For whom?

wishful thinking.

They cut prices a lot to avoid the early appearance of depression.

Flash in the pan, It will be the leanest season retailers have ever experienced, Wal-mart will be laying more off in 2010...

Maybe walmart will fold. Probably not but those evil republican bastards need to be taught a lesson.

And again the righties like feelbad pray for America to fail.

They aren't called "cheerleaders for failure" for nothing.

After suporting Jeff Gannon's idiot girlfriend for 8 years, Rtards live to fail. (Except teabaggers, they live for scrotum!)

Last year's prelim data were encouraging too, until retailers realized that it was the advertised specials and deeply discounted electronics that were snapped up, and after Black Friday weekend, traffic dropped off dramatically.

Hopefully this year is different, but we won't really know until the second week of December. The durables number last week was a disaster, which is usually more telling than retail sales in 4Q. But in this economy, the old rules may no longer apply.

The unemployment rate is still increasing. The only question in my mind is how much 4Q sales will be below the year before.

"Preliminary data indicates Black Friday sales got off to a roaring start this year"

This sounds like it was written Wednesday by an Obama supporter.

Now for Saturday's article:

"Preliminary sales data from Martin's organization, a Chicago research firm that tracks sales at more than 50,000 stores, showed shoppers spent $10.66 billion when they hit the malls on the day after Thanksgiving. That's only 0.5 percent more than last year when Black Friday sales rose a striking 3 percent."

Well, shit, it had been reported that Tommy Hilfiger was going to have a 40% off everything online sale, but then all they had yesterday was 40% off bedding. So apparently they are doing well enough anyway that they don't even need to have a sale on clothing. I may have to make a trip to their outlet store in Boaz, Ala. Now I just saw something where some genius has cooked up a new thing called White Monday which is supposed to be a huge online discount day.

encouraging?

I passed by the usual places heading out of town friday morning for an overnight camp. At 9am, the parking lots looked like a typical saturday morning.

did the include the stores like gap, etc opening on thursday in their calculations?

Since many stores in US are wishing Muslims "Eid Mubarak", it is reasonable to assume, they have more Muslim shoppers.

So the sales would look encouraging. LOL

"A recent Associated Press (AP) poll has shown that 93 percent of Americans say they will spend the same or less this year than they did last year on their holiday shopping. Worse for the "debtocracy", 80 percent of respondents say they will do the majority of their shopping using cash. And of those who said they were going to use credit cards, 75 percent said they would pay the bill in full as it came due. US retailers don't much like this as 40 percent of their annual sales come in the month between now and Christmas."

How is it that lefties can never seem to see what an attentive 3rd grader should grasp?

Exactly like "Clunkers" program farce - this is meaningless in the big picture. And the big picture is this --

As long as policies are in place which reward the non-productives in this country at the expense of increasingly over-taxed people working their asses off for net less and less -- the only direction we are headed is south! All the rest is window dressing.

86% of all Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners!! I realize that this isn't nearly enough for most Liberals. It isn't enough that the top 50% of earners foot 96+% of the tax tab!! Yea - almost HALF of the country pays ZERO.

But idiots on here root for Wal-Mart to fail, and for the prosecution on Navy Seal HEROES to be freaking prosecuted. These guys have more character in their little toes than the additive total of every every liberal on this board -- and un-American disgraces like Holder, et al actually have the balls to go ahead with court martial proceedings!? Are you freaking kidding me??

Let's prosecute the CIA too. Oh, and wire tapping of terrorist phone calls tramples on their civil rights; give the scum of the earth a civilian trial vs. a military tribunal; and how about "amnesty" for illegals soon?. And..... aghhhhhhhh!!!

JM

JM

#14 | Posted by dockj

Wow, fascinating! What brand tea-bag do you prefer?

You must be part of that crazy crowd that thinks Obama is a liberal and that Bush was a conservative. If so, you are wrong on both accounts. Put your lamp-shade back on and go back to your drunken party of ignorance.

Dock

This the kind of stat you talking about?

This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes.

So they make 12% but pay 20% oh woe is them.

You see people paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes but are missing the glaringly obvious point that .1% of the US controls 12% of the income.

You couldn't get into our local mall last year. It wasn't but half filled this year. Somebody's fudging the numbers .

#16 | Posted by TaoWarrior

What is your point?

Tao #16..
Yes. Why not show a bit more of your paste from the tax foundation? No problem. I got it (see below). So the numbers reveal that the top tenth of one percent of taxpayers account for TWENTY PERCENT of the total fed individual income taxes paid! Please note the parenthetical sentence at the bottom -- IN MOST CASES THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE BY THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED .. in these stats.

>>This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent (i.e., top .1% of earners) amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. (Note that in the case of capital gains and dividends, in most cases the income has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here.)

Lipzoid #15

Agreed - Bush was absolutely no Conservative. He was a dunce Liberal who lied to me about being a Conservative. I have never tried to make the case otherwise.

On the other hand - Obama NOT a Liberal? WOW.. no sense even going there with you.

You can go back to the couch at the insane asylum with your Fritos, and wait around for the government check.

JM

Many smart stores this year are carrying about 30% less inventory into the xmas season compared to last year.

"86% of all Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners!"

So what? Income taxes aren't the only federal taxes people pay. In fact, the majority of workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

#20 | Posted by dockj

Obama is too far left to be called a liberal.

"So what? Income taxes aren't the only federal taxes people pay. In fact, the majority of workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes."
#22 | Posted by Danforth

The workers also pay more in the new cigarette taxes than they pay in income taxes. Taxes that were signed into law by a president that stated over and over again that they would not see their taxes raise by one dime. Not one dime but instead hundreds of dollars.

"Taxes that were signed into law by a president that stated over and over again that they would not see their taxes raise by one dime."

You're right: that was a stupid statement by Obama. We're in trouble, and it's going to take all of us if we have any chance of pulling back up.

(Except teabaggers, they live for scrotum!)

#6 | Posted by axe

I guess you are speaking for yourself.

Sniper, your memory banks need recharging: you're the goober who got a dump for obsessing about nut sucking.

If I was making a mil a year I would gladly refund my 28% to the government of the country that made it possible.

I would force myself to scrape by on $720K.

SIL-
I don't know what you actually make, but whatever it is, would you also agree to gladly refund 28% to the government of the country that made it possible?

Beyond that, what/why did the government make it possible?

My underlying point is this: Why should those making more have to pay any greater percentage of it in income taxes? Because they "can afford" it? How is that a justification?

My underlying point is this: Why should those making more have to pay any greater percentage of it in income taxes? Because they "can afford" it? How is that a justification?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-11-29 03:54 PM | Reply

Because they have benefited more from what society has made possible. You know those little things like Roads and Schools and Bridges and all that infrastructure shit. You know without all of that stuff they wouldn't be as wealthy as they are today. So Yes they should pay more in taxes bghecause they owe it to society at large.

Larry

Actually the roads and bridges are paid for by those who use it the most, by virtue of gasoline taxes, levied per gallon paid.

I'm thankful that I live in a free country. But I've never understood why someone who earns $80,000 a year is only half as grateful as someone who earns twice that, yet the one pulling down $160k is putting in more than 3 times the taxes.

Whatever though. If half the libbies who pretend to be offended by their Bush tax rate actually paid accordingly, we wouldn't have any deficits.

They pay more, but should it necessarily have to be a higher percentage? If so, why?

To your comment, "Because they have benefited more from what society has made possible."

What does that mean? It sounds nice, but what are you really saying?

We all have the freedom to pursue whatever course we want. Should those who have had greater financial success be penalized? Why not have all people contribute equal percentages of their income?

What does that mean? It sounds nice, but what are you really saying?

We all have the freedom to pursue whatever course we want. Should those who have had greater financial success be penalized? Why not have all people contribute equal percentages of their income?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-11-29 04:06 PM | Reply

Damn dude are You this dense?? If it weren't for the Opportunities provided by society at large these folks wouldn't be as wealthy as they are now. Think about it Schools including Colleges allowing them to get an education so they can become rich. The Pell Grants and Student loans that some needed to make something great of themselves. Not to mention the highways that move their goods and services over the nation. Not to mention all the incidentals. Police Fire Military etc etc etc. DOn't You think they owe it to society to pay a higher percentage of their wages to the Federal Government that made it all possible?? You betcha they do.

Larry

"DOn't You think they owe it to society to pay a higher percentage of their wages to the Federal Government that made it all possible?? You betcha they do." LAR

No.
Why do you feel some people ought to pay a HIGHER percentage of their income?

To use your logic, if I can find a way to earn $100,000 and you earn $25,000 why should I have to pay a HIGHER percentage than you? I'm already paying more in taxes because I've earned more, but why should I pay a HIGHER percentage?

