Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Brendan]

Cute.

That was pretty much what you seemed to be saying.

How exactly, then, did this supposed ‘White flight’ cause crime and bad schools.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Wait, you were serious? Please.

I’ve been to Baltimore. I’d be quiet if I were you. lol

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Actually, he sums up the attitude of the Left pretty well. No logic required - just class envy.

rig, What is the logic of having a top 1%? Unless you can shear them.

 

[Bklynguy]

999 (or a national sales tax to completely replace the income tax). Everybody pays taxes that way: pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, mafiosi, etc, etc.

I agree.

 

[Bklynguy]

Nothing will be done. What Obama and his people are trying to do is get 51% of the people on the non-paying, receiving end. Once he accomplishes that, it will not only be the 1% who get “sheared”, (to use another poster’s expression) but the 49%. And it will not be reversible. That’s the goal. I hate to be pessimistic, but I’m guessing they’ll get it done. This “millionaire tax” thing is only symbolism, and it’s only the beginning. The idea is to get the American people used to the idea that it’s not only ok, but virtuous, to loot others, regardless of actual need.

Yep. That is why I think a VAT or national sales tax is a good replacement for the income tax. This way, everyone pays. The poor and working class might pay a little more, but they get more in government services, so they SHOULD have more of a stake in the system.

 

[Bklynguy]

Your assuming that the recipeints can all work. But, we are talking about SS, Medicaid, and other forms of aid. The vast majority of people who benefit from these programs, deserve to. I’m willing to pay for that. I’m also willing to insist that you do as well.

ATB

What do you mean they “deserve to?” I don’t necessarily find anything inherently wrong with those programs; however, I don’t see how the recipients overall “deserve” these programs. Some do, some don’t.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

That was pretty much what you seemed to be saying.

How exactly, then, did this supposed ‘White flight’ cause crime and bad schools.

Here we go. Racial tensions in the USA were running high in the sixties. Detroiters, who wanted piece and quiet. Relied on their police department to keep angry blacks in check. When it all boiled over in july of 1967. The cities leaders were not as aggressive as most wanted to see. National guard, and Army troops were called in. When the smoke cleared, the damage was tremendous. Many whites packed up and left for the suburbs. Businesses followed, and their jobs and wealth went with them. The poverty that followed. Changed a major city of promise, to what it is today. A city of high crime, crumbling infrastructure, and little hope.

Care to share how you ended up there?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

What do you mean they “deserve to?” I don’t necessarily find anything inherently wrong with those programs; however, I don’t see how the recipients overall “deserve” these programs. Some do, some don’t.

Well, we pay into social security. So, either we collect when we reach the age of reitrement. Or we collect when we become disabled. Medicaid is required by the federal government. It goes to pay the medical expenses of people who qualify.

Most fraud is at the giving, as opposed to the recieving end, of these programs.

ATB

 

[Bklynguy]

Here we go. Racial tensions in the USA were running high in the sixties. Detroiters, who wanted piece and quiet. Relied on their police department to keep angry blacks in check. When it all boiled over in july of 1967. The cities leaders were not as aggressive as most wanted to see. National guard, and Army troops were called in. When the smoke cleared, the damage was tremendous. Many whites packed up and left for the suburbs. Businesses followed, and their jobs and wealth went with them. The poverty that followed. Changed a major city of promise, to what it is today. A city of high crime, crumbling infrastructure, and little hope.

Care to share how you ended up there?

This seems to be an accurate rendition of what happened in Detroit and many other cities. However, the cause always seems to be, “white flight,” when in fact it was the black riots that caused the white flight. You can’t blame the whites for packing up and leaving.

 

[Bklynguy]

Well, we pay into social security. So, either we collect when we reach the age of reitrement. Or we collect when we become disabled. Medicaid is required by the federal government. It goes to pay the medical expenses of people who qualify.

Most fraud is at the giving, as opposed to the recieving end, of these programs.

ATB

Well, yes, we pay into Social Security, but we are only entitled to whatever parameters are set by the government in terms of our age and income and retirement. Those parameters can be changed; however, whenever there is a reform proposed—say raising the retirement age–there is an uproar as if people really do deserve to collect Social Security at 65 when the life expectancy is getting longer and longer and people are healthier at ages 65 and 67 now than ever.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

This seems to be an accurate rendition of what happened in Detroit and many other cities. However, the cause always seems to be, “white flight,” when in fact it was the black riots that caused the white flight. You can’t blame the whites for packing up and leaving.

Explaining, and blaming are two different things.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Well, yes, we pay into Social Security, but we are only entitled to whatever parameters are set by the government in terms of our age and income and retirement. Those parameters can be changed; however, whenever there is a reform proposed—say raising the retirement age–there is an uproar as if people really do deserve to collect Social Security at 65 when the life expectancy is getting longer and longer and people are healthier at ages 65 and 67 now than ever.

