Defending the "so-called rich": Fox News' class warfare
Over the past two weeks, Fox News has frequently defended the wealthy and derided the poor. Fox News figures have criticized the extension of unemployment benefits and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the "so-called rich," all while accusing Democrats of using "class warfare rhetoric."
Fox's "controversial question" suggests disenfranchising Americans supposedly "not paying taxes"
Doocy: Should the "47 percent of Americans not paying taxes" be allowed to vote? Teasing an upcoming segment on the July 28 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy falsely claimed that 47 percent of Americans don't pay taxes, and then asked what he called "a controversial question: With 47 percent of Americans not paying taxes -- 47 percent -- should those who don't pay be allowed to vote?"
Bolling repeatedly raises question with Varney. During the Fox & Friends segment Doocy teased, guest host Eric Bolling introduced Fox Business host Stuart Varney by asking, "So should people who don't pay taxes be allowed to vote?" Bolling later asked Varney, "And so, should they be able to vote, though?" Varney responded: "Of course they should. Of course they should." Bolling asked, "In federal elections?" Varney then said "Oh, abso -- of course. Nobody is suggesting that you take away the right to vote from people just because they don't pay tax. I would never suggest such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth." Following Varney's rebuke, Bolling quipped: "Well, then, I guess we're out of time. No, I'm actually kidding."
Varney and Bolling speculate that the "half who pays nothing" could "vote for higher taxes for the other half who pays everything." Also on the July 28 edition of Fox & Friends, Varney hypothesized that the "half who pays nothing" in taxes could "vote for higher taxes for the other half who pays everything." Bolling then suggested that when the percentage of people not paying income taxes "hit[s] 50 percent, isn't that the all-clear for whoever's not paying tax to vote for whoever's in office who got them to the point where they weren't paying tax?" Varney responded that this is "the road we're heading down," and claimed that America is "looking like Europe," and is headed toward "an age of ever higher taxes. A permanently high tax rate voted in by the people who do not pay."
Fox: The economy needs tax cuts for the rich
Hume: "When's the last time one of these poor people offered you a job?" On the July 25 edition of Fox News Sunday, in response to Juan Williams' assertion that "Obama has already cut taxes" and that the taxes Democrats are calling to be allowed to expire are only for "the very rich in the country," Brit Hume asked: "When's the last time one of these poor people offered you a job?" He added that the people affected by letting the tax cuts expire "are the job creators, the people who have money to invest, capital to put at risk, to build enterprises and, they hope, make more money are people that have some money to begin with."
Thompson: "I've never been hired by a poor person." On the July 27 edition of Hannity, Fred Thompson stated that theObama administration "is trying to sell the American people on the notion that, if they'll just limit the tax increases to -- to the upper income group, that it won't affect them," but added that "you're talking about primarily small businesses here. You're talking about the engine of growth in this country. The folks who hire most of the people in this country -- 20 million people these small business people hire. You're talking about people who worked hard all their lives in many instances, just got to that upper -- upper bracket." He then told Hannity, "[A]s you like to say, you know, I've never been hired by a poor person."Hannity agreed: "I say it a lot. Never have been."
Doocy: Democrats want to raise taxes on "those evil, successful people," "the so-called rich." On the July 27 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that the Democrats say "those evil, successful people at the top 3 or 4 or 5 percent -- the so-called rich Americans -- we're going to continue to tax them at a higher rate." Doocy continued by suggesting that when you're talking about these "so-called rich Americans," "you're not talking about Donald Trump or a member of the Rockefeller family. You're talking about a lot of people who own and operate America's small businesses."
Fox decides: In some cities, families earning $250,000 are "not rich"
Doocy claims that New York City households earning five times the median income are "not rich." On the July 23 edition of Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy disputed the claim that those who make over $250,000 are rich. Doocy suggested that "what they consider rich," in Washington, D.C., is "not necessarily part of the real world," and that a couple in New York could make that much but "are not rich." From the show:
DOOCY: First of all, you know, they talk about soaking the rich, and they're going to -- tax hikes for the rich. What do they consider rich in Washington DC? Because what they consider rich, not necessarily part of the real world.
VARNEY: I guess it's that $250,000 a year cut off that the president has always mentioned. If you're above that, you're taxes go up. If you're below that, he will never raise taxes on you. I guess he makes the cut off point at $250,000.
DOOCY: But you know, living in the New York City area, there are firemen who have wives that are in the teachers' union and they make about that much, and they are not rich.
VARNEY: No they're not.
According to Census Bureau data, the median household income in New York City was $48,631 in 2007.
Extending unemployment benefits helps people who need to "sober up" and get jobs
Kilmeade: "Maybe" not extending "unemployment benefits will get people to sober up" and get jobs. On July 15, Fox & Friends hosted the CEO of Partnership Staffing Inc., Bill Auchmoody, who claimed that people are choosing to stay home and receive unemployment benefits instead of trying to get a job. During the segment, Auchmoody argued that "the opportunity in taking a job and potentially moving up" is better "than sitting at home on the dole." At the end of the segment, co-host Brian Kilmeade suggested that "maybe the [expiration of] unemployment benefits will get people to sober up and take some of your offers."
Morici: "Extending unemployment benefits" encouraged "people to stay out of work longer." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, economist Peter Morici disputed Nancy Pelosi's assertion that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. Morici claimed that "extending unemployment benefits does encourage people to stay out of work longer." Morici further suggested that "there are better places to spend money." He then stated: "we already have a $1.6 trillion deficit. How much stimulus do we need?" Additionally, the on-screen text during the segment suggested that "Extending Benefits Hikes The Unemployment Rate."
O'Reilly: "We have a philosophy that the government owes people." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox News contributor John Stossel and asked "what does the government owe unemployed Americans?" O'Reilly began the discussion by claiming that up until FDR launched his New Deal, "if you were unemployed, you were hosed unless somebody would be charitable towards you, as most Americans were. You know, towns took care of themselves." O'Reilly then claimed that "[n]ow, we have a philosophy that the government owes people."
MacCallum on extending unemployment benefits: "Is that necessary?" On the July 20 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, guest host Martha MacCallum teased an upcoming segment on unemployment benefits by claiming that "as we all know, we are drowning in debt right now as a country. And it looks like we're drowning and it's getting deeper out there. Congress is close to extending unemployment benefits even further now. Is that necessary? And can we afford to pay for it?" In the following segment, MacCallum asked whether extending benefits to the unemployed would be "pil[ing] more debt on all of our backs and our children's backs." Later, guest Liz McDonald suggested that "John F. Kennedy said it best" when he said that "the best form of welfare is a solid-paying job."
Fox: Democrats are hyping class warfare
Beck: "Class warfare, anyone?" On the July 22 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck launched an attack on the Obama White House, claiming that it is "following huge parts" of a plan "laid out over 30 years ago" by the Weather Underground. Beck suggested that the Obama administration is attempting a "fundamental transformation of our society," the first aspect of which is "a united front against imperialism for a new democracy built on a joint dictatorship of the working class and the poor." Beck then states, "Class warfare,anyone?"
Hannity: Is "a ton of class warfare rhetoric" going to be "all we see" from Democrats? On the July 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity and guest Newt Gingrich discussed President Obama's recent statement on extending unemployment benefits. Hannity criticized Obama for "referring to the GOP as being the party of the rich," while Gingrich claimed that Obama "seems to have a really unusual desire to divide the country and a really deep need to blame somebody else for his own failures, and as a result, you get this kind of Rose Garden comment." Hannity then suggested that "for the next 106 days we can expect a ton of class-warfare rhetoric, demagoguery as you just pointed out, and demonization, et cetera, character assassination, maybe some supportive groups playing the race card because they can't run on their record? That's what's the next 106 days are going to be like? This is going to be all we see?"
Thompson: Obama is "going to base this tax cut on rich versus poor." During a July 27 interview with Sean Hannity,Fred Thompson asserted that: "People are not as susceptible to -- to having their envy played upon as this administration thinks. They think that if they can -- can do something, even if it hurts the economy, that's going to take something away from a group that they're not a part of, the 2 or 3 percent, the way they like to put it, that that will go over well politically and they can win that, you know. Rich versus poor." He added that the president is "going to base this tax argument on rich versus poor. Going to give everybody -- everybody in America a tax cut, in effect, or let the tax cuts remain for them, except just two or three percent of the people. That just happens to be a third of our consumers and produce most of our jobs."
Varney: The administration is going to engage in "class warfare." On the July 20 edition of Hannity, Varney said that because the president "cannot point to [his] record and say it was a success," he's going to "change the subject and engage in class warfare."
If that's "class warfare", what do you call it when millionaire pundits accuse unemployed people of being drunk, lazy bums? Or when they vilify poor flood victims who ask for government assistance?
That's not "class warfare?" GMAFB
"Race-baiting" doesn't mean calling out people for being racist, and "Class warfare" doesn't mean mentioning that the ruling class* has been carrying on a one-sided war forever on all of us average people.
* "Ruling Class" used in a more factual sense than the one that Rush Limbaugh is trying to promote in his latest attempt at coining a catch-phrase, the one where he defines the ruling class as everybody but powerful,right wing wealthy elites.
Like a mantra, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations have trumpeted how the government’s sweeping interventions to prop up the economy since 2008 helped avert a second Depression.
Now, two leading economists wielding complex quantitative models say that assertion can be empirically proved.
In a new paper, the economists argue that without the Wall Street bailout, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus program, the nation’s gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year.
In addition, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation.
Blinder and Zandi argue that despite their political unpopularity, both TARP and the stimulus package were relative bargains, saving the country from even worse economic performance than we've experienced.
I don't know about you, but if someone was to ask me my income, I don't give them my taxable income.
$250,000 AGI, is realistically closer to $400,000 and I think most people would consider that rich...
That 47 percent that don't pay taxes are being swindled!
Payroll taxes, sales taxes, "sin" taxes, gas and other consumption taxes are all just a mass hypnotic illusion then or...?
I wonder how many of the angry troglodytes who nod in agreement with Steve Doocy's moronic misinformation don't realize they fall into that 47 percent that he wants to take voting rights away from?
Nearly 10% for most Americans except for those making Doocy Kind of money where he pays probably 3%-4%
I've heard many callers to radio shows that have been suckered into thinking that the top marginal rates( some of them imaginary or speculation based on nothing) constantly repeated by the right wing hosts are some danger to them, when they usually sound as if they're probably not within several hundred thousand of being affected by those rates on any fraction of their income.
However we happen to be in debt, if you haven't noticed. The maintenance costs for our society are high. Having those who are already rewarded well for their efforts pay more to help maintain the support systems that allow their efforts to be so lucrative is logical and fair.
Wealthy people are, by definition, treated well by society. It is pathetic to see them portrayed as victims, just because they might have to pay taxes at a higher rate.
I do know the difference. And its not a good business model. Balancing a budget is a good way to go. I didn't like Clinton for his D leanings, but he was physcally responsible.
Cut the damn spending
It IS a good business model to invest in one's future!
And that's what we're doing right now with the deficit spending that Obama is doing! There are times when it's better to have deficit spending than to have the alternative, and during a financial crisis is one of those times.
The long-term cost to our economy would have been much greater had we NOT forestalled a second Depression than the cost we'll pay by increasing the National Debt!
During normal economic times, you're right, it's NOT a good idea to have massive deficit spending.
That's what Bush did! I swear, get a freakin' clue!
Once the economy fully recovers (and we don't know that it's there yet) and once we don't have such extraordinarily high unemployment, then YES, we should work on balancing the budget, probably with a combination of cuts to spending and tax increases!
You act like YOU'RE the only one who wants to resolve the issue of our huge national debt! You're not. You're one of the ones who is at FAULT for that, as you supported Bush and his wild spending!
You're right, it's not a good idea to spend money unnecessarily.
Obama hasn't been! That was my point, doofus - there's no "difference".
But thanks for yet again showing everyone that your personal animus is so strong that even when there's nothing for you to possibly object to, you'll invent something in order to attack what I said! Keep diggin', doofus.
Your cluelessness is getting the best of you.
You're throwing out baseless accusations. I never thought that being drunk was an acceptable defense to giving consent - I said that being TOO drunk to be able to give consent wasn't giving consent, doofus. It's not my fault that you can't read with comprehension. I DO know what lynching is, and it's NOT defined as being done by 3 members of law enforcement, even if they do it in an illegal fashion - it's done by a mob, a crowd, by private individuals. The recent brouhaha about whether a particular killing was a lynching or not was concentrating on the WRONG word parsing. And I don't care if it fits the definition anyway - lynching CAN be used in that instance via hyperbole.
I have NEVER exposed any cluelessness here.
YOU, on the other hand, continually expose YOUR personal animus for all to see.
Not so, doofus. If my income's sufficient to pay down the mortgage with my monthly payments, and meet my other expenses, then I'm not "deficit spending."
You had to BORROW money to DO that!
This is not rocket science.
But thanks for showing everyone that you're simply a clone of RightON.
"Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private company, or individual's spending exceeds income over a particular period of time, also called simply "deficit," or "budget deficit," the opposite of budget surplus".
If you don't know of understand the meaning of what you post, better to stay guiet. Pong was absolutely correct.
That doesn't change the fact that when one buys a house or a car on a payment plan because you can't afford to purchase it outright right now, that's DEFICIT SPENDING.
There's no ifs, ands or buts about it!
The posters who have no integrity would be you and RightON, as displayed in your disgusting and totally baseless personal attacks above!
It is not the same as your debts in totality. It has to do with your expenses, as in your monthly obligations. If you own a $400k house, your monthly obligation is not the entire $400k, it is your monthly mortgage.
Stop looking like a fool.
Deficit spending IS spending more than you take in - like buying a HOUSE that one can't PAY FOR with what one takes in with one's salary!
Again, this isn't rocket science.
And it's you who continually looks like a fool. And it's me who was ultimately responsible for you losing all credibility here, and I understand that tees you off. Too bad, so sad. Get a freakin' clue. You aren't a top dog here anymore, and won't ever again be one, because too many people got clued in to YOUR nonsense.
You not only LOOK like a fool, which I don't, but you ARE a fool, as exposed by your own failing posts!
If you BUY a house that you'll be paying for over 20 or 30 years, you are participating in DEFICIT SPENDING!
Your income during this coming year is NOT sufficient to cover the cost of that HOUSE!
It's you who has no credibility, not I.
Dippy, you poor, dull-witted sap, the full cost of your house is not included in this year's budget. Now, if your income doesn't suffice to cover your monthly mortgage, and you take a loan to cover the difference, THEN you are deficit spending.
Move out of your parents' basement and join the real world. That's the best way to learn these picayune facts of life. Don't you grow weary of being a lying troll?
You are arbitrarily making a determination that if one can EVENTUALLY pay it off, then it's not deficit spending. And that's baloney. That's not what makes it deficit spending or not!
If one can't buy the house outright, one is deficit spending.
It's a basic fact.
If your personal animus and lack of integrity impedes you from admitting your errors to me, then at least read raddave43's posts.
If one spends more than one can expect to have coming in, then it's deficit spending.
If one buys a house that one can't possibly pay off, then one is participating in deficit spending.
For YOU to dishonestly asssert that BUYING a house ISN'T buying that house is, well, dishonest.
One is NOT buying only a part of that house each month! One BOUGHT THE WHOLE HOUSE. One is simply paying for it slowly, over the years.
It's deficit SPENDING. One BOUGHT THE WHOLE HOUSE when one couldn't AFFORD the whole house.
It's YOU who can't seem to grasp this simple concept, dunderhead.
This is NOT rocket science - you need to think about it a little more, clearly!
Taking a loan to buy a house IS a debt, of course, just like the federal government borrowing money from China IS A DEBT.
But it's ALSO deficit spending! You aren't buying 1/360th of the house each month, for cripes sake. You bought the WHOLE house. You're simply paying it OFF over 360 months. Just like the federal government will have to pay off the deficit spending that THEY did over the upcoming months and years.
Let's say your monthly mortgage payment is $1000 a month.
You don't HAVE ONLY $1000 that you owe! You owe $150,000 for the whole house!
When you pay your electric bill in full each month, you aren't participating in deficit spending - THAT'S debt! But when you buy a HOUSE that you can't possibly pay off in the near future, that's not only debt, but it's ALSO deficit spending.
