[ApologeticJedi]

Democrats seem to be on the wrong side of most of the Ten Commandments, but this one they never seem to get called for. Every time someone offers up tax cuts, Democrats claim it is "for the rich".

Ignoring the often inaccuracy of those claims --- So what?

Are the democrats peddling class envy (a form of covetousness) here?

BTW --- I don't mean to claim that Republicans are saints. They are not. In fact, there is almost no difference between Republican and Democrat, nor has there ever really been.

Originally Posted by ApologeticJedi

Democrats seem to be on the wrong side of most of the Ten Commandments, but this one they never seem to get called for. Every time someone offers up tax cuts, Democrats claim it is "for the rich".

Ignoring the often inaccuracy of those claims --- So what?

Are the democrats peddling class envy (a form of covetousness) here?

The Democrats have traded on class envy for decades. Without it, they would never get into office.

[billwald]

Which tax cut helped the poor more than the rich? Refresh my memory.

Even welfare programs help bureaucrats and make good paying govt jobs more than they help the poor.

Consider subsidized housing. Cities in the Seattle area and the Bay area of Cal are being taken over by the rich people who send their kids to private schools and young techies who don't have kids. These people don't need the working poor to live in their cities except to collect the garbage and do other low paying service work. People with service jobs can't afford city rent even with two people working. The employers could raise wages but this would cut into net profits. Instead, they support govt housing and force the middle class to pay for their worker's housing.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally Posted by billwald

Which tax cut helped the poor more than the rich? Refresh my memory.

Well I suppose every tax cut that still has the poor paying a lower percentage of income has favored the poor over the rich. Some of the lowest brackets don't pay any taxes whatsoever. How can you beat that?

Kennedy's tax cut, for instance, lowered the top income tax bracket from 85% to 60%. But the lowest income brackets never even approached 60%.

When the rich get a tax cut from 85% to 60% I am happy for them, but many people are fed on covetousness and raised on class envy.

Originally Posted by billwald

Consider subsidized housing. Cities in the Seattle area and the Bay area of Cal are being taken over by the rich people who send their kids to private schools and young techies who don't have kids. These people don't need the working poor to live in their cities except to collect the garbage and do other low paying service work.

That sounds like a good scenario. Sounds like Seattle has more and more people becoming "wealthy". I am happy for them. Don't you want to see more and more people becoming wealthy? Or is it that so long as it is not you, you will never be able to be happy for them?

What you usually see in a "wealthy" area like Seattle is that trash collectors are making double in the city than what they would make in the outer suburbs. I know I've cashed in on that many times in my life. I once commuted 2 hours to work everyday because I could make triple the pay and bring it home to spend further in my town. The difference in the economy was just that high! Eventually I got to a standard of living where I could move to a much closer suburb of where the money was.

Some people look at those situations as a bad thing. The people who succeed in life are those that can figure out how to turn those things into profits for themselves. God blesses a frame of mind that is not consumed by envy and covetousness against our fellow man. When you work as unto the Lord, you are driven to make your employer more and more of a success.

[Town Heretic]

Class warfare is dinner theatre. That ended years ago without a shot being fired. Want to guess how many millionaires sit in Congress? How about the White House? From the domination of a landed gentry to...the domination of a landed gentry in how many easy steps?

Fairness, as extolled by the Democratic Party, is little more than envy with an eye toward redistribution of wealth. The old, "They have it. They don't deserve it. You could sure use a little of it." Who are they and what happens when you're them?

Prosperity, the flag of the Republican Party, is just a code switching, repackaged hunk of greed. "Less from you/more for you. Take what you can get and keep it all...And there's more where that came from." Who are you going to use to turn that profit? And where does that more come from?

Silly voters, tricks are for politicians.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Class warfare is dinner theatre. That ended years ago without a shot being fired.

So we should shoot the rich now?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Want to guess how many millionaires sit in Congress? How about the White House?

That's irrelevant, but there are less than you might think.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Prosperity, the flag of the Republican Party, is just a code switching, repackaged hunk of greed.

I agree that there is greed in the Republican part, however wanting the ability to better yourself is not greed and is good. It is not wrong to be rich or poor. It is not honorable to be rich or poor.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Who are you going to use to turn that profit? And where does that more come from?

When you provide someone something it is hardly "using" them.

And economics is almost never a zero-sum game. Wal-mart made Sam Walton wealthy, and also raised the standard of living for most of the American poor at the same time. Prosperity is more often (though not always) like a rising tide that lifts all ships.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by ApologeticJedi

So we should shoot the rich now?

I came not to shoot the rich but to praise moderation. Our leaders tell us that the oil companies have done nothing wrong, that the good corporations do is often forgotten and buried in the profit sheet and hidden in the margins. The poor, the middle class suffer and yet it is not unjust, for our leaders have told us so and they are all honorable men…(with apologies to W.S.)

Re: millionaires in Congress.

That's irrelevant, but there are less than you might think.

Or there might be more than you realize:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The personal wealth of members of the U.S. Congress has soared in recent years, leaving lawmakers on average far more well-to-do than most Americans as of 2006, said a study on Thursday.

The median net worth of senators was estimated at $1.7 million and House of Representatives members at $675,000, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington watchdog group that monitors the influence of money on government."

It is never irrelevant that our country is controlled by either members of an economic elite or their representatives. When less than 10% of the country controls over 80% of its wealth we have reinvented the kingdom and invited the landed gentry to rule, once again.

According to an analysis of income tax data, by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of U.C. Berkley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, in 2005:

“The top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, “nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

The share of the country’s pre-tax income flowing to the top 1 percent of households more than doubled between 1970 and 2000.”

I agree that there is greed in the Republican part, however wanting the ability to better yourself is not greed and is good. It is not wrong to be rich or poor. It is not honorable to be rich or poor.

I’m not taking issue with that…I was born into the privileged class and barring a horrific turn of fortune will die similarly insulated. I know many fine people of that stripe who are hard working and honorable, but the drum beat that moves the middle class in conservative politics is, in large part, avarice. Mine, mine, mine, goes the drum. And those politicians understand how to dance to that rhythm and package it as a virtue.

When you provide someone something it is hardly "using" them.

It ain’t necessarily so, to borrow--which a growing number of Americans are forced to do these days to keep the appearance of their nose above water. I can provide you with cheap goods by buying from markets where production costs are low and what you buy to save today will take your industrial base away tomorrow, along with the jobs that gave you purchasing power in a meaningful sense to begin with.

And economics is almost never a zero-sum game. Wal-mart made Sam Walton wealthy, and also raised the standard of living for most of the American poor at the same time. Prosperity is more often (though not always) like a rising tide that lifts all ships.

Less so presently. Wal-mart has become the second largest employer nationally, in part because of the erosion of our manufacturing base, which it had a hand in destroying.

For those just tuning in, I was equally harsh with the left a little while ago.

[billwald]

>Kennedy's tax cut, for instance, lowered the top income tax bracket from 85% to 60%. But the lowest income brackets never even approached 60%.

No one ever paid 85%. I doubt that anyone except lottery winners has ever paid the top rate no matter what it is. Keep in mind that it is the top marginal rate, not a gross rate. One might slip up and pay the highest rate on a couple of bucks.

Very rich people have very little income. They have capital gains. They have little income with respect to assets because they spend only a small fraction of their assets while poor people spend almost 100%

Finally, it is a sham that poor people don't pay any income tax. Poor people without children pay close to 18% or so - their payroll tax. SS is an income tax that does into the treasury for current budget needs.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally Posted by billwald

No one ever paid 85%.

I apologize, it was 90% before Kennedy cut it. And yes, people were paying it.

Originally Posted by billwald

Very rich people have very little income.They have capital gains.

Try selling your stock and telling the IRS that you don't need to consider the gains as income. Let me know how that turns out for you.

Also, it's a blanket statement to say the very rich have very little income, that is simply not true. Sam Walton, my example, worked for his money as much as any other business man. To argue that he wasn't "very rich" is without intelligence.

However, even if it were true ... it is irrelevant. What do you want, people to be taxed on money they earned from previous years? that were already taxed once? Can no one retire?

Originally Posted by billwald

Finally, it is a sham that poor people don't pay any income tax.

I couldn't find where I said that, but in fact there is a Gross Income Threshold that one has to meet to even pay income tax. In fact, if you are over 65 and filing jointly, you have to have income of excess of something like $20k before you even have to file an income tax return.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Our leaders tell us that the oil companies have done nothing wrong, that the good corporations do is often forgotten and buried in the profit sheet and hidden in the margins. The poor, the middle class suffer and yet it is not unjust, for our leaders have told us so and they are all honorable men…(with apologies to W.S.)

If a man makes a chair and wants to see if the market will demand $300 for the chair ... it is hardly his fault if someone will pay that. What would be wrong is to force the man to sell his chair any less than he desires. We argue for rights of prisoners of war these days, but won't even give a man the freedom to do with his own labor what he chooses? That would be gross tyranny at its finest.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The median net worth of senators was estimated at $1.7 million and House of Representatives members at $675,000, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington watchdog group that monitors the influence of money on government."

This proves my point. Do you know how a median works? Are you aware of the number of the House verses the number of the Senate? If you do, then answer this ... are there more likely more millionaires in Congress than non-millionaires or the other way around?

If you are honest you will admit that this appears to show that way less than half are millionaires.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

It is never irrelevant that our country is controlled by either members of an economic elite or their representatives. When less than 10% of the country controls over 80% of its wealth we have reinvented the kingdom and invited the landed gentry to rule, once again.

If you don't feel it is wholly irrelevant, please provide why I should consider it as important (without the usage of tin foil on my head please).

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

It ain’t necessarily so, to borrow--which a growing number of Americans are forced to do these days to keep the appearance of their nose above water.

Baloney.

My brother-in-law has been debt free for ten years and hardly makes any money whatsoever, and his wife is a stay at home mom. If he doesn't require borrowing, then I scoff at the notion that anyone is "forced" to do so.

Incidentally, while I disagree with high usury, I still do not fear borrowing and have and will continue to do so when it is economically sound for me and my family.

It sounds like you are striving for every cliche in the book here.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Wal-mart has become the second largest employer nationally, in part because of the erosion of our manufacturing base, which it had a hand in destroying.

Walmart didn't "destroy" our manufacturing base. Wal-mart buys $193 billion each year from US companies. That's more than anyone EVER has in history. By comparison, only $18 billion are spent on Chinese products (which does make them the largest buyer of Chinese product in the US - but is dwarfed by what they do in America).

Plus, Walmart employees 1.2 million people. So your argument is that some manufacturing company in our history has EVER employed 1.2 million people? You would be wrong on that point. Wal-mart would still be the nations largest employer (outside of government) even if they had flourished. Incidentally our largest manufacturing companies were automotive. Please explain how Walmart had a hand in destroying the automotive industry (which was on the way out while Walmart was still a small fry).

But to the real issue is that Walmart has lowered prices, which has raised the standard of living of the poor in the areas it has gone into. They are able to buy more with a lower bottom line, and most independent studies have shown this to the chagrin of organized union officials.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

For those just tuning in, I was equally harsh with the left a little while ago.

Hopefully you were just a little more accurate. I do agree with the selling of greed that has gone in the Republican party, but I don't agree with the covetousness you think is fine to promote.

[maritime]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Class warfare is dinner theatre. That ended years ago without a shot being fired. Want to guess how many millionaires sit in Congress? How about the White House? From the domination of a landed gentry to...the domination of a landed gentry in how many easy steps?

Fairness, as extolled by the Democratic Party, is little more than envy with an eye toward redistribution of wealth. The old, "They have it. They don't deserve it. You could sure use a little of it." Who are they and what happens when you're them?

Prosperity, the flag of the Republican Party, is just a code switching, repackaged hunk of greed. "Less from you/more for you. Take what you can get and keep it all...And there's more where that came from." Who are you going to use to turn that profit? And where does that more come from?

Silly voters, tricks are for politicians.

i like how you put this, Town Heretic

interesting discussion

i'm surprised to learn (from you ApologeticJedi) that less than 1/10th of what wal-mart sells is made in china. i quit shopping there quite some time ago mainly because they undercut the independent business owner with their "lower bottom line." plus, what is offered for less is often just that--less, in the sense of quality.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by ApologeticJedi

If a man makes a chair and wants to see if the market will demand $300 for the chair ... it is hardly his fault if someone will pay that. What would be wrong is to force the man to sell his chair any less than he desires.

