Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Rich Get Richer
The American Conservative ^ | September 25, 2006 Issue | James Kurth

Posted on 09/20/2006 7:46:02 AM PDT by A. Pole

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181 next last
To: lucysmom

" Some Conservatives recognize that when things get too far out of wack, an FDR comes along."

FDR only made things worse. What you want is another World War.


121 posted on 09/20/2006 12:30:20 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
especially since the poor and middle class got much bigger tax cuts than did the rich.

That's not true for those in the middle class now paying the AMT.

122 posted on 09/20/2006 12:33:25 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
There's a simple reason why the highest quintile of almost any group of people -- under any form of measurement you wish to use (income, vital statistics, etc.) -- will increase faster than the lowest. It's because for most measurements there is no practical limitation on how high the measurement in question can go, but there is usually a practical limitation on how low it can go.

Thanks - that makes a lot of sense.

123 posted on 09/20/2006 12:36:37 PM PDT by Michamilton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
When you add all of the costs associated with having a second income in a family (second car, work clothing, child care, stupid government programs that are nothing more than expensive day care, etc.), you often find that a second spouse who works for a salary of $60,000 per year is actually working for less than the minimum wage.

And yet, when I was growing up, our next door neighbor was a single mom (her husband divorced her to marry his secretary). She was able to earn enough without more than a high school education to meet all those expenses and buy a house too.

Oddly enough, tax rates are lower today then they were back then.

124 posted on 09/20/2006 12:50:54 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Too many people when it comes to economics simpily repeat what either the WSJ or Limbaugh says, and nothing else, Free Market "uber alles" so to speak, without any notion of responsibility, a large contrast to the almost paternal corporate behavior that existed into the 70s and even 80s.

John Paul II said it best, Freedom without responsibility is tyrany.


125 posted on 09/20/2006 12:51:11 PM PDT by RFT1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

Yes, but I'll bet her standard of living was much lower then. She probably didn't have cable television, a cell phone, all sorts of home electronics, etc. Take these things out of a typical family budget today, and you'd be amazed at how far a dollar can go.


126 posted on 09/20/2006 12:53:11 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Yes, but I'll bet her standard of living was much lower then. She probably didn't have cable television, a cell phone, all sorts of home electronics, etc. Take these things out of a typical family budget today, and you'd be amazed at how far a dollar can go.

Of course we didn't have much of that stuff back then.

But, I seriously doubt that one can save enough by foregoing cable TV and a cell phone to buy a house.

127 posted on 09/20/2006 1:04:47 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: RFT1

" John Paul II said it best, Freedom without responsibility is tyrany."

Then he was a stupid man and a poor speller to boot.


128 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:03 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
She can "enjoy" her wealth only because there is a society and working people who sustain her wealth in existence.

Her "wealth" provides capital that enterprising lower-classers can use to move on up to the east side. It also earns income, which is taxed and used to fund the utopian dreams of those seeking "justice" here on Earth.

129 posted on 09/20/2006 1:10:29 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
the current regressive tax policies of the Bush administration

This where I stopped reading.

Remind me to never subscribe to the American Conservative.


BUMP

130 posted on 09/20/2006 1:15:14 PM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
She can "enjoy" her wealth only because there is a society and working people who sustain her wealth in existence.

And she pays for the privilege, believe me, or do you think people who inherit "wealth" are never taxed again?

131 posted on 09/20/2006 1:18:06 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
And she pays for the privilege, believe me, or do you think people who inherit "wealth" are never taxed again?

They are being taxed and it is good! But the free market fundamentalists would have the wealth be exempt from all taxation and all tax burden would be put on wages.

132 posted on 09/20/2006 1:23:07 PM PDT by A. Pole (Theodore Roosevelt:"The triumph of the mob is just as evil a thing as the triumph of the plutocracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
They are being taxed and it is good!

Why is that good? How is government investment better than free market investment? Do you think Ms. Hilton keeps all her "wealth" in a box, under the mattress?

133 posted on 09/20/2006 1:31:20 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
Why is that good?

Because we must have the government and taxes. And I think it is better to tax wealth than wages.

134 posted on 09/20/2006 1:34:09 PM PDT by A. Pole (Theodore Roosevelt:"The triumph of the mob is just as evil a thing as the triumph of the plutocracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
And I think it is better to tax wealth than wages

I disagree. Given increases in productivity, we should work less. If we tax wealth but not wages, we may end up forcing people to work for no good reason.

135 posted on 09/20/2006 1:39:45 PM PDT by Feldkurat_Katz (What no women’s magazine ever offers to improve is women’s minds - Taki)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Because we must have the government and taxes. And I think it is better to tax wealth than wages.

We do tax "wealth." Ms. hilton doesn't keep her "wealth" in a box. She invests it, so that her "wealth" will, at least, keep ahead of inflation (a de facto "tax" on wealth). Much of what that "wealth" earns is taxed, even though that wealth provides affordable capital for everyone else. While in the free market, that "wealth" is invested far more efficiently than it is when done by the government.

If your concern is that the cost of government be paid for, maybe you should push for (gasp!) less spending. There is no reason why we "must" have income or wealth taxes, this country got along just fine without them for over a century.

If, as your other statements in this thread indicate, you're looking for some kind of social justice, you're a socialist.

136 posted on 09/20/2006 1:49:51 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: dighton
My Hooverville is down to dividing one baked bean a week.

LOL! Like those old cartoons, where the character finds one can of beans in a cobwebbed cabinet, only to open it and one measly bean pops out, and he fights the other characters for it.

137 posted on 09/20/2006 2:20:26 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Playing the spelling error game is somthing worthy of 5th graders.


138 posted on 09/20/2006 4:29:15 PM PDT by RFT1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
How true. This year we'll only have $3 trillion or so in industrial production.

While at the same time industrial employment continues its multi-year decline.

139 posted on 09/20/2006 10:59:07 PM PDT by Penner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Penner
I'm glad I could show you the truth about our rising industrial production.

While at the same time industrial employment continues its multi-year decline.

Yes, rising production with fewer workers is called higher productivity. In 1900, half the workforce were farmers. Now, only 2% are farmers and we produce more food than ever. I guess you'll explain how that's a bad thing?

140 posted on 09/21/2006 7:01:55 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson