military budget and we do have allies. Business should have thought of this before they exported GDP and the economy. We are to damn poor to blow money on silly controlling nonsense.