You're not necessarily running a deficit simply because you're in debt.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6019324_difference-between-debt-deficit_.html
Any spending cuts you make will worsen the economy, President Hoover.
2. Why should anyone's morals decide who is rich and what is fair? Obama continuously llied on the campaign trail when he insisted taxes would not go up on any family making $250,000 or less. HIRA alone will make that pledge false.
3. This is why I hate income taxes. People feel a sense of moral superiority. I make a very modest, average income. However, I don't believe the "rich" should be soaked with taxes. I have no right to their money. I have no right to your money. The only thing I have a right to are my possessions and my property. Anyone else ready for the Fair Tax yet??
4. Instead of the bleeding heart liberal bs offered by MMFA, let's have some honesty here. How many people have been hired by a "poor" person?
2. How is the health care bill going to raise taxes on families making less than 250K? don't bring up that stupid cigarette tax increase thing.
3. Nobody is taking anybody's money. Taxes are the fee for living in a society and your payback should be relative to your ability to pay. The Fair Tax is not fair. First since it takes the same percentage from everybody it will hurt people with less money. Second, it would start a race to the bottom. And even if none of that happened, what's the point? Corporations and people with the power will still find a way to avoid paying the tax.
4. Nobody. But is that a reason to treat them as leeches? And rich people don't really hire people unless its personal. There are almost no factories left since its too "expensive" and the real people who hire others are the middle-class, which normally doesn't fall under "rich". We should stop catering to the "rich" and expect them to save us and lick their boots.
2. I'm not talking about cigarettes. I'm talking about fines/taxes for people who don't purchase health insurance.
3. How much do you know about the Fair Tax? Based on you statement,
"it takes the same percentage from everybody it will hurt people with less money," I will assume just some summations. If you would like to discuss it I will, but I don't want to waste your time if you don't care to know the real details behind it.
4. I was addressing the quotes posted by MMFA. This site is supposed to be about truth and context in the media. I was just showing how, once again, MMFA was playing the bleeding heart role instead of truth seeker. I've been "poor" based on our gov't's standards. I never felt insulted by these people because I wasn't leeching. I never received a federal tax return. I always had to pay. I managed my money well, and was a self sufficient person (including purchasing my own individual health insurance).
2. Fines/taxes won't amount to raising the tax on most people. That's just a dishonest argument, not based on any numbers.
3. Check out polifact on the regressive nature of the fair tax:
link
4. How many rich people have actually worked in factories and actually made cars? Or worked as nurses, etc? Try running an economy with rich people; it obviously doesn't work.
2. It doesn't matter if it's most people. Obama specifically said on numerous occasions that if you make less than $250,000/yr you will not see one dime of your taxes go up. With HIRA, these people will see their taxes go up if they remain uninsured by choice.
3. There are pros and cons to the Fair Tax. I would prefer a reading like this. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/IsHuckabeesFairTaxReallyFair.aspx
4. Your statement makes it sound as if all rich people are born rich. This is completely untrue. The majority of wealth in this country is self-made. In other words, it is first generation. Most rich people started in labor jobs. They gained field experience and self education by working lower level jobs. This is what gives entrepeneurs the ability and pedigree to start their own businesses.
-"Try running an economy with rich people; it obviously doesn't work"
I need you to expand on that point. It takes people of all incomes to create a successful economy. My question is what do you mean by, "... it obviously doesn't work."?
I don't buy this. Can you provide any back up?
If you don't like the terminology, that's your problem.
Don't bother me.
Click on each one and look under the heading "Source". And then take up your stupid word parsing nonsense with Forbes.
We all made this country together. No one did it all by themselves.
No a poor person never gave me a job. But the jobs the rich hand out won't pay my7 bills. We don't need more eight dollar an hour jobs in this country, and that's all they have to offer.
Yep, nearly all, or many, take your pick.
How pathetic.
Pretty clear. But then you state...
So you too, do not know whether the majority of the rich were self made or not.
Now you're talking about a list of the top 25. Could you give us that link now?
And ro - you have a wonderful list (and has been pointed out there are obviously different standards for "self made") but grunt mainted that most rich people started in labour jobs and I still don't buy it.
As for class mobility, it's not as mobile as it once was (and not as mobile as Denmark, Canada and France).
It means that they have a headstart, and without that headstart they wouldn't be where they are. Self-made to me means someone who started with nothing and succeeded from there, kind of like what my brother and I did.
So rich parents make their children pay for their own post secondary schooling? And their room and board? These kids hold jobs while attending college? I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just saying it's a popular cannard on the right which is way over stated.
I gave you exactly what you doubted. I can't help it if you and others don't like the definition.
I mean does the definition of self made include when your parents pay your college tuition? Or even before college, do the offspring of the rich get to go to the best private prep schools? I would consider these things in asessing whether or not some one is a "self made" millionaire.
And again, in the quote I pasted, grunt conteded self made meant working in labour jobs. And I still don't buy it.
So it was the term "self made" that you doubted. If you want to expand now on what "this" meant, as that word is quite specific, I guess you can.
Anyway, "self made" doean't have as obvious a meaning as you are claiming.
I gave you exactly what you doubted but you'd rather use your own terminology for "self made" instead of the accepted definition. Like "self made" means they should pay for their own college, or something.
If you want to make up your own meanings for words please tell me, it will save us a lot of time, and contention.