The last line of defense regarding immoral conduct is the assertion of its legality. When oil companies are recording record profits while the advance of gasoline prices raises the price for food for the poorest citizens…

We argue for rights of prisoners of war these days, but won't even give a man the freedom to do with his own labor what he chooses? That would be gross tyranny at its finest.

That’s a pretty speech, but freedom isn’t open ended. There are all sorts of things you aren’t free to do, things corporations aren’t free to do. At some point, people decided that unrestrained commerce worked a greater harm than good and applied regulation to help govern the destructive impulses of capitalism. I’m suggesting that when so few people control so disproportionately the wealth of a Republic that nation is in peril and its people are in danger of becoming servants or slaves to an economic state and those who possess the means.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
The median net worth of senators was estimated at $1.7 million …

This proves my point. Do you know how a median works? Are you aware of the number of the House verses the number of the Senate? If you do, then answer this ... are there more likely more millionaires in Congress than non-millionaires or the other way around? If you are honest you will admit that this appears to show that way less than half are millionaires.

Unrestrained democracy is mob rule. Unrestrained capitalism is greed blind to cost. You might want to read what I wrote again. Where did I say that most Congressmen were millionaires? It would have been foolhardy of me to make that statement and then quote the means I gave you. What I said was that we are once again dominated by a landed gentry. What I asked was if you knew how many millionaires were in Congress. The suggestion was that the rich are ruling. They are. The suggestion was that Congress is disproportionately made up of and controlled by that class. It is.

Do you know what the median income for a U.S. citizen is? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2006 it was a little over 48K, which by your way of looking at things should suggest that “way more” than half of the people make less than that…

Compare that to Congress again? Even the lowly House member has 14 times the income. The Senators fare better at 35 times the income level. How far fetched is that elite rule now?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
…When less than 10% of the country controls over 80% of its wealth we have reinvented the kingdom and invited the landed gentry to rule, once again.

If you don't feel it is wholly irrelevant, please provide why I should consider it as important (without the usage of tin foil on my head please).

If the morality of a system is of no consequence to you then I can’t make it so. YOU perhaps shouldn’t care. That’s for you to decide. My interest is in expressing the transformation I see in a country I love--a transformation that will work no personal harm or hardship on me or on mine, but one that offends me nevertheless. Feel free to be apathetic to it. It’s your right.

Re: the growing debt of Americans.

Baloney. My brother-in-law has been debt free for ten years and hardly makes any money whatsoever, and his wife is a stay at home mom. If he doesn't require borrowing, then I scoff at the notion that anyone is "forced" to do so.

A retreat to into the anecdotal? In fact, here’s an easy way for anyone within driving distance of Cracker Barrel to find a quick answer on this point. Most of them should still have those little snapshot of a given year compilations handy. Look at the average cost of a gallon of milk, a car, a home etc. in 1960. Look at the average wage. Now roll forward a decade at a time. Let me know what you find out. Maybe I read a bad batch….

It sounds like you are striving for every cliche in the book here.

Funny you should say that.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Wal-mart has become the second largest employer nationally, in part because of the erosion of our manufacturing base, which it had a hand in destroying.

Walmart didn't "destroy" our manufacturing base. Wal-mart buys $193 billion each year from US companies. That's more than anyone EVER has in history.

Again—had a hand in is not quite the same animal, is it? Now, if you isolate facts they almost say anything you want them to. Of course Wal-mart buys more than any other company, they’ve driven the small businessman out of any market they arrive in (aside from specialty niches) and when you’re supplying whole towns basic needs you’re going to buy a great deal of material. That’s not really an argument for Wal-mart’s virtue.

By comparison, only $18 billion are spent on Chinese products (which does make them the largest buyer of Chinese product in the US - but is dwarfed by what they do in America).

That’s a cost/benefit decision having nothing to do with America first and we both know it. How many billions does Wal-mart buy elsewhere? Isolate on one country and it looks wonderfully one sided. Bring in all their purchase partners and the picture changes a little, no?

Plus, Walmart employees 1.2 million people. So your argument is that some manufacturing company in our history has EVER employed 1.2 million people?

When you eliminate the small business competitor and the manufacturing base is mostly gone, where do you expect those people will seek employment? And what is the average Wal-mart employee making? How would that compare with an industrial job? Benefits? How many employees does WM keep off of their full time books to avoid health insurance and other company benefits?

