Reply to Why aren't more discussions about blatant greed

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Why aren't more discussions about blatant greed"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is there anything in the current GOP's platform designed around anything other than more dollars in the pocket of big business and billionaires?

I feel like all the conversation about policy minutiae (is climate change real? how do we fund high-risk pools?) are completely pointless, because the decisions are driven by cost-cutting for business and the possiblity of lower taxes for very rich people.

Let's just get it out in the open.[/quote]

because it seems like the entire educated elite class has abandoned ethics for greed, the fight is not democrat or republican.

The few managers at my current company, that I know well, are polished liars, devoid of normal human emotion.  In fact the key to success is the ability to keep a poker face while lying to employees.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/04/14/harvard-business-school-financial-crisis-economics-578378.html[/quote]

Greed has nothing to do with political party, race, sex, or any other category.  It is very easy to be generous with other people's income.  That's the model of the Democratic party.  The Republicans push back on that to make the income redistribution a little less severe.  But rich people pay plenty in taxes and way more than they get from the Government in services and entitlements.

If you are saying the Republicans are unduly influenced by [rich] donors, that's a fair point.  You could make the same point about Democrats.

We ought to strongly consider moving to a consumption tax.  The rich would still pay more because they buy more goods.

As long as we have a rigid 2 party system, nothing is going to change.  [/quote]

The problem is, we do have wealth redistribution, but not at all in the sense that conservatives keep talking about - what we've had since the 1980s is a reverse-robinhood scheme where the rich have been getting richer but the middle class and working folks on whose backs the rich have made their money have stagnated.    Sure, the rich pay a lot in taxes.  But that said, they hold most of the wealth.  The 400 richest people in America have more wealth than the bottom 61% of America.   Yes, they have more wealth than the bottom 193 MILLION Americans, combined.  If you can afford $200,000-a-year golf club memberships then you can afford to pay a little more in taxes.  But if you are living paycheck to paycheck and have to skimp on groceries just to pay your bills then you can't afford to pay.  We don't need to be giving deductions on mortgages for $10 million dollar homes.  This is what Republicans don't seem to understand in their "flat tax" proposals.  And NO, the wealthiest are NOT the job creators.   The majority of jobs are still in small business, and what drives the economy and growth is money changing hands and disposable income, the more transactions the better.  But when most of the money is concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest, but for the working class, their wages are stagnant and they have little disposable income, then the whole economy stagnates.  This has been borne out in all of the economic data.

[img]http://www.rgbrenner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Historical-US-Income-Inequality-Current-Dollars.jpg[/img][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics