HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Wealthy disagree with mos...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:51 AM

 

Wealthy disagree with most Americans about income policies

According to the pilot study—directed by scholars at Northwestern and Vanderbilt universities—87 percent of the wealthy say that budget deficits are a "very important" problem facing the United States, putting deficits at the very top of a list of 12 potential problems.

About one-third of the wealthy call deficits or excessive government spending the most pressing problem facing the country, much more than any other problem. In contrast, only 7 percent of the general public mentions deficits or the national debt as the most important problem facing the country; more than 50 percent cite the economy and jobs.

What's more, the wealthy tilt toward cutting back—rather than expanding—federal government programs like Social Security and health care that ordinary citizens want to expand or keep the same. Overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose such cuts.

Benjamin I. Page, Gordon Scott Fulcher Professor of Decision Making in the department of political science at Northwestern and director of the study, said economic self-interest is the most straightforward explanation for why the wealthy oppose raising taxes on high incomes and favor reducing the deficit by cutting back on entitlement programs, while a majority of Americans disagree.

"These programs are of little personal benefit to wealthy people," Page said. "However, since they pay a lot of taxes, they are well aware of their costs."

An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose cuts in Social Security, and many wish to expand it. But fully 36 percent of the top 1 percent favor cutting back on Social Security, and only 3 percent of them favor expanding it.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-wealthy-americans-income-policies.html

69 replies, 7878 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wealthy disagree with most Americans about income policies (Original post)
HiPointDem Feb 2013 OP
sadbear Feb 2013 #1
Moostache Feb 2013 #66
Veilex Feb 2013 #67
xchrom Feb 2013 #2
HughBeaumont Feb 2013 #3
baldguy Feb 2013 #7
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #10
nxylas Feb 2013 #64
LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #15
hfojvt Feb 2013 #20
Autumn Feb 2013 #4
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #54
PETRUS Feb 2013 #5
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #6
Lochloosa Feb 2013 #8
hfojvt Feb 2013 #22
Lochloosa Feb 2013 #28
hfojvt Feb 2013 #36
Lochloosa Feb 2013 #41
hfojvt Feb 2013 #42
John2 Feb 2013 #53
DallasNE Feb 2013 #59
hobbit709 Feb 2013 #9
SnowCritter Feb 2013 #11
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #14
prairierose Feb 2013 #12
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #32
prairierose Feb 2013 #51
undergroundpanther Feb 2013 #52
Starry Messenger Feb 2013 #13
AndyA Feb 2013 #16
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #18
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #31
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #34
DhhD Feb 2013 #17
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #65
DallasNE Feb 2013 #19
dkf Feb 2013 #25
DallasNE Feb 2013 #29
mainer Feb 2013 #38
DallasNE Feb 2013 #40
mainer Feb 2013 #43
DallasNE Feb 2013 #60
Smilo Feb 2013 #21
Yavin4 Feb 2013 #23
raouldukelives Feb 2013 #24
dkf Feb 2013 #26
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #47
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #61
L0oniX Feb 2013 #27
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #30
ashling Feb 2013 #33
Cleita Feb 2013 #35
AnnieK401 Feb 2013 #37
LongTomH Feb 2013 #39
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #44
LongTomH Feb 2013 #46
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #58
valerief Feb 2013 #45
dtom67 Feb 2013 #48
Pakid Feb 2013 #49
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2013 #50
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #55
alfredo Feb 2013 #56
JVS Feb 2013 #57
daybranch Feb 2013 #62
mwb970 Feb 2013 #63
obama2terms Feb 2013 #68
DaveJ Feb 2013 #69

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:53 AM

1. French Revolution anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:02 PM

66. The 1% have enough cake, thank you very much!

I hold these people in the same esteem I do the TEA bagging morons who suddenly became soooooooooooooo concerned with debt and spending AFTER we charged off to invade countries that never attacked us and only AFTER their "self-made businesses" used US military power (ie. - PUBLIC SPENDING!!!!) to secure their ability to exploit the resources and human beings of other nations.

I have only one thing to say to any of these so-called patriotic American 1%'ers:
Shut up and pay your fair share!

You, the super-wealthy and 1%, have benefited disproportionally to your contributions and you are not being "penalized for your success", you are being afforded the opportunity to ensure your country remains a place of stability and civility. You are being afforded this opportunity peacefully and without any threat of imminent harm to yourself or your families. In the days preceding our Western civilizations, those in your position usually met a much more violent and choice-free end - they lost their heads and everything else to boot.

If I had to choose, I would go with choice A...but then again, if the 1% insist on destroying the planet and raping the people for ever increasing shares of the "profit", then I have no moral conundrum about helping to administer choice B to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:40 PM

67. Hell yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:55 AM

2. du rec. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:00 AM

3. "Since they pay a lot of taxes"?????

Is this guy fucked? Most of them pay a lower overall tax rate than much of the middle/working classes. Sorry, but the wealthy aren't starving or wondering where their next meal is coming from. They have better advantages, breaks, perks, cost of living burden and life position over the rest of society than any time period since the Great Depression. I don't even want to hear these fuckers crying poor. They have it far, FAR too easy in the U.S.A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:09 AM

7. They do pay a lot in taxes - 36-38% of govt revenue comes from the wealthiest 10%

The problem is they get 75% of the income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:38 AM

10. And they also pay a lower overall percentage of their income.

And then on top of that, much of their income is tax advantaged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:30 AM

64. That's the ones that pay taxes at all

Instead of stashing all their money in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:48 AM

15. Of course they pay a lot of taxes. They have more income.

Just like they have a lot more tax exempt income then all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:17 AM

20. actually they pay a slightly higher percent of the taxes than they get of the income

In 2008, for example, the top 0.1% got 9.96% of the total AGI and they paid 18.46% of all Federal Income taxes.

In 2008, though they only paid an average income tax rate of 22.7% whereas in 2001, they paid 28.2%

Since their total income was $839 billion, they saved about $46 billion each year from the Bush tax cuts.

Fortunately after Obama promised to end the Bush tax cuts, he recently made most of them permanent, including about $60 billion a year for the top 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:04 AM

4. Well I'm well aware of the costs of their fucking tax breaks.

So pay it back assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:57 PM

54. Got that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:06 AM

5. K&R - Here's another quote from the article:

"We suggest that these distinctive policy preferences may help account for why certain public policies in the United States appear to deviate from what the majority of U.S. citizens want the government to do," the authors state in the report. "If this is so, it raises serious issues for democratic theory."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:07 AM

6. Bread and Circuses, that's all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:28 AM

8. The issue is not what the wealthest think.

It has been the systematic programming of voters into thinking, and voting, the same way.

God, Guns and Guts.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lochloosa (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:25 AM

22. except that in 2008

voters put a Democrat in the White House, gave control of the House to the Democrats and put 60 Democrats in the Senate, and the result, in 2010? An extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Then voters re-elected that Democratic President. The result?

Instead of automatically expiring, 85% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, with 35% of the benefits going to the richest 5% amd 65% of the benefits going to the richest 20% and 16% of the benefits going to the bottom 60%.

So it is NOT like voters can get a government that does NOT favor the rich by electing a Democrat to the White House. Two Obama administrations pretty clearly show that HOPE to be a LIE.

Thank goodness that Michelle was smoking at the Oscars last night though. Our attractive royal family makes it all better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:02 PM

28. You are wrong. There never was 60 Democrats in the Senate in '08. Stop spreading that LIE. Thanks.

If I'm wrong...prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lochloosa (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:07 PM

36. technically they did

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31778598/

"His presence gives Democrats 60 votes, enough to thwart possible Republican filibusters."

Specter switched parties on 30 Apr 2009. Burris was sworn in on 11 Feb 2009, Franken sworn in on 7 Jul 2009. Kennedy did not die until 25 Aug 2009.

In practical terms though, Kennedy did not cast any votes since March 2009, so Democrats only had 60 on paper.

But the point remains, that electing lots of Democrats still resulted in tax policies that favor the rich.

also Paul Kirk was sworn in on 25 September 2009 and so Democrats again had 60 until Scott Brown was sworn in on 4 Feb 2010. So there's another 4 month window.

and n.b., I don't want to hear any nonsense about how Lieberman and Sanders don't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:49 PM

41. But you will here the nonsense about Lieberman.

He was a turncoat of the worst kind. He helped stop getting to the 60 vote threshold many times.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lochloosa (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:24 PM

42. probably no more so than Baucus or the Nelson twins

Democrats wasted their energy on healthcare reform, which was still politically unpopular, and put the Bush tax cuts off for two years, and then extended them again, and then, after Obama promised "in 2012 I am gonna fight to end them for the rich" he instead worked to make 85% of them permanent.

Yeah, sure, if only working people would elect Democrats then we'd have politicians fighting on "our" side http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:43 PM

53. Well lets look more closely at your

 

claims. Even though the Democrats had a number of 60, have you ever heard of the Blue Dog Coalition? That applies to the House too. Some of these Democrats you make claims about, actually don't vote in lock step with the Democratic Party. I wonder how many you could name out of that 60?

The Health care battle was a good example of this. Originally, the base wanted a Public Option but had to water it down based on the division within their own Party. You had conservative Democrats in North Carolina,West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Louisiana. Does these states draw any attention to you? They are all red states. So your 60 vote filibuster proof Senate don't look so invincible but that is right out the Republican talking points.

The House was even worst. Have I busted that notion yet? And in 2010, it got worst because of the tea Party members ousting even some of those Blue Dog Democrats. The problem with Congress is the electorate in those red states among one ethnic group sending these right wing extremists to Congress. And a lot of it is not based on their own interests. A good example was the hate talk coming similar from that old guy in McCain's town hall. Really now, taking a human life because some crosses a border to look for a better way of life?

I'll say this now. The Republican Party are the real dividers of this country. Social Security and Medicare are paid for. Those programs are not a waste because they help every American that paid into them. I do not know where people of wealth get off claiming those programs are welfare? Just whose kids are they talking about burdening with them in the future? Someone's that has a worth of millions and even Billions of dollars claiming their kids will be burdened from these programs? Whose trying to scare whom? And the worst thing of all, I don't think many baby boomers will be living 70 or 75 years from now in a country projected to have over 400 million people. I know because I'm one and nearing retirement now. I paid into the system all my life. It is my money. Now it is time for Congress to pay up. If they don't, some people call that a default of a promise. They better get their money from somewhere else. I suggest, they better ask the real moochers because they didn't create any jobs. So the claim is they are spending too much taxes. Then why do they have all those profits in the last ten years while others are only getting by? They need to keep their greedy hands off the safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:48 AM

59. Democrats Didn't Have 60 In Senate Very Long

They started 2009 with 59 Senators then several months later Spector switched parties and they had 60 but not long after that Sen. Kennedy got sick and soon was too sick to vote. After Kennedy passed away there was about a 3 month window before Brown was elected that a temporary Senator gave them 60 again. During one of those windows, however, they did pass the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) without a single Republican vote. The stimulus also passed with 3 crossover votes. Those two may have been the only bills where the filibuster was broken. Everything else had to be passed as compromise legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:34 AM

9. They got theirs and screw anyone else trying to get the crumbs.

If there was karma there would be a Great Shortening in their future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:59 AM

11. Hell - they don't want you to get your hands on the crumbs, either!

If the "malefactors of great wealth" (thanks, Theodore Roosevelt) get their way, we'll soon be living in a feudal society.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SnowCritter (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:32 AM

14. +290

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:31 AM

12. So, even though they can see the evidence of what austerity has done...

to the Eurozone, they are so stupid they think the deficits are more important than getting the economy back to growing rather than shrinking. This study also tells us that they do onto understand that in order for them to be wealthy, others must have jobs and security. And it tells us that they have no empathy for other people at all. I wonder if they see us as people at all?

The upshot of this is a question. Are these very wealthy any use in our society at all? They hoard money and will do anything, pay anything to gain more advantages so they do not have to contribute to society in any meaningful, positive way. They do not seem to understand how economics work, except in their favor and they show no concern or mercy for the rest of society. Why do they get such big tax breaks again?

Oh yea, it's now legal to bribe Congress. And this is one of those framing ideas. No matter what Congress or anyone else calls it, it is bribery and it is corruption that the rich pay such a lower percentage of their income in taxes. We need to be talking about corruption in that way at all times. It does not matter if it is legal and it does not matter if the Supreme Court makes more bribery legal. It is still bribery ;it is still corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prairierose (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:49 PM

32. "Are these very wealthy any use in our society at all?" = good question.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:30 PM

51. I thought later that I should have added.....

If their taxes were back to pre-Reagan 50 - 70%, they might be useful because they would be paying taxes that help the society but as it is ...... I can't think what use they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:42 PM

52. No, we'd be much better off without them.

We don't need wealthy people,not at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:31 AM

13. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:56 AM

16. Let "you people"--the poor--eat cake

We've got ours, now tough crap for the rest of you.

Big surprise that the wealthy don't care about anyone but themselves. The fact that the "poor people" pay a higher percentage of income taxes is lost on them.

They make more money, they aren't hurting in this economy, so they SHOULD pay a lot of taxes.

Greed, plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyA (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:57 AM

18. and watch the Oscars

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:48 PM

31. Give it a rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:50 PM

34. .......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:56 AM

17. Most Americans live with personal debt. They can make a living while managing debt. The wealthy

for the most part, are afraid of debt or afraid of debt for America because they have very little understanding of it and operate in the black under inequality and instability relative to 98% of Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:41 AM

65. The wealthy OWN the fucking national debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:14 AM

19. I Disagree Sharply With What Benjamin Page Concludes

The most anybody pays in payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare is $6,572 and that is not "a lot of taxes" considering their income. And when someone like Mitt Romney pays income taxes at an effective rate of less then 15%, which is less incidentally than he gives to the Mormon Church, then it is hard to square that with any kind of hardship. In fact, these wealthy people pay a smaller effective rate in both payroll taxes and income taxes than their secretaries and that makes those taxes regressive rather than progressive. The super selfish simply don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion so they need to stop being cry babies and start paying their fair share like everybody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:38 PM

25. There is no maximum to what you pay for Medicare. It taxes your entire income.

 

Why do you think there is a cap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:33 PM

29. Stop Nitpicking

The majority of the payroll tax is for Social Security and that is capped. That means that the effective rate for payroll taxes for the wealthy is less than for the secretary, which was my main point. The tax is still regressive. Even though the $6,500 is not technically correct because the lesser part of it is not capped does not change the fact that it is not a lot of taxes as claimed by the author. I simply didn't consider it that relevant to the discussion so I cut corners marginally, bfd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:21 PM

38. Correcting a major misstatement is not nitpicking

For high earners, Medicare taxes across full income adds up to a LOT more in taxes than Social Security taxes.

Stay with the facts or risk losing the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:24 PM

40. Good Lord

Nothing like piling on -- and looking stupid at the same time.

The Social Security tax rate is 6.2% and the Medicare tax rate is 1.45%, or less than 20% of the payroll tax. In fact, your salary would have to be above $453,000 before your Medicare tax would exceed your Social Security tax and that puts you in the top 1% (or is it the top .1% - I retired from a company of 8,000 employees and I would say it was closer to 8 than 80 that were at or above that salary).

A person having a salary of $100,000 pays $7,650 in payroll taxes for an effective tax rate of 7.65%. A person having a salary of $1,000,000 pays $21,072 in payroll taxes for an effective tax rate of 2.1%. The math all supports the points I am making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:31 PM

43. Wrong again. Medicare tax 2.9 percent

It's what I pay as I am self employed,

Most high earners are self-employed.


From IRS website:

Self-employed —the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent on income under $113,700 through the end of 2013. The Medicare tax rate is 2.9 percent.

And facts still remain. Medicare tax does not have a cap, which you claimed. Calling people stupid, by the way, doesn't make you more right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:02 AM

60. Do You Agree With What Page Claimed

I will summarize it here. Page claimed "fully 36 percent of the top 1 percent favor cutting back on Social Security" and went on to say "since they pay a lot of taxes, they are well aware of their costs".

My original response focused only on Social Security but on proofreading I added "and Medicare" in my first sentence without fully thinking through the implications of putting in those two words. Later I acknowledged that my language "cut corners" but it only had a minor impact on the point I was making, i.e., that to the 1% roughly $6,500 was not "a lot of taxes". You sharply disagreed by saying they paid a LOT of taxes because of Medicare. I didn't say you were stupid but that it was stupid to call that a "LOT" (2.1% of a $1 million salary). I will apologize for the poor choice of the word "stupid" over the shout out use of "LOT". I felt your comment simply is not substantiated in the context of the point being made, claiming the math supported my conclusion. By the way, I googled the Medicare tax rate knowing I needed to have that right in my response and didn't appreciate the "wrong again".

I was not aware that most high earners are self-employed. I thought they formed S-corporations or LLP's for the tax benefit that brought their way, including payroll taxes since they could lowball their salary somewhat, which increased the reported profit they passed through to their individual 1040, but as ordinary income not subject to payroll taxes. In this day and age is surprises me than many would want to go the self-employed route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:18 AM

21. What the wealthy are worried about is that

the government will actually stop pandering to them and stop all the "benefits" they are able to use and abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:30 AM

23. The wealthy sure don't care about the national debt when they're getting a tax cut

The wealthy and the Republicans only care about the debt and the deficit when they're not holding the White House.

This entire debate about the debt and deficit is just another hoax being played out on the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:32 PM

24. Wealthy disagree with pretty much everything on the face of the earth about income policies.

Whether it be glacier fed lakes or forests, the panicked look in the eye of a woodland creature being forced into extinction non-withstanding, they will champion destruction of all that some consider beautiful but to them is just more zeros on the bottom line.
Now is the time to be running the largest deficits in the history of man. The environmental deficit we have created demands repayment. I can think of no better use for creating more artificial debt than to start to repair the damage done. No better gift that can be passed on to future generations than the ability to enjoy what so many have taken for granted and so few care about now. If the choice is between leaving them debt free or leaving a viable ecosystem, I don't have a crystal ball but I do have a good idea what they would prefer we fought our battles over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:41 PM

26. You know this is probably how the average Greek felt.

 

Actually even when the country is broke they still don't want to cut spending, so yes this is probably typical.

The rich have more to lose if a country goes belly up. That is the truth of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:55 PM

47. I think that if you will never go hungry EVER nor have to try to live without a home

You are losing far less than the people being forced into the street to try to survive malnutrition and disease.

The rich may lose some of their enormous wealth, but they hardly will suffer and die as the poor do.
I suppose you felt the worst for the opulent french royalty than the people starving to death at the time of the french revolution.

Your idea of what people stand to loose is the sentiment behind 'let them eat cake'.
Some have no bread or shelter moron. the loss of life is so much more tragic than having to make due with only three of your multiple off shore accounts, it is rather sad when the eighth vacation estate can not be purchased, but really, you just said the stupidest thing I have ever read here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:43 AM

61. a comment that was always wrong, and never more so now

"The rich have more to lose if a country goes belly up. That is the truth of it."

The Aristocracy and Wealthy of all countries have always felt more kinship with each other than any of their countrymen. Think of Louisiana, which got passed from Spain to France as the Bourbons simply shuffled property among relatives, or The fact that Kaiser Wilhelm , upon being caught, demanded a proper English tea like the ones he used to have with his Grandmother, Queen Victoria. Watch the rich collect homes in New York, Paris, Dubai, Tokyo, Moscow, and see how they flit about as if they were simply going to a summer home, because they know that the flag and law of the place means nothing to them. Throw in corporations, adn well, they can ruin any land they want, but their bottom line is not affected in the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:45 PM

27. Like we give a fuck about what you fucking rich assholes think!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:46 PM

30. Gee, the greedy agree with the greedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:50 PM

33. whowould have guessed? sarcasm

Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:57 PM

35. Having had to tolerate my share of the wealthy and their spawn, trust fund brats,

usually the boss's son I was forced to work with cuz he couldn't keep a job anywhere else, it's not surprising. They are brainwashed from the cradle about how poor people are that way because it's their fault. Never mind that most of them were raised by poor women, the housekeeper, they still believe it was the housekeeper's fault that she couldn't learn English that well, go to college and make something of herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:14 PM

37. Gee, I can't imagine why they would feel that way. Go figure (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:14 PM

39. "The very rich are different from you and me!"

Quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft, where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand."

That's even more true today. The mega-rich are so isolated from the day-to-day world and the concerns of everyone else that they may as well be a separate species.

