Some up-to-date graphs...on wealth and tax's

[sammy the sage]

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-best-of-cbpp-graphics/

I would make some comments...but a picture is WORTH a thousand words...hopefully it might enlighten a few around here. :faint:

[badcompany]

THE LIBERAL MIND: The Psychological Causes of
Political Madness
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

http://www.libertymind.com/

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

•creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

•satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

•augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

•rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

[mostpost]

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-best-of-cbpp-graphics/

I would make some comments...but a picture is WORTH a thousand words...hopefully it might enlighten a few around here. :faint:

Here is what is going to happen. You will be told your charts don't mean a thing.
You will be told they are confusing and boring. Your manhood will be questioned.
Your patriotism will be questioned.

What will not happen is that you will enlighten any conservatives. Conservatives are not interested in enlightenment. They are only interested in confirming their preconceived notions. No matter how wrong those notions are.

BTW: Great charts. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

THE LIBERAL MIND: The Psychological Causes of
Political Madness
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

http://www.libertymind.com/

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

•creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

•satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

•augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

•rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

Here is one review of this book on Amazon.com
The sheer amount of hatred he has for anyone to the left of Rush is somewhat beyond normal rationale. He should follow that old adage of Physician Heal Thy Self. His abnormal view of progressives and liberals, I came to realize, is based on fantasy and a belief that this is what he wants to believe is true, just like all the teabaggers and other rightwing faux moralists. He has abused his title to write this drivel to give it some sort of authentic feel but it fails miserably. One could just as easily change the title to "I Hate Liberals for no real reason so I am making them up".

A similar study done by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health showed Conservatism to be a mental illness. So who ya gonna believe? Just because they say what you WANT to hear, does that make it the truth or do you have honesty and integrity to look past that see if there is another agenda.

So we have someone saying liberalism is a mental illness and someone else saying conservatism is a mental illness. The difference being that one group is a respected agency using proven investigative techniques, while the other is a single individual of dubious credentials using speculation and assumption.

[mostpost]

Here is what is going to happen. You will be told your charts don't mean a thing.
You will be told they are confusing and boring. Your manhood will be questioned.
Your patriotism will be questioned.

What will not happen is that you will enlighten any conservatives. Conservatives are not interested in enlightenment. They are only interested in confirming their preconceived notions. No matter how wrong those notions are.

BTW: Great charts. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Sammy the Sage, did you notice how, in his response, BadCompany did not address any of your charts. He merely accused you of suffering from a mental illness. Just as I predicted.

Did I mention; Great Charts! :ThmbUp:

[badcompany]

The gist of those charts is that the income of the top 1% has increased at a rate faster than that of the middle class and the poor.

Why on earth would anyone think that those who are the very best at making money would see their income increase at the same rate as those who are average and below average?

The most logical answer to that question is Mental Illness.


Sammy the Sage, did you notice how, in his response, BadCompany did not address any of your charts. He merely accused you of suffering from a mental illness. Just as I predicted.



Accurate predictions tend to be more impressive when they're made BEFORE the event.

That said, I eagerly look forward to your 2011 Derby prediction.:lol:

[boxcar]

The gist of those charts is that the income of the top 1% has increased at a rate faster than that of the middle class and the poor.

Why on earth would anyone think that those who are the very best at making money would see their income increase at the same rate as those who are average and below average?

The most logical answer to that question is Mental Illness.

I second that motion! Only the delusional living in a fantasy world would think for a moment that the income of executives, indian chiefs, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. would increase at or below the rate of less skilled and/or less productive workers. It never has nor will it ever be any different -- nor should it be any different.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

The gist of those charts is that the income of the top 1% has increased at a rate faster than that of the middle class and the poor.

Why on earth would anyone think that those who are the very best at making money would see their income increase at the same rate as those who are average and below average?

The most logical answer to that question is Mental Illness.
Willie "The Actor" Sutton was also great at making money. These guys don't rob banks, but there is little other difference between them and Willie.

In any case, what do those top 1%ers contribute to the country besides the ability to make money for themselves. They don't make any products. With the exception of a few in the tech field, they don't invent or innovate. Is the life of the public in general any better because of them? No, in fact it is worse.
Do these super millionaires contribute to improving public schools? They do not. They wage war against those schools. Do they try to make the lives of the elderly better? Of course not. They try to kill Social Security. Do they make sure their employees have adequate health care at reasonable cost? You're kidding of course. They fight every attempt to improve health care. Do they try to ensure that their workers receive a decent salary, fair benefits and safe working conditions? Hardly, they fire workers with seniority; they steal from pension funds, they oppose any safety regulations as government interference in their right to make lots and lots of money.

Most of the top one percent are good at making money because they are good at lying and cheating and stealing. I would not be proud to say I am good at making money if I were you. When you come to me and tell me you are good at helping your neighbor, good at contributing in your community and
good at not being a greedy so and so, then I will be proud of you.



Accurate predictions tend to be more impressive when they're made BEFORE the event.
Although your post preceded mine by three minute, my writing of the prediction preceded my reading of your post.



That said, I eagerly look forward to your 2011 Derby prediction.:lol:
Uncle Mo. He will also win the 2011 Breeders Cup Classic.

You will have to subscribe to get my predictions to the 1948 Preakness, the 1943 Belmont and the 1967 Travers.

[mostpost]

I second that motion! Only the delusional living in a fantasy world would think for a moment that the income of executives, indian chiefs, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. would increase at or below the rate of less skilled and/or less productive workers. It never has nor will it ever be any different -- nor should it be any different.

Boxcar
It is logical that the income of the top 1% should increase at a faster rate than the income of lower levels. What is not logical is that it should increase at a rate 425% greater than the next 19% and 725% greater than the middle 60%. Particularly when much of that increase is the expense of those lower levels.
Look back before 1979. From 1948 through 1979 the income levels of all groups increased in a roughly parallel line. What did we have from 1948 to 1979. We had the greatest prosperity in our history. Unemployment was low. Wages were high. Families with a single breadwinner could buy a home, buy a new car every three or four years, send their kids to college without incurring unmanageable debt, save for emergencies and retirement, take a yearly vacation and have money left over for a few luxuries. Now families with two working parents can do few or none of those things.

[sammy the sage]

The gist of those charts is that the income of the top 1% has increased at a rate faster than that of the middle class and the poor.

Why on earth would anyone think that those who are the very best at making money would see their income increase at the same rate as those who are average and below average?

The most logical answer to that question is Mental Illness.




Accurate predictions tend to be more impressive when they're made BEFORE the event.

That said, I eagerly look forward to your 2011 Derby prediction.:lol:


Well, well, well....typical...although I can take of myself...big bossman around has singled me out....return jabs/jives,insults/putdowns are/will NOT tolerated by me...since I ADDRESS the facts...imagine that...

[Actor]

Why on earth would anyone think that those who are the very best at making money would see their income increase at the same rate as those who are average and below average?Do the math. An extreme difference between growth rates cannot be sustained. It does not matter whether we are talking wealth, bacteria populations or nuclear reactions. Inevitably a critical point is reached and the system collapses. Examples: ancient Rome and 18th century France.

The disparity in growth rates is not the result of the rich being better at making money but rather from the rich being excused from paying taxes.

[Actor]

It never has nor will it ever be any different Where are you getting your figures from? Through most of American history the incomes of the lower classes has increased faster that that of the upper class. That's why we have (or had) a strong middle class.

[badcompany]

Do the math. An extreme difference between growth rates cannot be sustained. It does not matter whether we are talking wealth, bacteria populations or nuclear reactions. Inevitably a critical point is reached and the system collapses. Examples: ancient Rome and 18th century France.

The disparity in growth rates is not the result of the rich being better at making money but rather from the rich being excused from paying taxes.


With an over 90% unemployment rate, it's not surprising that "Actors" would support a big government, welfare state, as "Actors" are way more likely to be sticking their annoying hands out for those Government bennies, while someone else foots the bill via high taxation.

Of course, "Actors" delude themselves into believing that they hold these beliefs because they are such wonderful, caring human beings, when, in reality, it's just self-preservation.

[Tom]

The disparity in growth rates is not the result of the rich being better at making money but rather from the rich being excused from paying taxes.

Not necessarily. Many other factors are involved here. Jobs moving out of the country, more and more people not able to perform high tech jobs...

What is not helping is banning drilling in the Gulf, pushing green agenda instead of those that create jobs, like the Keystone pipeline or fracking for oil. Pumping billions into losing green industries is a total waste of money. Creating uncertainy in the economy to the extend that businesses are not investing and not hiring because Obama has jumbled the economy so much is not helping.

How much additional revenue will taxing the 1% bring in annually?

[PaceAdvantage]

Anyone who is unhappy with this board or who feels I don't treat them fairly...you're certainly free to leave...nobody is forcing you to continue posting here.... :rolleyes:

[Dave Schwartz]

The gist of those charts is that the income of the top 1% has increased at a rate faster than that of the middle class and the poor.

Why on earth would anyone think that those who are the very best at making money would see their income increase at the same rate as those who are average and below average?


Not so fast, here, fellow right-wingers.

Personally, I think he has a point. The rich... and I mean the RICH... really are getting richer. MUCH RICHER. And at a speed and scale that is beyond imagination.

Now, I would not have a problem with this had the bottom strata been delt with more "fairly." (And by "bottom strata" I mean EVERYONE ELSE.)

MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that the system has been tilted too much in their favor.

How has it been tilted? By politicians and bureaucrats who have bent over backwards to favor their friends.

I mean, really... even those of us who are (at least somewhat) to the right have acknowledged that there is a lot of cheating going on; from lobbyists for this industry or that whose job it is to make sure that the rich get richer, to the politicians themselves who pass a favorable pay raise. Come on - do you think the fact that the average net worth of a career politician is so much higher than average is a coincidence?

HOWEVER, the solution does not lie in more taxes. Neither does it lie in welfare programs. The solution is to determine the REAL problem and address it. We need changes that ENCOURAGE success on all levels, while perhaps some CUSTOMARY changes at the high levels.

For example, when OUR money is used to bail out a company, how is it that the people at the top should be permitted to receive ANY of that money as bonuses? Really? Were our elect not smart enough to build a contract that said (essentially) "You agree not to give bonus?" In fact, how about something like "anyone making over $2m per year" gets capped at $2m per year until all the money is paid back?

As someone said to me once, "Where is the pain on the

My point is that there WERE solutions available but none were implemented.

And where was the public outrage? I mean the REAL outrage? The kind that says a company that did this will experience a boycott until the undo it? Put them out of business if necessary!

Meanwhile, while the modern day robber barons pillage, the left and the right fight it out between each other. You do know that they laugh at us, right?


It seems to me that we are playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with the wrong donkey.

Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

You want a real solution, Dave?

Outlaw ALL political contributions by anyone to anyone.

[Dave Schwartz]

I totally agree with that idea, Tom. It is 100% the first part of ANY solution.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[badcompany]

If your issue is that the rich run everything, I don't see how that will solve the problem. With no political contributions, the only ones who will be able to afford to run for office would be those who could self-finance viz. the rich.

[mostpost]

If your issue is that the rich run everything, I don't see how that will solve the problem. With no political contributions, the only ones who will be able to afford to run for office would be those who could self-finance viz. the rich.

The solution is taxpayer financed elections. A separate flat tax on all taxpayers dedicated to election financing. In 2005 gross income in the USA was $7.43T.
A tax of 0.001 percent (one tenth of one percent) would raise $7.43B per year. 0r $14.86B every two years or 29.72B every four years. It would cost an earner of $50,000 a year less than a dollar a week.

A formula could be worked out as to how to divide the money among the various races and among the candidates. Obviously it costs more to run for President than to run for the Senate and more to run for the Senate than run for the House of Representatives. Equally obviously a candidate from the "Ban Ostriches From Movie Theaters" party should not get the same financing as a Democrat or Republican. Those details could be worked out .

States and local governments could finance campaigns in a similar matter, but I think they should be left to decide how themselves.

[lsbets]

The problem with your idea Most, is that you are trusting the politicians of the two major parties to decide how to divide up our money to use for their elections in a fair manner. The organizational complexity of running national campaigns inherently favors the two party system. Letting them decide who gets how much tax payer money while outlawing any other money only further entrenches their power.

As Dave pointed out, the problems we have are created by a system which rewards graft and corruption. Let those same people divvy up our money for their benefit (which they do now on so many other things) is insanity.

[boxcar]

Where are you getting your figures from? Through most of American history the incomes of the lower classes has increased faster that that of the upper class. That's why we have (or had) a strong middle class.

Prove it. Owners of businesses generally take care of themselves first and rightfully so!

Gird up the loins of you mind, sir, and answer these questions: When you go into the supermarket to buy your beef, is that beef in the cooler because of the altruism of some farmer hundreds or even thousands of miles away or because the farmer was motivated by his own self-interest become a rancher?

When you pull that loaf of bread off the shelf, is it because of the charitable feelings the owner of the bakery had for you or did he bake and package that bread ultimately to serve his own self-interest?

When you walk into the shoe store in your favorite mall to buy the latest and greatest Nikes that you want so much, is that product for sale on the shelf because the manufacturer wants to make you happy and give you what you want or ultimately because he has his own self-interest at heart by making that product?

I explained this principle in reality as we all know it in detail once upon time because "charity" truly does begin with SELF, then immediate family, then extended family (perhaps), then close friends. (Why do you think Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves? But our "neighbor", in the bible, is defined as anyone with whom we come into personal contact.)

So, have you connected the dots, yet? The farmer, the baker, the manufacturer are in the game (in business) first and foremost for themselves. They invest their money, time, blood, sweat and tears and assume all risks not ultimately out of their love or concern for nameless, faceless, unknown and unknowable consumers but to serve their own self-interests as best as they can. And because I know how the liberal mind works, don't even think about telling me that "self-interest" is synonymous with "greed" because it is not! "Self-interest" could best be defined as preserving one's self and his or her own loved ones to the highest and best standards possible. Therefore, self-interest could logically be equated with self-preservation. This is why "charity" begins at "home" or with self. If a person doesn't look after himself first, how will he be able to serve his loved ones, let alone society or his fellow man?

Secondly, those in business are not the final arbiters of what constitutes fair compensation for work. The Free Market is! The markets ultimately determine pay rates. Someone living and working in Chicago or New York should not expect, generally speaking, to move to Swampland where I live and earn the same kind of money they made in those markets, etc. A business here in Gatorsville simply cannot afford to pay northern wages because if he did, he would have to raise the price on his goods or services and, therefore, would cease from being competitive with his competitors. The love affair his employees would have with this generous employer would be very short-lived! In short time, those smiles would be converted to tears on an unemployment line.

And since I'm on my second of cup of java, permit me to expand a bit on this rant because I have something to say that I've been wanting to say for a long time. I have always found it curious that liberals talk about how the "rich" owe it to society to give back a "fair share". But one will be very hard-pressed to find this concept in the bible -- this idea that man must serve man with his wealth because a man cannot love his fellow man if he loves his wealth more. This concept is foreign to the bible. But what Jesus did teach is that one cannot serve Wealth and God. Man cannot serve two Masters -- Wealth and God. Therefore, what one does with his wealth (or worldly possessions) is between him and his Creator, not between him and his fellow man -- or between him and the state. Why is this? Because ultimately all things come from the hand of God. God causes the sun to shine of the good and the evil. He causes the rain to fall on the good and evil. The source of everything we have is God. The very breathe you're taking as you read this is a gift from God; for if he so decreed it, you could drop dead at your keyboard before your eye blinked. Anyone of us could.

Therefore, you liberals who feign so much interest in the poor, I would suggest that you take Jesus' words to heart and quit being so selfish. Cease and desist from serving your own personal wealth and serve God instead; for if you truly serve Him, then everything else will fall into place. And be sure to pass this message on to the hyper-hypocritical Warren Buffets of the world, too. Their concern should not be for how other "wealthy" people serve their fellow-man nearly as much as it should be in addressing their own relationship with God and to their Wealth. Are the Warren Buffets serving God or their own Wealth? If Buffet was so concerned about the "poor", why would he squander his money needlessly on expensive accountants in order to pay as little taxes as possible!? If the Warren Buffets of this world were truly concerned about the "poor" and wanted to serve God instead of their Wealth, then how come they just don't check off that box that is on the tax return that allows them pay more than what is called for? Any taxpayer is permitted to overpay on his taxes to his heart's delight. Any taxpayer is free to give, give, give until he or she is in excruciating pain. They are indeed free to sell all their possessions and give to the poor and follow Jesus. But no one is free to try to force someone else, under the color of law, to do these things!

A man's worldly possessions or "wealth" is an issue strictly between him and his Creator because a man owes everything to his Creator, whether he acknowledges this or not. So, there are numerous liberal unbelievers out there who are just as hypocritical as the Warren Buffets are. You have no love for God or any interest in serving Him, so why do you insist that the rest of us should do what you don't with your money or possessions or wealth?

And I owe my existence to no man -- not even to my parents, ultimately. I owe my very existence to God who decreed my existence in eternity past. My parents were secondary causes; but God is the Primary Cause. And since I don't ultimately owe my existence to any human being, then neither does any human being have a right to what I have earned and to what I own. And this brings us full circle back to why Jesus taught what he did, doesn't it? You liberals insist on making a person's wealth primarily an anthropological issue when it really isn't. Above all else it is a theological issue.

Sorry for the rant but I've been wanting to say this for some time to point out the fallacies of libs' "equal outcomes" arguments (and all they entail) and their hypocrisy, as well. As Jesus also said, "the poor you will always have with you" and he also exhorted his disciples that they were free to give to them anytime they chose to do so. They chose to do so...

Boxcar

[Tom]

The solution is taxpayer financed elections. A separate flat tax on all taxpayers dedicated to election financing.

There you go again.

[Spiderman]

The solution is taxpayer financed elections. A separate flat tax on all taxpayers dedicated to election financing. In 2005 gross income in the USA was $7.43T.
A tax of 0.001 percent (one tenth of one percent) would raise $7.43B per year. 0r $14.86B every two years or 29.72B every four years. It would cost an earner of $50,000 a year less than a dollar a week.

A formula could be worked out as to how to divide the money among the various races and among the candidates. Obviously it costs more to run for President than to run for the Senate and more to run for the Senate than run for the House of Representatives. Equally obviously a candidate from the "Ban Ostriches From Movie Theaters" party should not get the same financing as a Democrat or Republican. Those details could be worked out .

States and local governments could finance campaigns in a similar matter, but I think they should be left to decide how themselves.

Recently, a victory in this type matter was won on a county level. In Bergen County, the "Pay to Play" rules were capped for political contributions at $300 per individual and $2,500 per corporation doing business with the county.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Bergen_freeholders_plan_final_vote_on_pay-to-play_measure.html

[sandpit]

Recently, a victory in this type matter was won on a county level. In Bergen County, the "Pay to Play" rules were capped for political contributions at $300 per individual and $2,500 per corporation doing business with the county.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Bergen_freeholders_plan_final_vote_on_pay-to-play_measure.html

No matter what the cap for contributions are, the people with more money to start with still have the edge. Surely somebody like Bloomberg or John Kerry can fund a much more far-reaching campaign than any of us here.

If you wanted an equitable system, there would be a campaign spending cap of some amount. So, even if Bloomberg had a $1 trillion to spend on a presidential campaign, he wouldn't be able to spend it all. Kind of like the NFL owners dealing with the salary cap, those running for office would have to strategize how to best to spend their money.

[Tom]

Then we outlaw campaign commercials as well. And prohibit third party campaigning. And limit the amount any candidate can spend.
And impose single term limits.
Or we draw SS numbers and the winners get to serve.
I am 100% certain we would have a far better government than we do today.
The Gods of the Odds are not corrupt.

Nothing is impossible.

[Spiderman]

No matter what the cap for contributions are, the people with more money to start with still have the edge. Surely somebody like Bloomberg or John Kerry can fund a much more far-reaching campaign than any of us here.

If you wanted an equitable system, there would be a campaign spending cap of some amount. So, even if Bloomberg had a $1 trillion to spend on a presidential campaign, he wouldn't be able to spend it all. Kind of like the NFL owners dealing with the salary cap, those running for office would have to strategize how to best to spend their money.

Agreed. There are several layers of election campaign contribution activity to change so that corporations and politicians cannot corrupt the system, anymore. The Supreme Corporation decision that corporations are people can be addressed by the proposed 27th Amendment. Not allowing congresspeople to use inside information for personal gain is another level of corruption to eliminate.

[mostpost]

Prove it. Owners of businesses generally take care of themselves first and rightfully so!

Gird up the loins of you mind, sir, and answer these questions: When you go into the supermarket to buy your beef, is that beef in the cooler because of the altruism of some farmer hundreds or even thousands of miles away or because the farmer was motivated by his own self-interest become a rancher?

When you pull that loaf of bread off the shelf, is it because of the charitable feelings the owner of the bakery had for you or did he bake and package that bread ultimately to serve his own self-interest?

When you walk into the shoe store in your favorite mall to buy the latest and greatest Nikes that you want so much, is that product for sale on the shelf because the manufacturer wants to make you happy and give you what you want or ultimately because he has his own self-interest at heart by making that product?

I explained this principle in reality as we all know it in detail once upon time because "charity" truly does begin with SELF, then immediate family, then extended family (perhaps), then close friends.
The fact that you capitalize "SELF" is very telling. Your concern as a husband and father should be your wife and children, not yourself. I would like to ask lsbets and other husbands and fathers where they would place themselves in that hierarchy. Never mind. I know the answer.
All this reminds me of a question or moral dilemma that was popular in my youth. You are in the middle of the ocean in a lifeboat that will surely sink if more than one extra person gets in. Your wife and mother are in the water and will drown. Which one do you help into the boat. Which one will you condemn to drowning. All the answers centered on the relative merits of one's mother vs. one's wife. We were all too young to realize that the correct answer was "If your wife and mother are in the ocean, what the hell are you doing in a lifeboat?"