To use your logic, if I can find a way to earn $100,000 and you earn $25,000 why should I have to pay a HIGHER percentage than you? I'm already paying more in taxes because I've earned more, but why should I pay a HIGHER percentage?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-11-29 04:22 PM | Reply

BECAUSE YOU HAVE BENEFITTED MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have told You 3 times now OohRah. You're supposed to be smarter than Me. What happened??

I don't know what you actually make

My best year was $114K.

I paid my taxes with pride.

OOHRAH,
You are of course right. The higher earner should pay more TOTAL tax by virtue of his higher earnings.. but there is no good rationale for his paying a higher PERCENTAGE.

The conclusion that the wealthy guy should pay a higher percentage of his income because he "benefitted more" is a total non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow logically from the premise.

Larry and other lefties have a problem with the idea that success should follow from hard work - and they seek to "correct" any inequities by punishing those who rise above. This is why, for example, lefties like to prohibit giving grades to school children for instance -- or they favor pewawnting a trophy to everyone in the field day sprint because "everyone's a winner".

JM

What the hell...?
WOW - typo in my last post. Where the heck were my fingers?

last line --- or they favor PRESENTING a trophy...

JM

LAR-
You still haven't explained why someone should have to pay a higher percentage of their income. If I make $100,000 and you make $25,000... you're likely not paying any federal income taxes to begin with. Is that fair?

Your argument that "I'm benefitting more" is dubious. What if my income is dervived by my work at a company? I paid for my college... I'm more highly skilled than you... and as a result I earn more than an unskilled worker.

I pay a lot more in taxes than you do to begin with due to my $100,000 salary. Why is it fair that I should have to pay a HIGHER percentage than what you pay... if you even have to pay a nickel?

I pay a lot more in taxes than you do to begin with due to my $100,000 salary. Why is it fair that I should have to pay a HIGHER percentage than what you pay... if you even have to pay a nickel?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-11-29 05:18 PM | Reply

Damn dude are YUou tyhis ignorant. I have told You several times now OohRqah. It is because You benefited more from what society has provided than the 25 thousand dollar yearly wage. What do I have to do to S P E L L I T O U T F O R Y O U. I plan top be in college next Year if it rewards Me with a good career I owe it to society to pay more of My taxes to it. Because without the beneifits from society I would be one stupid dumb ignorant turd fuck otherwise.

Larry

You know what screw this I have housework to do.

Larry

I'm already paying more... why the higher percentage if I've EARNED the higher pay based on my efforts and education?

Why should you get a pass on taxes (or a lower rate) because you haven't made the personal or professional sacrifice to achieve?

I'm not suggesting that I should pay a lower rate. I'm saying you've yet to offer credible evidence as to why (beyond class warfare) I should have to necessarily HIGHER rate. I've dispatched your "roads & bridges" rationale.

Heck, I could work from home via computer. I'm not even driving to work, etc. Beyond that "it's just how it's always been" you've provided no rationale as to why I should have to pay a HIGHER percentage of my income.

OOHRAH,

Because through sales tax, exise tax, gas tax etc. the person earning less is paying a higher percentage. If you make 100k a year and pay 500 bucks in gas tax you are probably paying the same ammount as the schmuck making 25k so he is paying a higher percent than you. Same with sales tax and every other tax than income tax. So in the end the schmuck making 25k probably pays a higher percent in taxes than you.

Did you notice from the article that Dock linked to that the percent the top .1% pay is 21.5.

Suposedly the folks making over 372,950 should pay 35%. 21% is about what the guy making 33k pays. So these .1%ers pay the same rate as joe six pack making 33k and thats not counting the damage that all the regressive taxes do to joe six pack.

TAO-
Now you're bringing into account consumption tax. The wealthy also consume more... but we're not factoring in the sales tax or other taxes they'd incur.

There is a fundamental problem when roughly half the population pay NO federal income tax, no?

#41 | Posted by OohRah

Unfortunately, The Democrat Party has moved way left in the last election. The current POTUS was elected, in large part, due to class warfare. Fact of the matter is, you could say he's CIC over three wars. Iran/Afghanistan, and the one he's waging here at home. Against those that produce wealth.

I'm not wealthy, by any means, but I'm still against incrementally higher tax brackets based solely on total amount earned. Larry, and the left who agree with him, are nothing more than predators who use their numbers to overwhelm the prey.

OOHRAH,
Tao "forgot" to mention though, that the top one-tenth of one percent of tax payers, are actually paying an effective rate higher than the 21.5% that he cites. Much of their income comes from cap gains and dividends - which have ALREADY been taxed once at the corporate level(and which taxes are not figured in to the 21.5% figure).

Again - read my post #36. You must understand that to argue this point is useless. It's unfair in the eyes of liberals, that some people are more successful than others - and the scales must be brought back into "balance". These achievers must be punished by wealth confiscation.

JM

The fundamental problem of the people who do not pay any tax is that they don't have any money.

Grumpy,
Well said! I assume then, you would agree that one immediate step that should be taken is to CLOSE the border to illegals? Stem the flow of the gargantuan drain on this economy - yes?

I expect to be soundly thrashed by Tao and Larry for such a racist suggestion. What is your take on that?

JM

Dock,

These achievers

What percent of those "achievers" did anything more than be born to the right family?

Honestly even that does not concern me however when you talk about capital gains having taxes already paid on it. Well so does my wages. The company has to pay taxes so they can't pay me as much. Stupid argument. The capital gains are only the profits so once again you think it is ok for the guy who makes 33k a year to pay the same income tax rate as the guy who makes 7.4 million?

You argue that the guy who makes 7.4 million consumes more but does that consumption equal 7.4 million? No, well I guarantee you the guy making 33k spends all of his. So the percent of consumption taxes are lower. Not only that but the sales tax on a yacht is not the same as it is on a new coffee maker so even though they consume more the tax rate for much of that consumption is lower.

Finally the guy who makes 33k does not use as much services as the guy who makes 7.4 mil. The guy who makes 33k probably doesn't fly too often so no airports, he doesn't have a lot of stuff to protect so much less need of police, or fire departments.

Oh and before I forget did any of those capital gains come from a company that gets any government subsidy, grant or bailout? If so then the tax is no more a tax than what a federal employee pays just a number shuffle.

I don't want to rape the rich but to say they should pay the same as a poor sucker just trying to survive is nuts.

Dock,

I expect to be soundly thrashed by Tao and Larry for such a racist suggestion. What is your take on that?

Umm you don't follow my postings much do you? Hell yeah close the borders load all the illegals you can on to a train and get rid of them. Then build a 20 foot high wall with barbwire at the top and a moat filled with pirranah.

The only thing worse than what the illegals are doing to the economy is what the corp.'s are doing with outsourcing.

"US Shoppers Spent Less on Black Friday Than Last Year"
"Sunday, November 29, 2009, 5:08 PM
This is not a good sign.
US shoppers spent less this year on Black Friday than last year.
CNBC reported:
American consumers shopped more for bargains at the start of the U.S. holiday season and spent significantly less than a year ago, according to early data released on Sunday.
Consumers said they will have spent nearly 8 percent less on average, or about $343 per person, over the weekend that includes U.S. Thanksgiving Day, Black Friday and runs through Sunday, according to the National Retail Federation.

That stimulus sure worked wonders, didn't it?"

Tao,
1, My apologies. We are on the same page on the illegals issue.

2. Corps are in business to earn a profit. Their duty to investors is to operate as responsibly as possible (I do not in any way mean to suggest that they are short on scumbags). If taxes and other "costs" are prohibitive here (...which they are. I am a small business owner getting killed by them), why would they not seek opportunities elsewhere?

3. >>Finally the guy who makes 33k does not use as much services as the guy who makes 7.4 mil. The guy who makes 33k probably doesn't fly too often so no airports, he doesn't have a lot of stuff to protect so much less need of police, or fire departments.

Right - the Millionaire flies more often. You think he flies for free?? He BUYS plane tix. He rents limos. He rents hotels, runs up big meal and bar tabs, pays greens fees, buys hookers... maybe owns a place on Key West on which he pays property taxes and pays a landscaper and a roofer and a plumber. He buys new clothes for vacation. Buys cars and boats and on and on and on... He loads money into the economy.

JM

Tao
Oh yea - companies should be getting NO bailouts! That's what bankruptcies are for.

JM

Dock #53 true but there are a lot of government handouts to companies. More I think than most people know about. You run a small company and are worried about taxes, however what if you could get a 5 million dollar grant per year from the government? What if your company were 5 times the size you were and could afford an army of tax lawyers and a compliance department? Those are the guys I want to hit. You hell yeah I would cut every tax I could for you while running down the deficit. Were talking about folks who's adjusted income is 7.4 million thats after their army of tax lawyers and accountants are done with their returns. No idea how much you make but if it's 10% of that I would be amazed I have been one and know many small business owners, so if it is 10% of that congrats! Those guys with the limos and stuff do not put nearly as much into the economy as they take out and 10 small business owners who make 5% of that probably put twice as much into the economy.

John makes $30,000 per year. He thinks Mary should pay more taxes.

Mary makes $500,000 per year. John thinks an income tax of 30% of $500,000 isn't enough ($150,000). She should have to pay 40%.

John tells his Congressmen to make Mary pay more.

Congress agrees and raises Mary's tax to 40%.

Mary has to pay $50,000 more this year.

Mary lays off one employee because she has a business and a $50,000 hit leaves here with $300,000. That $300,000 pays for her family of 6 -their house, schooling, medical care, food and clothing.

Mary also gives 10% of her income to charity - that's.

Her husband is paralyzed from the neck down. A lot of her money needs to pay for things that she can't write off. Because she makes too much money, the Alternative Minimum Tax denies her write-offs too.

With a couple kids with mental disabilities, this is really hurting her.

So, she goes into work, calls her 10 employees together and tells them, due to new tax rates, she can't afford 10 people. She can only afford to carry 9.

Considering the people she has, she lays off the person with the least number of years working for the company, with the least experience, and the least education.

She lays off John.

John should keep his mouth shut and steal from Mary to supplement his income. If Mary lays him off he can sell his stolen goods while he is looking for a new job. Teach republicans a lesson one way or another.

People who make money hire people.

People who pay more taxes hire less people.

The choice is where to cut?

We all make choices of how we spend our money - more so when more is taken by the gov't.

Wanting rich people to pay more in taxes is going to cause cuts somewhere and that will affect employees somewhere.

Pet yep it will cause cuts unless you leave the corporate taxes alone and raise the idividual income tax then cutting employees doesn't help much.

If the company makes you too much money you get hit in a higher tax bracket and gain nothing so you run your company in a sustainable manner dumping most of your profit back into the company. You make a bit less per year but 10 years from now you have a strong company still making you money. I keep saying it's this pump Q profits that is killing us. Our business owners are making very poor long term decisions to make sure the earnings reports come out strong THIS Q.

Oh and most small business would not be affected by higher taxes on the top 1% of earnings. Most would not be affected by higher taxes on the top 10%.

But, when I read people on the DR saying we should tax the rich at 50% or more, that is going to affect us. If someone pays $5 million on $10 million, that's $5 million that rich person is paying the gov't instead of using.

That is going to affect someone because, if that rich person invests $5 million (which explains how the make money), then there is a great benefit to many.

The gov't taking of it either prevents the investment or will cause an investment to collapse.

That is going to affect someone because, if that rich person invests $5 million (which explains how the make money), then there is a great benefit to many.

Stop that trickle down talk, Petrous. They didnt understand Reagan, they wont understand you..

Thom Hartmann says trickle down is bs economics. I believe him more than I beleive anybody on this message board.

Tao
I am in agreement with you (wow - this is twice in the thread :) on the "army of lawyers" point. There are gargantuan loopholes and work-arounds which allow way too much fraud.

My basic point is - if freaking government would get the hell out of the way of business - large and small - the financial wheels in this country will be lubricated.

However - this is impossible when we have people at the helm (I include Bush here) who continue to promote policies that, by definition, require the confiscation of more and more and more money, in order to toss it at the un-productives of the country and world.

Back to closing the borders I go. Mortgages to indigents, ACORN, Van Jones, Rev Wright, MAN-MADE global warming, prosecuting Navy Seals (American HEROES!!), CIA, etc., -- all bad for the country

Have a nice day.

JM

PS - JACKASS is perhaps the biggest cretin on D.R. (and that's saying something!)

DockJ isn't very bright. If the Govt uses a policy of non-involvment workers would be exploited. Happens all the time. Sure it's great for business but for the workers it really sucks. We need Govt involvment otherwise these employers would break every law they can in order to turn a profit.

If a Seal breaks the law you prosecute them. They are a man like anybody else.

Jackass
Living up to your handle (that means your screen name) again.

The Navy Seals - each of whom has greater strength of character and integrity in his big toe than you do in your your 100 trillion cells - captured as big a scumbag as there is anywhere on the planet. They gave this POS a bloody lip. I'd probably have gone for a bullet through the temples, but that's me.

Get back to your mom's basement and go back to bed. What are you doing up this early?

JM

PS - Basic English lesson for you... THEY (plural) are A MAN (singular) is an example of an incredibly poorly constructed sentence. It's called a lack of agreement in number. This is 3rd grade stuff. As noted previously - you are a cretin

Meant to say they are men like everybody else. Anyways the law is the law. I served and did my part already. That gives me the right to criticize and denigrate other service members.

Jackass
Thank you for your service (and I DO mean that!).

Do you mean to say that you believe the Seals should be prosecuted for something here?

I mean are you ACTUALLY saying that???? Because I am finding it extremely difficult to fathom.

JM

Thom Hartmann says trickle down is bs economics. I believe him more than I beleive anybody on this message board.

#60 | Posted by jackass

Do you ever hear on TV to buy local?
Do you ever hear you local politicians (county/city) talk about spending money at home? Investing in your neighborhood?

Now, imagine hearing on the news :Spend your money outside of your county.

Your county board has agreed to spend your tax dollars outside of the county.

Tell me, if you disagree with trickle down economics, what happens when people don't spend their money locally. What happens to the local economy?

When the gov't takes it at the local level - does it benefit the locality?

Now - take the Fed and they take the money. Do you think that money benefits your locality more or less?

People spend their money at home and it benefits the community. When the gov't takes it, does it come home the same way for benefit?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE BENEFITTED MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have told You 3 times now OohRah. You're supposed to be smarter than Me. What happened??

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr

So, you think it is wise to penalize success? This is absurd thinking. There is absolutely no logic in saying that people who make more money should pay a higher percentage of taxes than those who make less money. It makes no sense at all. What incentive does this give people? If they know they are just going to have to give their money away, why would they work to earn more?

You benefited more from what society has provided than the 25 thousand dollar yearly wage. -Larry

Wrong. People don't benefit from what society provides, they benefit from hard work, putting themselves through school, and trying harder than the next guy. Society didn't hand them a good paying job. They worked to get it. Society benefits poor people through grants, welfare, and other means of free money. You have it severely backwards, Larry.

What percent of those "achievers" did anything more than be born to the right family?-Taowarrior

Oh, come on. The percentage of people born into money is much less than those who go out and earn it. The very wealthy in this country comprise 1% of the population. That means that the other 99% have to work to become wealthy or rich. Sure, some kids are born into families who are better off than others, but that doesn't automatically make them rich.

Wrong. People don't benefit from what society provides, they benefit from hard work, putting themselves through school, and trying harder than the next guy. Society didn't hand them a good paying job. They worked to get it. Society benefits poor people through grants, welfare, and other means of free money. You have it severely backwards, Larry.

Posted by everlong at 2009-11-30 01:02 PM | Reply

Sure they do. They benefit from the roads schools pell grants and federally backed student loans. Etc etc etc.

Larry

has anyone ever heard a rich person say they want to make less money because they would be taxed higher?

Wrong. People don't benefit from what society provides, they benefit from hard work, putting themselves through school, and trying harder than the next guy. Society didn't hand them a good paying job. They worked to get it. Society benefits poor people through grants, welfare, and other means of free money. You have it severely backwards, Larry.

#69 | Posted by everlong

and when you are talking the super wealthy they benefit from controlling the political entities that write laws to benefit them.

When Black Friday comes
I'll stand down by the door
And catch the grey men when they
Dive from the fourteenth floor
When Black Friday comes
I'll collect everything I'm owed
And before my friends find out
I'll be on the road

When Black Friday falls you know it's got to be
Don't let it fall on me

When Black Friday comes
I'll fly down to Muswellbrook
Gonna strike all the big red words
From my little black book
Gonna do just what I please
Gonna wear no socks and shoes
With nothing to do but feed
All the kangaroos

When Black Friday comes I'll be on that hill
You know I will

When Black Friday comes
I'm gonna dig myself a hole
Gonna lay down in it 'til
I satisfy my soul
Gonna let the world pass by me
The Archbishop's gonna sanctify me
And if he don't come across
I'm gonna let it roll

When Black Friday comes
I'm gonna stake my claim
I'll guess I'll change my name

Steely Dan

Sure they do. They benefit from the roads schools pell grants and federally backed student loans. Etc etc etc.

Larry

#71 | Posted by LarryMohr

Are you being serious? People pay taxes that provide for the funding of those things. What, you think the government has a special fund that pays for roads and schools that isn't funded by people's tax money?

(Reuters) - U.S. consumers spent significantly less per person at the start of the holiday season this weekend, dimming hopes for a retail comeback that would help propel the economy early in 2010.

Bummer, so whatever happened to all that stimulus?

Yep. Had a feeling. A whole lot of people headed to the malls, and leaving their checkbooks in the car, just like I did.