Question to Americans about the GOP

[Siege]

[Martim Silva]

Wow, Marim Silva posts on obvious troll thread, and Seedy takes it and RUNS!

I wasn't trolling. Keeping tax cuts to the mega-rich (and only they), especially when many of those billionaires even said they don't need it, is something that is quite uncomprehensible to us Europeans. And sounds amazingly daft.

In that regards, Yi did shed some light to the general idea, though that would imply a strong cultural rift between Europeans and Americans in that particular area.

1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.

I thought companies and the State created jobs, not rich people per se (barring maids, drivers, cooks, bodyguards, personal secretaries and private jet crews). If job creation is your main goal, should't corporate tax cuts be more logical than tax cuts to the most wealthy individuals?

Also, would't a tax cut to the poor/middle class mean that they'll consume more, thus also increasing the growth of businesses?

2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.

I disagree. I belive it is the People of a nation that creates it's Wealth through their work, not a group of people that only thinks of themselves. In that regard, the resource that should be husbanded is the population, not the top 2%.

3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.

If the rich have no loyalty to the country, all the more reason not to rely on them.

That said, the US is a MAJOR economic hub in the planet. It is economically unsound to leave it if one has a residence there. Unlike small countries, leaving the USA is not a good business move for a very major company. Especially because America can use its leverage to pressure future businesses such runaway billionaire would most certainly have to do inside US territory.

The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.

If they are only loyal to their money, would't it make more sense to the State to take that away from them (they are only people, and money is all they got) and use it itself to generate wealth to benefit the poor and middle class, who ARE loyal to the country?

Oh, and

I agree that Mio is cute.

Especially because she is left-handed and shy.

Besides, HTT is in University now.

[dps]

A debate between Martim Sliva and Siegy on economics.  It's like watching 2 blind quadrapeglics try to have a sword fight.

[11B4V]

If they are only loyal to their money, would't it make more sense to the State to take that away from them (they are only people, and money is all they got) and use it itself to generate wealth to benefit the poor and middle class, who ARE loyal to the country?

Hasnt this been tried before? Somewhere?

[11B4V]

If they are only loyal to their money, would't it make more sense to the State to take that away from them (they are only people, and money is all they got) and use it itself to generate wealth to benefit the poor and middle class, who ARE loyal to the country?

Why work your ass off to support some lazy ass cum dumster that keeps squirting out kids.

[Neil]

I wonder who these 'mega-rich' are that are the only ones to get a tax cut?  At this point, he's got to be trolling.

[Martinus]

Taking advantage of the IMF thread, I would like to ask something:

The Republican Party is defending tax cuts for the mega-rich, while proposing cuts on social programs and other things that help the poor.

Now, here in Europe, a party that defended such a position would rightfully be considered a joke party and would only get about 1% of the loony vote.

But in the US, the Republicans are seen as one of the most powerful political forces, and indeed their demands to keep tax cuts for the mega-rich seen as a valid political stance.

HOW can this position be even removely acceptable? What KIND of people are those who think this can somehow be a decent stance? Or who believe this can somehow be beneficial to anyone but to those who already have everything? Why don't people just shun these bastards?

Why? 

I'll tell you why:

1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.

2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.

3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.

The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.

In your post, is the "rich" a code word for "Jews"?

Did Hitler carry out a strip-mine equivalent of "exploiting the resource"?

[Martim Silva]

I wonder who these 'mega-rich' are that are the only ones to get a tax cut?  At this point, he's got to be trolling.

Bush enacted some tax cuts early last decade, most of which would have expired by December 31, 2010.

Obama wanted to let those expire, thus raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year.

Republicans oppose this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-tax-incomes-above/

This debate has going on for years. Haven't you heard about it?

Why work your ass off to support some lazy ass cum dumster that keeps squirting out kids.

Being a Mother is hard work. And those kids you don't want to support are the ones who will be paying your pension when you're old.

Also, aside from the fact that those kids are the ones that will be the future members of society, some of them will be geniuses, and who knows? The baby you want his mother to abort today may grow up to become the guy that cures Cancer (and possibly saves your life) 40 years down the road.

[Neil]

I wonder who these 'mega-rich' are that are the only ones to get a tax cut?  At this point, he's got to be trolling.

Bush enacted some tax cuts early last decade, most of which would have expired by December 31, 2010.

Obama wanted to let those expire, thus raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year.

Republicans oppose this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-tax-incomes-above/

This debate has going on for years. Haven't you heard about it?

A quarter-mil isn't 'mega-rich' over here.

Also, that's not really giving a tax cut only to the 'mega-rich', since they already got the tax cut, along with everyone else.  The Bush tax cuts were pretty all-inclusive, which was why they were so damaging.  The Republicans aren't arguing for only giving tax cuts to the 'mega-rich'.  They are arguing for not raising taxes only on the 'mega-rich'.  In fact, they've painted themselves into the corner where their true believers now think that raising taxes on anyone is a bad thing to do.

Try not to get so caught up in your own rhetoric.  You can have dinner with every ambassador you like, but if you can't step back from your emotional attachment to your politics, true knowledge and wisdom will always remain outside your grasp.

[Neil]

The baby you want his mother to abort today may become the guy that cures Cancer (and possibly your life) 40 years down the road.

Curing cancer is unwise.

Besides, poor people don't go into the sciences anymore.

[garbon]

Being a Mother is hard work. And those kids you don't want to support are the ones who will be paying your pension when you're old.

My mother took care of her kids and held down a job.

[Barrister]

I wasn't trolling.

I. Do. Not. Believe. You.

[DontSayBanana]

I'll tell you why:

1- The rich are the ones that create jobs. If the rich makes no money, their bussiness do not grow and they do not create more jobs.

No, the market creates jobs.  If the lower 90% can't buy a product because their cost of living is too high, some tax savings on the boss (or more likely, chairman, with even less power to directly influence job creation) isn't going to mean squat, and the business won't expand.

2- The goverment should not look at the Rich as people, but as a national resource, and treat them as such. They are to be husbanded and taken care for, since they are the ones that create the wealth of the nation.

I have yet to meet the kind of Rich that would qualify as a "national resource."  There are plenty of rich in my area; mostly, they're hamfisted farm moguls who've gotten and stayed rich by figuring out how not to contribute taxes while maintaining their profit margin.

3- The rich have no country and no loyalty. The middle class is tied to a job or small bussiness, and to the homes they own. The middle class have a hard time moving to other countries. The rich does not. They have no loyalties and their money allow them the freedom to live anywhere. They can relatively easily invest their money in other countires, creating jobs that do not benefit our country. We want them to stay here, expend their money here, and invest here.

The moment you forget that rich people are not people, but a natural resource that create jobs, you will drive your country into ruin. They are only loyal to their money, so you have to create the conditions that make their money grow, for the benefit of all the poor and middle class that do not know how to create wealtjh.

This is the first accurate item in this post, but it's still misguided.  The decision to keep jobs over here is mostly driven by the cost of doing business in a given state in the US.  That involves resource costs, facility costs, and taxes on the business- I've never heard of it being driven by income taxes on the Rich.

[The Minsky Moment]

To answer Martim, the United States is a little different from Europe electorally.

For example, we don't have fascist parties that get 20%+ of the vote.  We don't have communist and "Trotskyite" parties that get 20%+ of the vote.  We don't have "Green" parties that advocate dismantling large swaths of modern industrial infrastructure.  We don't have viable national parties that just represent a single ethnic group (Scots, Flemish, Basques, etc).  We don't have parties that are just wings of large Italian media companies, and we don't have parties that have platforms items like confiscating private pensions and eliminating freedom of the press.

Once all those commonplaces of European political life are removed, there isn't a lot of places for some of our confused or eccentric citizens to go.  So some clever people invented the GOP, which channels those people into mostly harmless sorts of things like tax cuts for dead rich people, prayers at high school football games, and protecting the legal status of gun shows.  It's not ideal, but it would be a lot worse, as European politics always helpfully reminds us.

[HVC]

The baby you want his mother to abort today may become the guy that cures Cancer (and possibly your life) 40 years down the road.

Curing cancer is unwise.

Besides, poor people don't go into the sciences anymore.

super cancer curing baby would also have less resources to learn and make it possible to cure cancer. by funneling more resources into less super cancer curing babies we up the odds