(Why do you think Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves? But our "neighbor", in the bible, is defined as anyone with whom we come into personal contact.)
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends"
The above biblical phrase seems to contradict your assertion that we can only love our neighbor equally to ourselves. Nothing in the phrase "Love your neighbor as yourself" puts a restriction on loving him more. Jesus died for our sins and there are countless examples of people dying to save loved ones or comrades. (See list of Medal of Honor winners.)

So, have you connected the dots, yet? The farmer, the baker, the manufacturer are in the game (in business) first and foremost for themselves. They invest their money, time, blood, sweat and tears and assume all risks not ultimately out of their love or concern for nameless, faceless, unknown and unknowable consumers but to serve their own self-interests as best as they can. And because I know how the liberal mind works, don't even think about telling me that "self-interest" is synonymous with "greed" because it is not! "Self-interest" could best be defined as preserving one's self and his or her own loved ones to the highest and best standards possible. Therefore, self-interest could logically be equated with self-preservation. This is why "charity" begins at "home" or with self. If a person doesn't look after himself first, how will he be able to serve his loved ones, let alone society or his fellow man?
What happens when the self interest of one person, the baker, collides with the self interest of other people, his employees, his customers, his suppliers. That is why we have government and regulations and negotiations

Secondly, those in business are not the final arbiters of what constitutes fair compensation for work. The Free Market is! The markets ultimately determine pay rates. Someone living and working in Chicago or New York should not expect, generally speaking, to move to Swampland where I live and earn the same kind of money they made in those markets, etc. A business here in Gatorsville simply cannot afford to pay northern wages because if he did, he would have to raise the price on his goods or services and, therefore, would cease from being competitive with his competitors. The love affair his employees would have with this generous employer would be very short-lived! In short time, those smiles would be converted to tears on an unemployment line.
The Free Market is a myth. It is constantly being manipulated and ignored. How is their a free market in a small town with a Walmart and no competition.
Everyone realizes that economies are different in different places.

And since I'm on my second of cup of java, permit me to expand a bit on this rant because I have something to say that I've been wanting to say for a long time. I have always found it curious that liberals talk about how the "rich" owe it to society to give back a "fair share". But one will be very hard-pressed to find this concept in the bible -- this idea that man must serve man with his wealth because a man cannot love his fellow man if he loves his wealth more.
Okay Mr. Bible expert.
Luke 6:29 If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
Matthew 19:16
And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

This concept is foreign to the bible. But what Jesus did teach is that one cannot serve Wealth and God. Man cannot serve two Masters -- Wealth and God. Therefore, what one does with his wealth (or worldly possessions) is between him and his Creator, not between him and his fellow man -- or between him and the state. Why is this? Because ultimately all things come from the hand of God. God causes the sun to shine of the good and the evil. He causes the rain to fall on the good and evil. The source of everything we have is God. The very breathe you're taking as you read this is a gift from God; for if he so decreed it, you could drop dead at your keyboard before your eye blinked. Anyone of us could.

Therefore, you liberals who feign so much interest in the poor, I would suggest that you take Jesus' words to heart and quit being so selfish. Cease and desist from serving your own personal wealth and serve God instead; for if you truly serve Him, then everything else will fall into place. And be sure to pass this message on to the hyper-hypocritical Warren Buffets of the world, too. Their concern should not be for how other "wealthy" people serve their fellow-man nearly as much as it should be in addressing their own relationship with God and to their Wealth. Are the Warren Buffets serving God or their own Wealth? If Buffet was so concerned about the "poor", why would he squander his money needlessly on expensive accountants in order to pay as little taxes as possible!? If the Warren Buffets of this world were truly concerned about the "poor" and wanted to serve God instead of their Wealth, then how come they just don't check off that box that is on the tax return that allows them pay more than what is called for? Any taxpayer is permitted to overpay on his taxes to his heart's delight. Any taxpayer is free to give, give, give until he or she is in excruciating pain. They are indeed free to sell all their possessions and give to the poor and follow Jesus. But no one is free to try to force someone else, under the color of law, to do these things!

This Warren Buffet argument is just idiotic. Of course Buffet could voluntarily pay more, but the only effect that what have is to lessen the need for the greedy to pay their share. I can see the Koch Brothers or the Walton family lobbying for their taxes to be reduced because Warren is picking up the slack.

A man's worldly possessions or "wealth" is an issue strictly between him and his Creator because a man owes everything to his Creator, whether he acknowledges this or not. So, there are numerous liberal unbelievers out there who are just as hypocritical as the Warren Buffets are. You have no love for God or any interest in serving Him, so why do you insist that the rest of us should do what you don't with your money or possessions or wealth?

And I owe my existence to no man -- not even to my parents, ultimately. I owe my very existence to God who decreed my existence in eternity past. My parents were secondary causes; but God is the Primary Cause. And since I don't ultimately owe my existence to any human being, then neither does any human being have a right to what I have earned and to what I own. And this brings us full circle back to why Jesus taught what he did, doesn't it? You liberals insist on making a person's wealth primarily an anthropological issue when it really isn't. Above all else it is a theological issue.

Sorry for the rant but I've been wanting to say this for some time to point out the fallacies of libs' "equal outcomes" arguments (and all they entail) and their hypocrisy, as well. As Jesus also said, "the poor you will always have with you" and he also exhorted his disciples that they were free to give to them anytime they chose to do so. They chose to do so...

Boxcar

You are here because your parents failed to do the responsible thing and practice birth control. God had nothing to do with it.
God created the possabilities; we create the specifics.

[Actor]

You want a real solution, Dave?

Outlaw ALL political contributions by anyone to anyone.
Good luck on getting the supreme court to go along with that.

[hcap]

(Why do you think Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves? But our "neighbor", in the bible, is defined as anyone with whom we come into personal contact.)If we all loved our neighbor as much as you love yourself, world peace would reign and never end.

That, or if the length of your posts were measured in valentines. :kiss: :kiss:

[Mike at A+]

Could it be that the top 1% includes people who take risks and start businesses and as they accomplish significant success they are able to pay themselves more and more while those in the lower percentiles bounce around in dead end jobs or jobs that allow them to progress at a nominal rate without ever having to risk anything?

Nahhhhhhh, can't be that simple.

[fast4522]

Could it be that the top 1% includes people who take risks and start businesses and as they accomplish significant success they are able to pay themselves more and more while those in the lower percentiles bounce around in dead end jobs or jobs that allow them to progress at a nominal rate without ever having to risk anything?

Nahhhhhhh, can't be that simple.


Perhaps,

[Actor]

With an over 90% unemployment rate, it's not surprising that "Actors" would support a big government, welfare state, as "Actors" are way more likely to be sticking their annoying hands out for those Government bennies, while someone else foots the bill via high taxation.

Of course, "Actors" delude themselves into believing that they hold these beliefs because they are such wonderful, caring human beings, when, in reality, it's just self-preservation.If my name were "Baker" you'd assume that I made bread for a living.

Maybe I should change my name to Farmer, Knight, Miller or Sawyer.

How about Carpenter (religious overtones).

Mason (conspiratorial).

I've known people named Pope, Priest, Prophet, Monk, Pryor (or Prior), Vicar.

I've never assumed that any of these names indicated the person's profession.

I have documents going back to before the Revolution. Few people were literate back then so scribes wrote out the name and people made their mark. The scribes tended to write our family name as Ektor, Ecktor, Ekter, and occasionally as Hector.

Family tradition says that my great great grandmother was the first literate person in our family. She insisted the name be spelled Actor because that's how it's spelled in the Bible.

[boxcar]

You are here because your parents failed to do the responsible thing and practice birth control. God had nothing to do with it.
God created the possabilities; we create the specifics.

Oh, no, no, no. I'm here the same reason you are -- by divine decree. Before I was formed in my mother's womb, God knew me.

Jer 1:5
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you..."
NASB

God has created everything for his purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil! You would do well to meditate on the profound implications to this.

And yes, I capitalize "self" because if one does not care for one's own self, then tell me how can he care for anyone else, Einstein? And besides all that, I wasn't born married. We all start out in life being cared for because we are not of age. But when we reach maturity, many of us assume personal responsibility for our own lives, not anyone else's. We start out by learning to care for ourselves, then expand those responsibilities to care for others -- and "others" doesn't mean the rest of mankind either. We take care of our own. :rolleyes:

And does the Lk 6:29 text teach that if someone takes my tunic, that it's okay for me to look to someone else to replace it? Are my personal circumstances anyone's personal responsibility? Do I have a right to expect someone else to make up for my loss? You hypocrite! Read the text and learn what the Master is saying.

But the Jn 5:13 passage does not contradict what Jesus also taught about what the two greatest commandments are:

Matt 22:39-40
39 "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
NASB

Jesus didn't say that second greatest commandment was to go out and lay down your life for your friends!

The paradox here is that the highest expression of true love is one that is selfless and sacrificial in nature. This is the highest form. But this doesn't mean that one stops loving himself when he expresses love in this manner. In fact, to the contrary! What it does mean is that to love someone with this kind of love engenders self-respect and self-esteem and, therefore, love for one's self, also. I would argue he loves himself with an even purer love because he understands his role in the universe and is in the right relationship first with God and then with his fellow man. This is why Jesus didn't teach that the second commandment was to go out and love your neighbor more than yourself -- which is precisely what you're attempting to say.

And in the Matthew 19 passage, did Jesus tell the rich man to become a Warren Buffet and to go out and preach to all the other rich men that they must all pool their money together and give to the poor? The command was PERSONAL aimed at one specific person. Have you followed that command -- you who preach collectivism? Nor did Jesus let the rich man off the hook by telling him that he'll lobby Herod and Caesar to make certain that they tax the wealthy heavily so that the state can give to the poor on the behalf of the rich. :rolleyes:

And your defense of the hypocrite Buffet is pathetic. Why do you care or why should Buffet care about what others may think about his benevolence, if he were to do as I suggested? :bang: What about the positive effects his contributions would have to those who need it? How many hungry mouths would he feed? How many shelters would he provide for the homeless? Would not the positive effects far outweigh the negatives? Do you think God would judge Buffet harshly for voluntarily giving because of the negative impact it may have on other rich people's attitudes!? Your are such an incorrigible hypocrite! You talk this big game about how the poor need OUR help but then when it comes to individual, personal giving, your concern is no longer primarily for the poor but for wealthy people's perception of Buffet's act of kindness and benevolence? Are you out of your mind, altogether? What you're saying is that Buffet's only motivation for helping the poor should be what others think about him or how others may react to his charity! Has it ever occurred to you that actions speak far louder than cheap words? That if Buffet led the way, others may actually admire his leadership and follow him?

When Jesus Christ walked the earth, did he lead by words only or by example, too? Did Jesus care about what others thought about his teachings or his works? People who confidently know what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is moral and what is wicked will act on those values and care not a whit about what others may think because they are grounded in the truth.. And the truth will set people free from the wisdom of this dying world.

And finally, the market is "free" -- if nothing else in a relative sense. It used to be far freer until the government put its designs on it all these decades to control virtually ever aspect of it. I suppose in the alternate reality in which you live, government controls = freedom? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

Actor,

In all fairness, YOU chose that name. One might think it was for a logical reason.


Mike,

The big money guys I am talking about are not just guys from the neighborhood who built a business by working hard. We are talking about guys who got together with a bunch of other guys called a "board of directors" and voted themselves gigantic salaries. Then, when things go bad, the board votes to pay them MILLIONS more to leave early.

Kind of like congress. :bang: :lol:


Dave

[sammy the sage]

more fuel for the fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/business/tax-breaks-from-options-a-windfall-for-businesses.html?src=mv&ref=business

[Tom]

Yes, Sammy, the Times should be burned...every last issue of it.
All the news that's fit to burn!

[boxcar]

If my name were "Baker" you'd assume that I made bread for a living.

Correcto. You're beginning to catch on. This is even true for the baker who also owns the joint and has assumed all the risks that come with those responsibilities. If you were a baker, you would be working for your own self-interests first and foremost, as in "for YOUR OWN living". How very selfish and greedy and of you... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[badcompany]

Mr. Actor's point is perfectly valid, as we all know that "Baker" and "Actor" are equally common names, and that the overwhelming majority of posters on internet forums use their real names. In fact, many are on this thread. There's Joey Fast4522, Bobby Spiderman, and of course, Karl Mostpost.

Ironically, Dave Schwartz is a nick;)

[Tom]

His real name is Candlestickmaker.

[Dave Schwartz]

Actually, I am "Indian Chief."

[Tom]

This one?

[Dave Schwartz]

I was younger then.

[delayjf]

For example, when OUR money is used to bail out a company, how is it that the people at the top should be permitted to receive ANY of that money as bonuses? Really? Were our elect not smart enough to build a contract that said (essentially) "You agree not to give bonus?" In fact, how about something like "anyone making over $2m per year" gets capped at $2m per year until all the money is paid back?

Agree 100%, if the Gov has to come in and rescue your business the CEO, board of Directors etc, etc, do not pass go and do not get paid. The nepotism and cronyism has to go. Same thing with Congress, when politicians like Nancy Pelosi get away with insider trading and then have the gall to proclaim they did nothing wrong and yet they still get re-elected.