That you don't get the entire paragraph. If I can cut and past, what possible reason would I have for pasting a whole paragraph if I am only interested in one sentence. And if you read the quote I pasted from grunt, he seems to have a different definition of "self-made" than yours. He includes "rich" people having worked in "labour jobs" and gaining experience and self education through lower level jobs.
So please explain what the "accepted definition" of self made is. It isn't in your link.
I aksed for the "accepted definition" and you give me...
So I guess we'll just call Webster from now on.
You told me? WOW! And I told you to provide the accepted meaning and you provided your own tripe. So, are you gonna find me the accepted meaning of self-made that you rferenced? I can't do it because I have no idea how you arrived at that idea.
In the mean time here is one dictionary definition...
Seems like in this accpeted definition, one would exclude anyone that went to a private school (unless they paid their own way with proceeds from the summer lemonaide stand) or had tuition or room and board paid for by their family. Hell, even getting into prestigous schools as a legacy applicant would remove one from the category of self-made.
You are flailing now at this point. LOL!
If you wanna trot out your version of the accepted definition, feel free.
So according to you, if a 10 year old goes to private school, then he or she cannot be "self made".
O.
M.
G.
You said it, you said "Seems like in this accpeted definition, one would exclude anyone that went to a private school (unless they paid their own way with proceeds from the summer lemonaide stand)". So anyone who goes to private school cannot be self made, that is exactly what you said, and you know it. Now that you are shown how moronic it is, you take your hurt feelings and go home. So be it.
Do you not think we see that? Next time, don't ask if you aren't prepared to accept the answer like an adult instead of a bratty spoiled child.
I posted a whole paragrahp from grunt. You jumped in and posted something that didn't prove what you thought it proved and now you have no idea what's going on. And in additon to my contention regarding "self-made" rich people, what you posted is a list of the top rich people it in no way addresses "most rich people" as grunt has conteded.
Not to mention your contension was that the link proved your point and then later you state...
So if it's not known if these rich people have inherited any wealth or how much, then the link is worthless.
GHowever, I am impressed by your outsized opinion of yourself which leads you to think that your concept of the meaning of "self made" is the accepted meaning.
I gotta admit, righton's self-esteem is pretty impressive, and his persistence isn't bad either.
I love threads like this, where he links to some backup, and responds to any questioning of his source as if he's just some disinterested delivery boy.
" Take it up with Forbes". Har!
And when he's asked for clarification not contained in the link, he dodges. And how many times did he demand that I look up the definition of self made yet he has refused to provide anything aside from his own musings. It is kinda funny though in a sad, pathetic kind of way.
What about if Daddy buys little Benjamin a popsicle at the park, doesn't that mean little Benjamin is taking family money too? Oops, no forget about being self made little Benjamin! You blew it.
I think righton clocks out at 5. I can't wait to see what he'll try next.
Now, if your grandfather gave you a penny when you were five years old, and you got nothing else from your family for the rest of your life, and got rich, I would definitely call you "self-made".
If Old Ben argues that, I'd say you could turn the tables and chalk up a win here. Otherwise, you're just being entertaining.
You people are nuts.
You people are nuts.
Oh, who could have guessed, just making stuff up.
Keep going, righton, you're getting in the Zone !
But feel free to make up more things that I said, I'm enjoying this.
Getting a prep school education is OFTEN one of the major things that could lead someone to have a more successful life.
So YOUR junk assertion that a Dad buying a kid a popsicle would stop that kid from ever becoming a self-made man is ridiculous and simply the flailings of a drowning man.
A child who has family money that's sufficient to pay for a prep school education and who later becomes quite successful can't be fairly classified as a self-made man.
Sue, you and Andy and Benjamin are completely wacko off the wall nutcases if you believe that. Wow.
Suggesting that Bill Gates and others like him are "self-made" is ridiculous.
I thought George and his son William Randolph the 1st were the ones who made the money, the II & III are just getting a ride. Like Paris Hilton and her sister.
IOW, they earn less than the people that the right was calling "middle class" recently, but now they're suddenly the super rich, the targets of class warfare, and proof that most "rich" people are "self-made".
It's always Groundhog's Day on Planet Wingnut.
"Obama specifically said on numerous occasions that if you make less than $250,000/yr you will not see one dime of your taxes go up."
Nope.
Obama specifically was talking about taxes based upon INCOME. He specifically listed multiple taxes that are ALL based upon income!
You're a liar.
Which, not surprisingly, is exactly what I said.
You have NEVER debunked me, and you didn't do it here either!
But you're a liar as well as a paid troll, so it's what we've come to expect.
It's what Obama said Sue. ANY, do you know what ANY means?
You've been debunked again as a dishonest liar. Aren't you sick of that yet?
Obama REPEATEDLY say similar things. And EVERY time he said them, he was ALWAYS talking about taxes based upon income. That's why, in some cases, like the one we're talking about HERE, he actually gave us a partial list of taxes based upon INCOME!
He didn't list ANY taxes EXCEPT those based upon income. So, no, I wasn't debunked "again" - when you debunk me in the future, if ever, it'll be the first time you've ever debunked me, doofus, and everyone knows that.
You know, it really isn't too hard to go on youtube and find videos. Anyway, Obama concluded his list of no tax hikes like this. "$250,000... you will not see your taxes go up. Not your INCOME taxes, not your payroll tax, not capital gains taxes, you will not see ANY OF YOUR TAXES GO UP." Video evidence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVMWjTQh_Y&feature=fvw
Maybe before you call someone a liar you should review the tape. Why would he separate income taxes and "any of your taxes" if he was only talking about income? I won't call you a liar, but I will say that your representation was dishonest. Good thing there is some opposition in here (MMFA) now because I am starting to believe that some of you have never been confronted on your "misspeaking".
She didn't get that unique distinction for telling the truth and being honest.
In Dippy's defense, I think at least some of her comments stem from sheer stupidity, rather than outright dishonesty. (see "deficit spending" above).
Too late.
This is YOUR side lying about an issue.
I have never been proven to be dishonest on this site or any other one - I don't write stuff I can't back up. I just don't. Now, YOU have no credibility, and everyone knows that, and I am the main cause of you not having any credibility. I made you lose the credibility you apparently had for years here. I understand that frustrates you and tees you off. Too bad, so sad.
Well, I've asked you repeatedly to reconcile what you said two weeks ago, as quoted in part below:
Yes, that's true, if they refuse to give their consent to a breath test, and later can document that they were too drunk to make that determination and to understand what they were doing, they can get off on the charge of refusing to consent to a breath test.
Time, and time, and time and again it was explained to you that the court held exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Yet you continued, dishonestly, to state that what you wrote was correct and that mmfa's article was your "back up."
You can't "back up" what you wrote, because it was flatly incorrect.
You were demonstrably wrong, you knew you were wrong, and yet you continued to lie . . .
The court said that they can't claim that they didn't know what they were doing when they GAVE consent!
You're the one who doesn't know what they are talking about, AND I have explained this at least 4 times in the past, so your claim that you've been trying without success to get me to explain this is totally bogus - just like ALL your other complaints.
Again, here's what you said:
Yes, that's true, if they refuse to give their consent to a breath test, and later can document that they were too drunk to make that determination and to understand what they were doing, they can get off on the charge of refusing to consent to a breath test.
As repeatedly cited to you, here's what the court RULED:
"It is no defense to a refusal charge for drivers to claim that they were too drunk to understand the standard statement. See State v. Quaid, 172 N.J. Super. 533, 537 (Law Div. 1980). In other words, it is not necessary for the State to prove that a driver actually understood the warnings on a subjective level. Cf. Widmaier, supra, 157 N.J. at 498 ("[D]efendant's subjective intent is irrelevant in determining whether the defendant's responses to the officer constitute a refusal to take the test."). If properly informed in a language they speak or understand while sober, drivers can be convicted under the implied consent and refusal statutes. Voluntary, excessive drinking cannot and does not void the statutes. Indeed, that type of voluntary behavior is fundamentally distinct from a person's utter lack of ability to understand a foreign language."
This is not rocket science. If you can't see the error in your assertion, then your stupidity is staggering. My guess, though, is that you actually can read - at least a 4th grade level - but you can't acknowledge your errors because you're a dishonest troll.
It's that someone can't CONSENT to the test, and then say that they were TOO DRUNK to know that they should have refused to consent.
The one poster here who has continuously exhibited his ignorance and stupidity would be you. That's indisputable.
Everyone knows the difference between the quality posts I make and the syncophant posts YOU make in support of RightON. Only if you're delusional could you believe anything else!
That's some high quality stuff, Dolly. Face it, you were wrong and called out on it, but you're a petulant little troll and can't admit your error, and so you make up barely comprehensible lies. PATHETIC.
That's some high quality stuff, Dolly. Face it, you were wrong and called out on it, but you're a petulant little troll and can't admit your error, and so you make up barely comprehensible lies. PATHETIC.
That was the LIST he made, doofus - ALL taxes based upon income.
For YOU to assert that he was talking about ANY kinds of taxes is disproven by the fact that he ONLY listed taxes that are based upon INCOME!
"Why would he separate income taxes and "any of your taxes" if he was only talking about income?"
Well, like I said above, WHY would he be talking about all KINDS of taxes and then simply mention ones that are based on income? He wouldn't. The list was a list of taxes based upon income, because the commitment he was making was to NOT raise those taxes!
This is not rocket science!
Just like when he said the following...
"If your family earns less than $250,000 a year -- a quarter million dollars a year -- you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: Not one single dime. (Applause.) Not a dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut -- that's right, a tax cut -- for 95 percent of working families. And by the way, these checks are on the way.
...he was NOT talking about ANY taxes other than taxes on one's INCOME. And the way that one can TELL that? Because he started OUT the statement with discussing INCOME! I swear, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out!
I have seen that YouTube video many, many times, because LOTS of people just like you have made that same FAILED argument, and I've repeatedly debunked it.
You're parsing his words in a dishonest way.
Well, he didn't say that. Here is another quote from the President from September 12, 2008. "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increases".
Now, as he does in other instances he goes on to list certain taxes. However, based on this statement to lead the list, he is saying ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASES. Tell me how "any form" applies only to income?
-"That was the LIST he made, doofus - ALL taxes based upon income."
Why are you insulting me? I'm trying to explain my point to you like you asked.
-"For YOU to assert that he was talking about ANY kinds of taxes is disproven by the fact that he ONLY listed taxes that are based upon INCOME!"
I hate to admit it, but I was kind of setting you up. You see, baed on your other posts, I knew you didn't care to check out any video or articles to confirm your belief. However, I knew that Obama had said "ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASES." I guess you might want to find a different angle.
-"This is not rocket science!"
No it's not. It just requires a little reading and digging. Obama saying "ANY FORM" totally disproves your whole argument here. Maybe it is rocket science for some people?
-"Because he started OUT the statement with discussing INCOME! I swear, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out!"
Yes, but you could have done a little digging and found out he said "any form" in another speech.
-"I've repeatedly debunked it."
Well, now you've been debunked. Back to the drawing board I guess. You may have debunked people who don't know their stuff, but you won't get away with that with me.
-"You're parsing his words in a dishonest way."
Good conclusion, but it is based on false premises. Again, he said "any form of tax increases." You are defending Obama without knowing and searching out as much as you can about what he said.
The Justice Department in now calling the insurance mandate fine a tax increase to make it Constitutional. But Obama repeatedly claimed it wasn't a tax. Most famously http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio.
He was TALKING about taxes based upon income.
That's why he MENTIONED people's INCOME, doofus, when he was talking about their taxes based upon their income not going up!
It's undeniable that Obama was ALWAYS ONLY talking about taxes based upon income.
Yet you deny it. That tells us that you're delusional.
-"For YOU to assert that he was talking about ANY kinds of taxes is disproven by the fact that he ONLY listed taxes that are based upon INCOME!"
You said there is no way he was talking about "any kinds of taxes." Well, Obama specifically said, "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see ANY FORM of tax increases."
It is puzzling to me because he said almost exactly what you said he wasn't saying. What he meant by that is up to translation. You believe he was only talking about income taxes. I disagree. I don't believe he would say "any form" if he ONLY meant INCOME TAXES. You choose to believe that is what he meant. That's fine. I don't know why you feel the need to name call. IT diminishes your credibility (let your argument speak for itself).
2. The fee for choosing to not purchase insurance is NOT a tax based upon income!
So no roads for you, we built those. You probably have to give up your car as well, considering it is only safe to drive because of safety inspections that we pay for. The cops aren't coming to your door, neither are firemen, because you know you didn't throw in to support them.
The list goes on and on, no man is an island. So turn down your self-righteousness and machismo and save it for the rest of your poor friends who constantly bash the poor, imbeciles.
I know it's a right wng talking point that he's been spoon-fed, but let's rephrase it more honestly; Not "How many people have been hired by a "poor" person? ", but " who owes their living to poor people?".
The WalMart fortunes, the families who have been made wealthy by McDonald's, PayDay loan sharks, these people don't make their money off the rich.
One can only sell so many yachts and Rolls Royces. It's much harder to find somebody who makes a living off of rich people than those who depend on the rest of us working stiffs.
Oops, did you mean that they paid for?
And what portion of those are rich? At least some are:
Here's a way to dodge taxes.
The 501c(3) tax exemption for charity is also popular.
Speaking of artificial persons, most of them avoid income tax too.
The rich have had their taxes cut in half over the past 4 decades...when will they quit crying and enjoy being above the law?
Better questions: How many rich people get rich without multitudes of not-rich people making or buying their sh*t? How many rich people get rich without the support of public infrastructure of the protection of our laws?
American Corporations are sitting on piles of money right now, but they're not creating many new jobs. Another question: If Corporations don't create jobs, why should we give them the legal protections of incorporation, or the tax breaks? What the hell are they good for if they don't provide jobs?
Bingo. As if the economy could run without poor people, and as if the poor people don't contribute to the productivity.
Everyone on that list, whether they're self made or inheritors, made their fortune on the backs of those who labor at hourly wages. And very few of those workers made great hourly rates.
All of them. We all are employed because of consumer spending and the consumers need a steady supply of income. This big mess was caused by trickle down supply side economics which argued that the wealthy, particularly though dubious investing, just magically created wealth and and labor and consumers weren't very important. We should put a bigger focus on small business and strong labor protections rather than abstract investment schemes.
Without a strong middle class to buy their widgets, they will eventually starve to death, or be forced to abandon the American market. Many have already abandoned America as a source of labor.
GM, after being bailed out by American taxpayers, is shipping even more jobs overseas.
It won't be immorality, laziness, or any of the other Troglodyte bugaboos that will destroy our country... we will be undone by the greed of the top 1%.
I thought avoiding your tax obligations as much as possible was considered a good thing by conservatives, who think taxation is theft. At any rate this is no big deal because the number can be adjusted in a democratically elected government system. This argument almost sounds like like class envy, something conservatives claim only liberals do. Maybe the less wealthy should pay something but the idea is that those that make more pay more.
2. Why should anyone's morals decide who is rich and what is fair?
Well why should anyone's morals decide that its ok to pay a professional athlete millions of dollars and a doctor hundreds of thousands of dollars? Obviously wealth redistribution is not moral to begin with: The guys working to cure cancer don't make as much money as Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan.
There is nothing immoral in saying that those that do well in society have an obligation to reinvest a little bit more into the maintenance of a society that rewards their efforts greatly.
3. This is why I hate income taxes. People feel a sense of moral superiority. I make a very modest, average income. However, I don't believe the "rich" should be soaked with taxes.
Moral superiority has nothing to do with it. Its not punishment, its paying your way. Maybe you think it is moral superiority to charge people more to have front row tickets at a sporting event.
The rich have been soaked with wealth by definition. They have been rewarded amply for their efforts. Its funny how people who struggle with a very modest, average income are so worried about the rich having to pay their fair share. No one is proposing going back to the 1950's high tax brackets for the wealthy, however even back then it wasn't a bad time to be rich. When is it a bad time to be rich in a democracy?
I have no right to their money. I have no right to your money.
You have access to all the security, services and infrastructure provided to you by government. Those things cost money. If you sell something to someone for a pre-agreed upon price and you deliver the goods, you do have a right to their money. We have taxation WITH representation. The price is pre-agreed upon and the services are delivered.
Maybe if you don't wan't have someone taking your money, you should go somewhere there is nothing but forests and lakes and you can enjoy your piles of money all by yourself.
The only thing I have a right to are my possessions and my property.
What about freedom of religion, speech, arms...
you seem to think that your right to your possessions gives you the right to not have to pay for anything. Why pay your utility bill? That is taking away some of your property... oh but you get something in return there. Your ok with that I bet. Well paying taxes is like another utility bill. It is not theft, it is not taking away your right to all your property...
Anyone else ready for the Fair Tax yet??
Will it be progressive? Will it exempt certain items like food, rent, medical?
How about a gradually introduced carbon tax. That would be fair because the transactions that are causing damage to our atmosphere would be eventually priced out of existence. With the tax, the cost of fossil fuel will reflect the true cost of the transaction because cost of the damage would be included in the price. It would give incentive to make better choices by rewarding those who make those those choices with a lower tax.
How many people have been hired by a "poor" person?
yes, I have been hired by people who make 250,000 dollars a year or less. This is an insulting straw man indeed. It implies that for rich people to keep hiring us, they need to be treated gently and keep as much of their wealth as they can. In reality, that rich person is hiring me because it will make him even more money. He/she is not doing it to be nice because i voted for republican libertarians and he/she is returning the favor.
Even if a rich person pays 10% more taxes, that doesn't change the fact that he/she still wants to invest their surplus to make more surplus. Libertarians would have you believe that the 10% that goes to taxes is lost, but it is really just another investment. How many jobs are created or maintained by the services and infrastructure that those taxes pay for. Also we are in debt current proposals are a way to lower that.
This treat the rich gently would make more sense if:
A. Rich people spent 100% of their wealth reinvesting in job creation
B. We were not in debt
C. We didn't have high maintenance costs in order to create an environment where a person's efforts can be rewarded with great wealth.
"Well I made 10 million last year and this year I only made 8. Well I guess I better sell off and retire if I can only make 8 right?"
Conservatives don't complain half as much about welfare for the wealthy as they do the poor. Where was their outrage at bailing out the failed financial markets (when it was happening; after Bush left, suddenly it was a bad idea because it benefited Obama's presidency)?
Compare that redistribution of wealth to the pittance paid out to the destitute unemployed masses. Where is THEIR bailout? Why isn't a human life too big to fail? This is as much a moral question as a financial one.
Randy
Corporations also redistribute wealth. They probably redistribute more wealth than anyone else. Sometimes it goes to a working or middle class wage, sometimes it goes to wall street people who get billions in bonuses for rigging the system. Overall corporations exist to redistribute wealth to their elites and trickle the rest down to keep the enterprise functioning so that it continues to redistribute wealth to their elites.
There is nothing more pathetic than a poor person who doesn't realize they are poor, tricked in to thinking that they too will some day be rich. Guess what, it ain't happening.
And I'm not complaining about paying taxes. I have no problem with that but I'd much rather my taxes go to helping poor children succeed than making sure rich corporations make a huge profit.
The US Department of Defense.
I'll talk about the other departments after we take the knife to the military budget.
You call a top rate of 35% a chunk of your income? If the person who had a tax rate of 35% earned 50,000 a year, it would be, but the person who earns the 380,000 required to pay that rate would be after paying taxes, earn 247,000. That is without counting deductions. Its a chunk in the sense that it takes more than 25%, but it doesn't cripple the taxpayer.
Our tax money is wasted when its stolen by politicians or transefred to the private market without any strings attached.
That's over 100k in taxes. What is he getting in return, other than the nonsense of the price of living in a society? He uses none of the crap of which you guys speak. He simply pays taxes. And they keep going up. No wonder he's mad.
And those best able to afford to pay the funds necessary to keep that country running are the ones who SHOULD pay whatever is necessary to do so.
It's called a progresive income tax system, and for close to 100 years, the American public and their elected representatives have wholeheartedly supported it.
You're welcome to move to a less-successful country at any time.
It's the "SHOULD" and "necessary" part that the D's and R's have a difference with.
...but no one has even tried to do that!
And that's because it is OVERWHELMINGLY supported. You claim that the Republicans in general don't think that a progressive income tax where the people best able to afford to pay taxes should do so, and those who need every penny to survive and help their children thrive is a good thing, and you are WRONG. Most sane people, including Republicans, understand this.
You don't.
It;s YOUR failure that you don't understand that the American public is AGAINST your idea that the progressive tax system is a bad thing!
Yet again, you don't know what you're talking about, Dave. I have yet to see ONE example of your knowing what you're talking about - not once in all the posts of yours I've ever read.
And how come you say he uses none of the crap he (is willing to find loopholes to not) pay[s] for. So rich people have their own roads, police force, firemen, all send their children to private schools, regulate thier own foods and medicines, extract resources from thin air and all work on their factories.
By the way you have posted here before it seems like you fall under that group with all your condescending comments of "children washing your car". No wonder you don't have empathy and only think of your precious little money.
I somebody is paying something for me, i pay them back. to not do so is just pure greed and selfishness. I have a question for you. Why should the taxes of the upper 5% be lower?
If after taxes and all your other business expenses, you only have a middle class income, then you aren't going to be paying additional taxes AND YOU AREN'T rich, doofus!
Either you are rich, and you have a rich person's income, or you are middle class, and you have a middle class income!
Until we GET that smaller government, the one we CURRENTLY HAVE needs to be paid for! How can you POSSIBLY not understand that?
We need to increase taxes, once the economy improves enough, on those who can afford those tax increases, because we in a huge hole.