Are you part of the 53%

[jayhawk]

Within the limits of the constitution of course. As that is the whole point of the document, to limit the power of the Federal Government.

You missed the bait. Judicial review is not in the constitution.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Is there something wrong with 1% having earned 40% of the wealth?

Personally, I think it depends....

If that individual in the 1% is making insane amounts of money by conducting business in a way that is beneficial to the US economy and US workers, then no - I see no problem. The top 1% can act as a fuel, stimulating development, exchange, and overall economic success - and that is a great thing.

If that individual is making money by running market scams, breaking down companies, or shipping jobs overseas - then I would say they do not deserve it. When someone makes money by gaming the system in a way that is detrimental to the economy, they do not deserve a larger piece of the pie in return.

We have quite a bit of both in our nation. The common polarizing perspective seems to be that you must either believe the top 1% is good or bad... but in the real world grey exists. Some of the top 1% have been responsible for setting the table for our economic success, while some have lined their pockets by corroding our economy... both are rewarded handsomely.

In the end, the more money you make - the more money you get to take home. It is a great place to live, and an excellent place to be the top 1%... I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone paying higher taxes when their disposable income is in the millions.

 

[Pocketman]

You missed the bait. Judicial review is not in the constitution.

This question was argued in 1803 and SCOTUS determined "judicial power" granted in the Constitution implies judicial review. Therefore, it "is" in the Constitution.

 

[jayhawk]

This question was argued in 1803 and SCOTUS determined "judicial power" granted in the Constitution implies judicial review. Therefore, it "is" in the Constitution.

I don't want to get into some huge debate, but can you see how the courts determining the implied limits of their own power could possibly be a slippery slope? Similar to the executive branch or the legislative branch determining the limits of their power or lack thereof as "implied" by the constitution. The constitution all of a sudden becomes...not so simple.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Personally, I think it depends....

If that individual in the 1% is making insane amounts of money by conducting business in a way that is beneficial to the US economy and US workers, then no - I see no problem. The top 1% can act as a fuel, stimulating development, exchange, and overall economic success - and that is a great thing.

If that individual is making money by running market scams, breaking down companies, or shipping jobs overseas - then I would say they do not deserve it. When someone makes money by gaming the system in a way that is detrimental to the economy, they do not deserve a larger piece of the pie in return.

We have quite a bit of both in our nation. The common polarizing perspective seems to be that you must either believe the top 1% is good or bad... but in the real world grey exists. Some of the top 1% have been responsible for setting the table for our economic success, while some have lined their pockets by corroding our economy... both are rewarded handsomely.

In the end, the more money you make - the more money you get to take home. It is a great place to live, and an excellent place to be the top 1%... I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone paying higher taxes when their disposable income is in the millions.

That only makes sense if you think that someone is burrying their money in the back yard after they dismantle companies or "ship jobs overseas."

Now, I will agree that some people are probably breaking the law, acting fraudulently. I also agree that they should be punished.

However, if a company is doing SO poorly that the physical assets are worth more than the product produced, then isn't it beneficial for everyone that someone come in and buy the company to pay off the share holders, and then sell the capital to someone who will use it to actually make a good product for a profit? That's a lot better than share holders losing all their money, the factory and all the equipment rotting to the floor, and the workers still losing their jobs, right?

Does "shipping jobs overseas" help or hurt the economy? Well, would you like the minimum cost of jeans to be $100 per pair? What about $150 t-shirts? Just so you can keep a couple thousand clothing jobs on our shores? Does that actually help the economy?

Without taking advantage of low labor cost in other countries, most of the things we buy would be out of our price range, and if no one can afford to buy the product, don't those factory workers lose their job anyway?

Or do you think that I'm going to get a big raise just because the cost of living goes up? If my wage goes up, then so does the cost of the product I make.

Do you think we'd really enjoy our current standard of living without outsourcing?

Just take an inventory of how much "stuff" you are able to afford that your parents couldn't even dream of.

 

[Pocketman]

I don't want to get into some huge debate, but can you see how the courts determining the implied limits of their own power could possibly be a slippery slope? Similar to the executive branch or the legislative branch determining the limits of their power or lack thereof as "implied" by the constitution. The constitution all of a sudden becomes...not so simple.

I agree, it is slippery that the Constitution gives the Court power to determine what the Constitution actually means. The safeguard is the Legislative Branch has the ability to modify laws deemed unconstitutional and/or modify the Constitution itself. The Executive Branch can interpret its own power unless the Court rules contrary or the Legislature provides contrary specific language. Not perfect, but when all three branches are doing their jobs, it works as well as any manmade process.

 

[billybob44]

Billy Bob thinks he is paying his 'fair share' and looks down at the welfare re

I did not "Have a dog in this Fight" up until now....Be careful on the name calling..HA...Bill.

 

[Prometheus]

I did not "Have a dog in this Fight" up until now....Be careful on the name calling..HA...Bill.

No relation to you what so every, sorry

 

[jayhawk]

RePost: Letter From A Liberal To A Young Marine (That 53% Guy) « Faustian urGe

 

[Hotdoger]

RePost: Letter From A Liberal To A Young Marine (That 53% Guy) « Faustian urGe

I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you. For instance, I want everybody to have healthcare. I want lazy people to have healthcare. I want stupid people to have healthcare. I want drug addicts to have healthcare. I want bums who refuse to work even when given the opportunity to have healthcare. I’m willing to pay for that with my taxes, because I want to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how much of a loser you are, if you need medical care you can get it.

He is not a "liberal". He is your typical socialist. He wants the goverment to steal eveyone elses money to pay for what he wants.

 

[jayhawk]

He is not a "liberal". He is your typical socialist. He wants the goverment to steal eveyone elses money to pay for what he wants.

Really? Is that what you got from it?

So the idea that the average person should be able to work a 40hr a week job and maybe even sustain a family is theft from "everyone else"?

The trend in this country over the last 30 years or so is that the wealth is being distributed to the richest members of society in an unbalanced way. This is a result of several things, one of which is government fiscal policy. Is is socialist to recognize this as a problem and want to at minimum slow down the trend (if not reset the balance to some point in the past)?

To oversimplify it, one can look at it this way: everyone's buying power per hour worked is decreasing except for the very high earners. Historically, and in other nations, this is generally considered not a good thing.

We can all disagree on the correct solution, but it would seem that we should be able to acknowledge that there is a problem.

 

[Hotdoger]

Really? Is that what you got from it?

So the idea that the average person should be able to work a 40hr a week job and maybe even sustain a family is theft from "everyone else"?

The trend in this country over the last 30 years or so is that the wealth is being distributed to the richest members of society in an unbalanced way. This is a result of several things, one of which is government fiscal policy. Is is socialist to recognize this as a problem and want to at minimum slow down the trend (if not reset the balance to some point in the past)?

To oversimplify it, one can look at it this way: everyone's buying power per hour worked is decreasing except for the very high earners. Historically, and in other nations, this is generally considered not a good thing.

We can all disagree on the correct solution, but it would seem that we should be able to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Reread the quote.
Has nothing to do with 40 hour jobs. He wants others to pay for the leaches who won't work.

Buying power has diminised because of devaluation of the dollar. Something he voted for when he pulled the lever for Obama.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

That only makes sense if you think that someone is burrying their money in the back yard after they dismantle companies or "ship jobs overseas."

Now, I will agree that some people are probably breaking the law, acting fraudulently. I also agree that they should be punished.

However, if a company is doing SO poorly that the physical assets are worth more than the product produced, then isn't it beneficial for everyone that someone come in and buy the company to pay off the share holders, and then sell the capital to someone who will use it to actually make a good product for a profit? That's a lot better than share holders losing all their money, the factory and all the equipment rotting to the floor, and the workers still losing their jobs, right?

Does "shipping jobs overseas" help or hurt the economy? Well, would you like the minimum cost of jeans to be $100 per pair? What about $150 t-shirts? Just so you can keep a couple thousand clothing jobs on our shores? Does that actually help the economy?

Without taking advantage of low labor cost in other countries, most of the things we buy would be out of our price range, and if no one can afford to buy the product, don't those factory workers lose their job anyway?

Or do you think that I'm going to get a big raise just because the cost of living goes up? If my wage goes up, then so does the cost of the product I make.

Do you think we'd really enjoy our current standard of living without outsourcing?

Just take an inventory of how much "stuff" you are able to afford that your parents couldn't even dream of.

I did not pay $100 for jeans even when they were still made in America... and in my not so important opinion - the long term costs of those "cheap products" due to shipping jobs overseas will not lead to a beneficial economic trend in the long run. You and me may get a cheaper pair of jeans today, but at what economic cost in the long run as our money is sent overseas? At what cost to the guy that used to rivet together my Levis?

And we have not even opened the can of worms marked Wall Street... Mortgage backed securities... Companies that are not truly productive being held up through deception.... Over-leveraging... These practices have all had a disastrous effect on our economy, and many of the individuals responsible were rewarded for their part in the mess, while most individuals that had nothing to do with the practice deal with the fallout.

My original point, however - was that to form an opinion regarding how deserving someone is of their wealth, you have to look at the individual and the situation. Holding or earning wealth does not inherently make someone deserving - the unique and specific who what where how and why is important. It just seems like the more I talk to people about the issue, the more I have come to realize that most people hold a polarized stereotype of the 1%, as if they as a whole are either good or bad... while in reality, the 1% is still a group of unique individuals, with individual situations and contributions - the good, the bad, the ugly, and the mediocre all exist.

 

[jayhawk]

Reread the quote.
Has nothing to do with 40 hour jobs. He wants others to pay for the leaches who won't work.

Buying power has diminised because of devaluation of the dollar. Something he voted for when he pulled the lever for Obama.

Read the entire post. You can disagree with a single paragraph and still recognize and understand the overall problem.

It's more than devaluation of the dollar, though it is true that inflation makes the problem even worse. It's not a left/right issue. It's not an Obama issue. This has been going on for 30 years.

 

[Hotdoger]

The trend in this country over the last 30 years or so is that the wealth is being distributed to the richest members of society in an unbalanced way. This is a result of several things, one of which is government fiscal policy. Is is socialist to recognize this as a problem and want to at minimum slow down the trend (if not reset the balance to some point in the past)?

The US standard of living has increased every second of those 30 years. There are now more self made millionaires than at anytime in this nations history. The truth is reguardless of government fiscial screwups and theft of peoples money and property this nations people are not better off in socialists minds. "30 years of The Great Society programs and things still suck" is a great slogan. LOL

 

[jayhawk]

The US standard of living has increased every second of those 30 years. There are now more self made millionaires than at anytime in this nations history. The truth is reguardless of government fiscial screwups and theft of peoples money and property this nations people are not better off in socialists minds. "30 years of The Great Society programs and things still suck" is a great slogan. LOL

How are you defining "standard of living". Data shows that income for the vast majority of people has increased slightly, while income for the higher earners has increased significantly. Combine this with inflation and it is clear that buying power has actually decreased for majority of workers. For every self made millionaire there is a growing number of people with less buying power.

Don't make it a political or emotional issue. Just look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. Who is stealing from who?

Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

 

[Hotdoger]

Read the entire post. You can disagree with a single paragraph and still recognize and understand the overall problem.

It's more than devaluation of the dollar, though it is true that inflation makes the problem even worse. It's not a left/right issue. It's not an Obama issue. This has been going on for 30 years.

I did read it all. The paragraph I quoted made all the other words miniscule.
Govement intervention is the problem and he wants more government intervention.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The US standard of living has increased every second of those 30 years. There are now more self made millionaires than at anytime in this nations history. The truth is reguardless of government fiscial screwups and theft of peoples money and property this nations people are not better off in socialists minds. "30 years of The Great Society programs and things still suck" is a great slogan. LOL

Yes, and no... The standard of living has increased due to technological advancements. We can attribute the pace of technological advancement to capitalism, so the positive effects of our system cannot be overlooked.

However, the distribution of wealth over time has also changed, and while more people are millionaires - more people in the bottom tiers of our economy get a substantially smaller piece of the overall pie. The top 20% of our population have steadily gained a larger portion of the pie, while the bottom 50% gets roughly the same dollar amount. Since the cost of living rises faster than earnings in many situations, not everyone is comparatively better off. We can create more with the labor of our population, but inequality in the distribution of those goods is a steadily widening gap.

The problem is, I have never heard someone articulate a sound answer to the question:
How can you change this trend while keeping intact the capitalistic mechanisms that contribute to the advancement of technology?

Until someone has a realistic solution, pointing out the problem is in vain.

 

[jayhawk]

I did read it all. The paragraph I quoted made all the other words miniscule.
Govement intervention is the problem and he wants more government intervention.

We already have government intervention. He would simply prefer that it benefit those with nothing rather than those with everything. Government intervention is a problem, and we either need less or different government intervention.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The author assumes a static model. That marine will not work those 70 hour weeks forever as the author indicates. That guy will be successful. He'll work hard and move up the ladder. Work hard and smart, get rewarded. Sit on your ass and take whatever pittance the government can afford to give you and that's where you'll stay.

As an aside, that pittance is being overrun by massive demand as more and more belly up to the trough. It's not sustainable and we all know that.