You would be wrong on that point. Wal-mart would still be the nations largest employer (outside of government) even if they had flourished. Incidentally our largest manufacturing companies were automotive. Please explain how Walmart had a hand in destroying the automotive industry (which was on the way out while Walmart was still a small fry).

You keep making arguments that I’m not making, and I’ll keep making sense. We once were major manufacturers of everything from electronics to textile. Companies like Wal-mart, in demanding lower prices than American labor could produce, encouraged the “outsourcing” of that industrial base.

But to the real issue is that Walmart has lowered prices, which has raised the standard of living of the poor in the areas it has gone into. They are able to buy more with a lower bottom line, and most independent studies have shown this to the chagrin of organized union officials.

I’d agree that the poorest Americans show a short term gain. Of course, without substantive jobs to be had they had better enjoy those cheap products, along with that poverty.

Hopefully you were just a little more accurate. I do agree with the selling of greed that has gone in the Republican party, but I don't agree with the covetousness you think is fine to promote.

I’m promoting covetousness? Well, that’s about as accurate an assessment as your accuracy statement.

[Prefx]

Plus, Walmart employees 1.2 million people. So your argument is that some manufacturing company in our history has EVER employed 1.2 million people?

I'm hoping you realize Walmart has destroyed just as many jobs as it has created? Job creation is really an impeccable term; the 5% (really 9%) unemployed aren't feeling the benefit.

If a man makes a chair and wants to see if the market will demand $300 for the chair ... it is hardly his fault if someone will pay that. What would be wrong is to force the man to sell his chair any less than he desires.

The resources were originally belonging to humanity. We, the public, have the right to attach any stipulations to commerce that we want.

We argue for rights of prisoners of war these days, but won't even give a man the freedom to do with his own labor what he chooses?

Freedom of labor and capitalism are oxymoron cousins. Capitalism forces most people to be subservient to another human being. Socialism quantified by multi-pronged economics (cooperatives, workers' councils, partnerships, contract work, and sole proprietorships) is the only economic system that allows a person to choose how he moves forward with his labor talents.

Class warfare is dinner theatre. That ended years ago without a shot being fired.

Hmm, interesting. Records show thousands of laborers were shot by the government from 1860-1940, and even more killed by corporate cronies.

Try selling your stock and telling the IRS that you don't need to consider the gains as income. Let me know how that turns out for you.

Warren Buffet says it's pretty easy.

Can no one retire?

Corporations are a sham. Foremost their personhood status negates any market principles by involving direct recognition of "rights." It's a paradox for most market advocates: corporations have probably been the strongest force in pushing for industrialization, but they're quasi-governmental agencies which grant people loads of cash (billions) for simply investing.

[DavidK]

Excellent posts from Town Heretic. I was planning on responding similarly, but you've said it much more eloquently than I would have been able, so I'll just applaud instead.

Both parties pander to greed. The one reliable thing for voters to vote on is their own interests. I've read that the economy is a reliable indicator of which direction presidential elections will go. Bad economy means challenger wins, good economy means incumbent wins.

What do we really expect? We love capitalism, which has greed at its very core. It's not enough to produce a good product and be fairly compensated for it, there has to be the motivation of great wealth. Not everyone would jack up their prices just because people would be willing to pay it. Some would have the decency to realize that if they were the only supplier in town, that they shouldn't charge a hundred dollars for a loaf of bread, even if the starving populace was willing to pay it. Our system, however, sees maximizing profit as the only legitimate motivation for industry and innovation.

Capitalism requires unending growth. Corporations must continually grow to stay alive, and consumption must continually grow to feed that. In a living organism, we call it cancer.

Let everybody be greedy, and it'll work itself out. Or, if that sounds distasteful, we'll call it 'market forces'.

As for me, I'd rather have a reasonable work week, live a modest lifestyle, and spend the rest of the time with my family and doing the work of God. Somehow I think this is closer to God's original design than the protestant work ethic of blood, sweat and tears to 'get ahead'.

David

[billwald]

> Corporations must continually grow to stay alive,
and consumption must continually grow to feed that.

Not necessarially. For example, a corp is formed to provide electricity to a specific population. Population shrinks, less power is needed but the corp goes on.