Thread: The class warfare argument

Originally Posted by lutherf

Strange that you think the distinction doesn't matter.

If someone broke into your house and attempted to "commandeer" your food and your possessions would you find yourself "at war" for the purpose of gaining something you didn't have?

Didn't the middle classes home get broken into already? Wasn't that food commandeered through legislation? Government has commandeered prosperity to provide a few with more.

The distinction is it was done "legally".

Originally Posted by Jefe

Yeah. "Warfare" against o.3% of the population. The other 99.7% are to believe that this is a terrible, terrible thing. "OMG, the libs are pushing for CLASS WARFARE!!!". LOL, durr, most of us are on the same team.

You mean the team that wants to steal more money from other people?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

You mean the team that wants to steal more money from other people?

Follow the money, and it goes directly to people who Republicans defend the most.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Just a reminder:

Do you even have a clue what those numbers mean?

If the wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes, after having their taxes cut by a larger percent than the middle class, it means that the wealthy are getting a far larger share of the pie than they were before.

Reagan's war on the middle class has succeeded....

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Have you been living under a rock? They rejected his jobs plan, and by doing so, the $240 billion in middle class tax cuts. Obama's for it, the Repubs are against it, because they hate Obama, no matter what he does.

Maybe I'm missing something here but it was my understanding that the jobs plan was being rejected because of all the additional spending. I don't recall the part where only the tax cuts were being considered.

Originally Posted by michael h

Didn't the middle classes home get broken into already? Wasn't that food commandeered through legislation? Government has commandeered prosperity to provide a few with more.

The distinction is it was done "legally".

If you are suggesting that government influence needs to be decoupled from business interests then you won't get any argument from me.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Follow the money, and it goes directly to people who Republicans defend the most.

One word - Solyndra.

Originally Posted by lutherf

If you are suggesting that government influence needs to be decoupled from business interests then you won't get any argument from me.

I don't suggest they need to be decoupled from business ... interests need to take into account legislation's effect on more then just MNC's. An attempted policy which fails should be assessed on its failings.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Strange that you think the distinction doesn't matter.

If someone broke into your house and attempted to "commandeer" your food and your possessions would you find yourself "at war" for the purpose of gaining something you didn't have?

Ok, i can see your point. I still dont see what that has to do with the subject of this thread. Every time someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, conservatives predictably yell "but that's class warfare!", then stare at you like thats supposed to be the end of the argument. I'm saying "so what?" in response to that. Let's forget, for a moment, that the term "class warfare" is obviously a politically charged term being used to evoke strong emotions among the right-leaning public. What is so bad about a small tax increase on millionaires? Are they going to shrivel up and die of starvation?

Originally Posted by goober

Do you even have a clue what those numbers mean?

Yes I do, and much better than you seem to, based on your 4 semesters of economics.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

You mean the team that wants to steal more money from other people?

If by "steal" you mean "tax at the same rate as the middle class", then yes, that's what I mean. Assuming you're not a millionaire, what is really so wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Jefe

Ok, i can see your point. I still dont see what that has to do with the subject of this thread. Every time someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, conservatives predictably yell "but that's class warfare!", then stare at you like thats supposed to be the end of the argument. I'm saying "so what?" in response to that. Let's forget, for a moment, that the term "class warfare" is obviously a politically charged term being used to evoke strong emotions among the right-leaning public. What is so bad about a small tax increase on millionaires? Are they going to shrivel up and die of starvation?

Again, it's the "why" part of the equation. Why do we need to assess more tax on anyone?

Originally Posted by Jefe

Every time someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, conservatives predictably yell "but that's class warfare!", then stare at you like thats supposed to be the end of the argument. I'm saying "so what?" in response to that. Let's forget, for a moment, that the term "class warfare" is obviously a politically charged term being used to evoke strong emotions among the right-leaning public. What is so bad about a small tax increase on millionaires? Are they going to shrivel up and die of starvation?

Yes, it is supposed to be the end of the argument. Why? Because look at your own words. The only justification for the argument is literally "they can afford it if we take more money from them." Now, when I say that, all the liberals are nodding their heads and going "...and?" You have no respect for private property and no concern for taking someone's money because YOU decided they didn't need it. The fact that you can't even grasp that simple concept is amazing. And then you take that money and transfer it to someone else and then act like you're so awesome for giving money, like you earned it or something.