On Fox & Friends, Trump claimed unchallenged that Obama plans to have "everybody ... pay double and triple the taxes"

here's some nearly on topic humour to lighten things up. But I would like to say that anyone who thinks a system where one human controls more wealth and consumes more resources than the other 99.99 % is really out of touch with human history.

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1454layashes

Dawuss is the poster child for the example of the sort of mouth breathing morons that can be relyed on so that the rich can to continue bending poor people over, greasing them up and aiming for penetration.

The rich people are rich BECAUSE THEY DON'T SPEND MONEY. And when l say that l mean that, they don't say "Hey, my guys have worked hard i'll pay for something for them." It's not about how many boats or fast cars or shiny pieces of jewellry they buy. How much (just for an example of a large company in the US that l have heard and read more than a bit about) money do those who own Wal Mart spend on their staff on say health care? With all the profits they make how much above minimum wage are their poorest employees paid? Where do they source the materials for the clothing that they sell? Is everything at Wal Mart made in the US? If they are making so much money, and their profits show that they are, why are they so against a bill that makes it easier to unionize their staff and protects their pay and rights?

Unions, both in the US and the UK were created to PROTECT the workers from exploitation by bosses who would work them harder and harder for less and less while reaping the biggest profits for themselves. Every one wants to better themselves but it amazing to me that when you have seen the money of the rich increase by hundreds of percent over the last decade that ANYONE who isn't in that group doesn't stop and say "hold on a moment, maybe we should look at this"   

 Look at the fight for the Estate Tax. This is from USAToday.com 28/05/2005:

But pro-tax groups and those who benefit from the tax are mounting a counterattack. They include life insurance companies that profit from estate tax planning as well as charities that reap donations from large estates. Citing historical figures such as Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie, pro-tax activists argue against the concentration of wealth. "This is not a country of inherited wealth. This is a country of earned wealth," says Steve Ricchetti of the Coalition for America's Priorities, which is seeking to preserve the estate tax.

Citing a Congressional Budget Office study, they note that very few family-owned businesses and farms would be affected under the $3.5 million exemption level set to take effect in 2009. And they say repealing the tax after 2010 could cost more than $70 billion a year in today's dollars, resulting in spending cuts or a larger federal budget deficit.

Does anyone who posts here really want to say that the US is a country of inherited wealth? That those who do manage to make it should watch while the children of those who did fight and use their brains to make their money sit back, doing nothing and reap the benefits of others hard work?

I'm not saying that all rich people are bad, but l am amazed at the reaction when they do something good. Look at the media reaction to Warren Buffett's decision on what happens to his money when he dies. Not all rich people are b'stards. But you have to admit, they had to be a bit of a b'stard to become rich.

     I hate the fact that they keep saying that Obama is raising taxes on everyone. The chart posted earlier is all the people need to see. It says it all. 

    And where did this idea that paying taxes is so horrible anyways? I can see how the average person or below, who may be struggling to make ends meet, I can see how they would be weary of more money out of their pocket going to the government, when they need it just to survive. I understand that. But do they not realize that the Democrats are the ones trying to keep that money in their pockets, as much as they can, and the Republicans are the ones who are trying to make more, percentagewise, from them? I cannot see how anyone who is poor to middle class would support the Republican tax system.

    And history has shown us two things that are unarguable. Trickle-down Economics does not work. It is not sound, and the claims you hear about how it benefits everyone simply are not true. In fact, history has shown the opposite. The second thing is, more taxes on the highest income earners, and lowest taxes on the poorest has shown throughout history to benefit everyone. And taking money out of the pockets of the richest is not, philosophically, automatically hurting them or not benefitting them. Sorry, but that is just an assumption with no basis.

    To Dawuss (and Boortz),

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Selfish: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

That pretty much shuts that argument down forever.

    There are plenty of rich people who have no problem paying more taxes. Not all rich people are Republicans, for example. So, how can they possibly come to such a drastically different conclusion as the Republican rich?

    And to answer your comments about your version of Market distribution of wealth. Are you seriously arguing that spending the million-plus dollars on a yacht, or whatever other luxury item you want, is going to benefit the economy (or just that company) more than using that money to help struggling families with food, or shelter, or healthcare? There is no way you can actually believe that. No one, unless just blinded by greed would advocate that kind of America.

Well put UKO. Even the Fed Gov has concluded trickle down is a bust for their revinues. Wages have pretty much stagnated for the last seven plus years. Jobs went overseas cause the american worker costs the companies to much.

An agricultural analgy. They take the crop and do nothing to support the soil which produces the crop. The soil stops producing and they go elsewhere to find a new crop to exploit till they again exhaust the soil.

I don't think this type of operation sustains its supporting population. And that seems to be where market forces will always go if there is nothing that prevents them from doing so.