OK

 

[estesbob]

Here we go. Racial tensions in the USA were running high in the sixties. Detroiters, who wanted piece and quiet. Relied on their police department to keep angry blacks in check. When it all boiled over in july of 1967. The cities leaders were not as aggressive as most wanted to see. National guard, and Army troops were called in. When the smoke cleared, the damage was tremendous. Many whites packed up and left for the suburbs. Businesses followed, and their jobs and wealth went with them. The poverty that followed. Changed a major city of promise, to what it is today. A city of high crime, crumbling infrastructure, and little hope.

Care to share how you ended up there?

Why didnt this happen in other cities that had race riots in 67 and 68? Again you seem to be claiming that Africam Americans go out of control unless there are whites there to calm them down Seems like a racist attitude to me

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Why didnt this happen in other cities that had race riots in 67 and 68? Again you seem to be claiming that Africam Americans go out of control unless there are whites there to calm them down Seems like a racist attitude to me

I guess you see what fronts your agenda.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey Finn,

You’ve got the answer… Further entrench the rascals that have brought us to this mess by their mis-handling of tax money from the very start! If "Taxes and government policies are the only remendies … then I think you have been reading too many Oscar Wilde comedies!

God bless

Going in circles, losing his trail. I like it. But, neither The soviet Union, or North Korea. Are, or were, working models of socialism. That greed is out of control and leading our country to ruin. Well, it’s beyond dispute. In case you haven’t noticed. The wealthy are getting wealthier. The poor are getting poorer. Our nations infrastructure is crumbling.

Taxes, and government policies, are the only remedies available at this time. If the 1% want to scream, cry, and kick.

ATB

 

[rlg94086]

They do pay more in taxes - much more. It’s a math thing though, so I realize many can’t figure it out.

I heard a classic example on the Michael Medved show a few minutes ago. Michael brought up the fact that the average income earners, ~$50k, pay a little more than 11% in taxes versus a little more than 22% for those making over $1M.

A caller called and said, based on those numbers, that someone earning $1M make 20x more money but only pay 2x the amount in taxes. Medved explained that, no, they pay 40x in taxes. The caller was incensed and challenged Michael to explain.

 

[ishii]

I heard a classic example on the Michael Medved show a few minutes ago. Michael brought up the fact that the average income earners, ~$50k, pay a little more than 11% in taxes versus a little more than 22% for those making over $1M.

A caller called and said, based on those numbers, that someone earning $1M make 20x more money but only pay 2x the amount in taxes. Medved explained that, no, they pay 40x in taxes. The caller was incensed and challenged Michael to explain.

I heard the same exchange on the Medved show. Like so many liberals, the guy just doesn’t get it. For all their supposed “education”, liberals are such slow learners when it comes to how our economy works - what makes it thrive. They think that taking away money from the private sector by raising taxes will “create” jobs. That is just one example of how confused they are.

Ishii

 

[julietdorge]

Very Nice Thread

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ishii,

What is truly troublesome is that this line of misdirected and failed policy (tax the rich to ‘create’ jobs) has been going on for quite some time. It has never worked as a long term solution.

It may be that our elected officials, like Obama, have simply a ‘bumper sticker’ or ‘slogan’ approach to inspire class envy in an effort to win elected office. There have been many US economists who have won the Nobel Prize ( u-s-history.com/pages/h2007.html ) and none of them have done this by advocating for income redistribution.

To propose a system or philosophy (like the ‘Buffett Rule’) that offers neither a solution to the debt crisis of the US or even a genuine method of raising money - and admitting it - knowing that this may actually hurt the economy - is simply demagoguery. Given Obama’s desire to rule by fiat - rather than upholding the laws passed by Congress, I think we have a real choice come November.

God bless

I heard the same exchange on the Medved show. Like so many liberals, the guy just doesn’t get it. For all their supposed “education”, liberals are such slow learners when it comes to how our economy works - what makes it thrive. They think that taking away money from the private sector by raising taxes will “create” jobs. That is just one example of how confused they are.

Ishii

 

[Brendan]

Explaining, and blaming are two different things.

ATB

Well, you attrribtued the moving out of Detroit to ‘racism’. That sounds like blame.

It seems to me that moving out just to get peace, quite and perhaps safety are all reasonable explainations for the move out of Detroit.

I know families, my father’s included that moved out of Belfast, not out of any animosity towards Protestants, or even that they felt oppressed as Catholics. But just to get away from the riots and violence.

So if you choose not to blame, will you retract your claim that ‘White Flight’ was due to racisim?