And that (The very rich as a separate species!) is a very distinct possibility with genetic engineering. Several futurist writers have written of the possibility of the moneyed elite making their children a genetic elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongTomH (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:45 PM

44. "yes, they have more money" = ernest hemingway

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:22 PM

46. Here's the actual source of the quote. Hint: It's not from Papa Hemingway

The Rich Boy (1926). It was an examination of the effects of great wealth, similar to the themes Fitzgerald examined in The Great Gatsby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LongTomH (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:25 AM

58. ...

 

But years later, Ernest Hemingway, who was supposedly a friend of Fitzgerald, mocked the famed opening lines of “Rich Boy” in his short story “The Snows of Kilimanjaro.” In the original version of that story, printed in Esquire magazine in 1936, Hemingway wrote:

“The rich...were dull and they drank too much, or they played too much backgammon. They were dull and they were repetitious. He remembered poor Scott Fitzgerald and his romantic awe of them and how he had started a story once that began, “The very rich are different from you and me.” And how some one had said to Scott, Yes, they have more money. But that was not humorous to Scott. He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked him.”


Understandably, Fitzgerald was offended. He complained to Hemingway’s publisher and when the story was reprinted in a 1938 collection of Hemingway’s short stories, “Scott Fitzgerald” was changed to the name “Julian.” But in his personal notebooks, Fitzgerald made the mistake of writing a cryptic entry that said: “They have more money. (Ernest’s wisecrack.)”

After Fitzgerald’s death, entries from his notebooks were included in The Crack-Up (1945), a book compiled from Fitzgerald’s writings by his friend Edmund Wilson. Wilson added a footnote to the notebook entry about Ernest’s wisecrack that explained: “Fitzgerald had said, ‘The rich are different from us.’ Hemingway had replied, ‘Yes, they have more money.’”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:F._Scott_Fitzgerald

http://books.google.com/books?id=klMWVELASj0C&pg=PA39&dq=rich+are+different+from+you+and+me+have+more+money&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dFUsUcmQKsbligLpm4HgBA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=rich%20are%20different%20from%20you%20and%20me%20have%20more%20money&f=false

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:45 PM

45. You mean the rich people who buy media and forcefeed horseshit down our

throats day in and day out? Those wealthiest people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:02 PM

48. wish I had the money the spent on this study...

I believe the proper response to this study would be : " no kidding! ".

of course the Elites believe that Government spending is a problem. Of course they blame the lower classes and their "entitlements" for the Debt. They have to blame someone for our economic problems. what do they expect the Rich to say? " the system is doomed because the Fed is now printing money just to pay the debt and if they stop we are screwed"? " We're screwed because a monetary system based on crushing debt is unsustainable "?

Of course not.

"Its those needy poor people ( 99% ) using up all our clean water, food, gas, and other resources. They are the problem, not Us !"

Still, I guess it helps to have something "on paper"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:15 PM

49. Greedy rich SOB

They will not be happy until we lie drying in the streets from lack of food and health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:26 PM

50. "I got mine, yer on yer own" syndrome.

May all 87% die in a fire if karma doesn't wake their self-entitled asses up first...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:00 PM

55. Surprised they care about anything actually, other than their bank statements that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:09 PM

56. I really don't give a flying fuck about what they think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:02 AM

57. That's like saying masters and slaves view slavery differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 AM

62. non story

87 percent of 1 percent=.0087. support Democracy, stop Gerrymandering and stop catering to ther less than one percent! Join the movement!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:29 AM

63. The desires of the wealthy seem very similar to those of the republican party.

I wonder why that would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 04:27 PM

68. Not suprising

It's a lot easier to say you want to cut social programs when you have enough money to not rely on them. Last time I checked, wealthy people weren't paying that much in taxes, Mitt Romney*coughs*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:30 AM

69. "36 percent of the top 1 percent favor cutting back on Social Security"

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Actually given the greedy nature of human beings 36% is not a bad number.

Most of the rich made money off the hard work and personal sacrifice of others, with some evil contorted rationale that somehow they earned it all themselves. So yeah given what SOBs they are, I'm surprised it's not more.

Says to me that even those scumbags know that impoverishing the general public would not benefit the economy overall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread