Why do Democrats hate the rich?

[kombatnt]

This article describes a campaign appearance by Hillary Clinton (with mega-billionaire Warren Buffet as a prop) arguing in favor of keeping the "estate tax."

"It's not as though people will be destitute," Clinton said.

Why do Democrats insist on telling other people what they should be allowed to do with their money? Why do people in a country that claims to be "free" stand by and let busybodies like Clinton tell you that you're not allowed to give your money to your children, because that's not fair to the rest of society?

Cliffs:
- You earn $100,000 at work, the government takes $40,000 and lets you keep $60,000
- You invest that $60,000 wisely, and grow it back into $100,000 (which, coincidentally, is what you had before the government raided your paycheck)
- The government sees that you've made $40,000 profit and takes half of it, leaving you with $80,000.
- You die, and the government takes half of that remaining $80,000. Your kids get $40,000 (even though you've earned and created $140,000).
- Fair? No.

[sword_]

Hilary Clinton is a socialist.

[kombatnt]

Hilary Clinton is a socialist.

But she's the Democratic front-runner, which means the Democratic voters must support her policies. Are there really that many angry, lazy middle-class slobs out there who think there are no consequences to punishing success in a society?

[sword_]

But she's the Democratic front-runner, which means the Democratic voters must support her policies. Are there really that many angry, lazy middle-class slobs out there who think there are no consequences to punishing success in a society?

I assume so, generally the US votes in the middle.

I know some people that do not like Clinton's idea on healthcare but will vote for her anyways since they disagree w/ the republicans.

[Dreamscapes]

There's no better way to piss off someone like Clinton than working hard for what you earn and enjoying it.

C*nt.

[Dubl10]

But she's the Democratic front-runner, which means the Democratic voters must support her policies. Are there really that many angry, lazy middle-class slobs out there who think there are no consequences to punishing success in a society?

yes!

it's why american continues to go down the ****ter.

[SyOne]

But she's the Democratic front-runner, which means the Democratic voters must support her policies. Are there really that many angry, lazy middle-class slobs out there who think there are no consequences to punishing success in a society?

Sure, Hillary may have socialist leanings, but wtf has Bush or any othee republican done in terms of tax reforms? Nothing, except give out $600 to certain families.

I actually don't think Hillary is any worse than Mitt Romney or any other establishment type. They're all very cautious and not reform minded. Now if John Edwards gets elected, I would be completely freaked...that guy is a nut job

[Staberella]

There's no better way to piss off someone like Clinton than working hard for what you earn and enjoying it.

C*nt.

Exactly! Democrats like to tout themselves as the "party for the poor". The only way to ensure their victory is to keep people poor and promising them "free" stuff.

[daniel77]

Exactly! Democrats like to tout themselves as the "party for the poor". The only way to ensure their victory is to keep people poor and promising them "free" stuff.

That was brilliant! This is exactly what they want and have done before.

[DRK]

Exactly! Democrats like to tout themselves as the "party for the poor". The only way to ensure their victory is to keep people poor and promising them "free" stuff.

Socialism at it's finest, keeping people poor and providing them with no motivation to get ahead, and punishing those who do work hard.

[SyOne]

Exactly! Democrats like to tout themselves as the "party for the poor". The only way to ensure their victory is to keep people poor and promising them "free" stuff.

There is some truth to that, but you're starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh...I can't stand that fat a*ss

[Staberella]

There is some truth to that, but you're starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh...I can't stand that fat a*ss

I don't care who I sound like. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and Rush happens to be one of those broken clocks when talking about what the DNC truly wants and stands for.

[V8 Muscle]

Warren Buffett said that he was worried about how he pays only 15% tax on his earnings (capital gains tax), while his staff pays the full marginal rate set by the IRS. This isnt hating the rich and wanting to take away their money, this is just saying the rich people aren't paying their share of the taxes like the rest of us.

I would love to see the IRS abolished, as it is an illegal institution that isnt even overseen by the government. I would like to see a consumption tax put in place to encourage savings and tax the people who buy expensive things more than those who don't. It would essentially reduce the tax burden from the basis of income to lifestyle which would be a much better way or taxing people.

I don't hate rich people at all. Some day I hope to be wealthy myself. Democrats generally are concerned about the growing burden of taxes on the middle and lower class. I think it's rediculous to shift the tax burden to those barely getting by on two jobs making a total of $25k a year, while we cut taxes for people who have too much money to ever have to work again.


Ps: I hate Hillary Clinton and yes, I'm VERY liberal

[natespeer]

Warren Buffett said that he was worried about how he pays only 15% tax on his earnings (capital gains tax), while his staff pays the full marginal rate set by the IRS. This isnt hating the rich and wanting to take away their money, this is just saying the rich people aren't paying their share of the taxes like the rest of us.

I would love to see the IRS abolished, as it is an illegal institution that isnt even overseen by the government. I would like to see a consumption tax put in place to encourage savings and tax the people who buy expensive things more than those who don't. It would essentially reduce the tax burden from the basis of income to lifestyle which would be a much better way or taxing people.

Totally agree, only fair way to do it

[SyOne]

I don't care who I sound like. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and Rush happens to be one of those broken clocks when talking about what the DNC truly wants and stands for.

and what does the RNC stand for? Talk is cheap. They all spew the same crap year after year. You have to get beyond talking points.
I'm not a fan of either party, but can you tell me the 8 years Bush has been in office has been any better than the 8 years Clinton was in office?

Has government gotten any smaller?

Is the tax code any less complicated?

The Republicans of today are not what they use to be. It's silly of you to isolate the Dems when the Republicans are just as worse.

[THE LAD]

o/t do you guys think she'll have a chance at becoming presidant? Over here the stupid liberal media made it look like kerry was a dead certainty to beat gwb last time without actually taking into account that most ppl were actually gonna voted for bush.
But it seems most ppl on here won't vote for her. Is it coz most women will vote for her or something?
I feel sorry for you guys if she does win, she's very similar to tony blair and he's ruined this country.

[saloman]

It is wrong to state democrats 'hate the rich'. Many of the rich are democrats.
I think democrats do a great job of being advocates for the poor. Right now our country has a growing gap between the poor and rich. What I don't understand is why the poor folks insist on being advocates for the rich? Let them speak for themselves and vote for things that will improve your life, like access to health care.
If you look at the distribution of wealth it is clear that the rich are not victims in America: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

Total Net Worth in U.S.: $42.3892 trillion ($42,389,200,000,000)

Source: Arthur B. Kennickell, "A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001," Table 10. (Levy Economics Institute: November, 2003)

[kappakai]

who you calling a democrat and who you calling a repub??

face it, we're in 1930's germany. its the fascists vs the socialists. there are no traditional democrats or republicans anymore.

workers' rights? what workers.
balanced budget? how about 7 trillion in the hole.

dems don't care about civil rights because without them, it'll make it easier for the commie bastards to control us. repubs will take those rights away so we don't bitch and moan when they shove their pipedream up our collectives asses.

either way, the us is headed for some ****.

it's time for a revolution. i never thought i'd say it, but **** gun control. we're going to need some gun nuts to start shooting when the people finally rise up against this two headed monster that's taken over our country.

[DRK]

Warren Buffett said that he was worried about how he pays only 15% tax on his earnings (capital gains tax), while his staff pays the full marginal rate set by the IRS. This isnt hating the rich and wanting to take away their money, this is just saying the rich people aren't paying their share of the taxes like the rest of us.

I would love to see the IRS abolished, as it is an illegal institution that isnt even overseen by the government. I would like to see a consumption tax put in place to encourage savings and tax the people who buy expensive things more than those who don't. It would essentially reduce the tax burden from the basis of income to lifestyle which would be a much better way or taxing people.

I don't hate rich people at all. Some day I hope to be wealthy myself. Democrats generally are concerned about the growing burden of taxes on the middle and lower class. I think it's rediculous to shift the tax burden to those barely getting by on two jobs making a total of $25k a year, while we cut taxes for people who have too much money to ever have to work again.


Ps: I hate Hillary Clinton and yes, I'm VERY liberal

If you are concerned about the growing tax burden of the middle and lower class, why would you want a consumption based tax (not that I'm opposed to that tax)? Consumption taxes are regressive, targeting the poor more heavily than the rich because the poor spend a significantly larger percentage of their income on basic necessities.

[V8 Muscle]

who you calling a democrat and who you calling a repub??

face it, we're in 1930's germany. its the fascists vs the socialists. there are no traditional democrats or republicans anymore.

workers' rights? what workers.
balanced budget? how about 7 trillion in the hole.

dems don't care about civil rights because without them, it'll make it easier for the commie bastards to control us. repubs will take those rights away so we don't bitch and moan when they shove their pipedream up our collectives asses.

either way, the us is headed for some ****.

it's time for a revolution. i never thought i'd say it, but **** gun control. we're going to need some gun nuts to start shooting when the people finally rise up against this two headed monster that's taken over our country.

x2 for the most part

[Cramerica]

Exactly! Democrats like to tout themselves as the "party for the poor". The only way to ensure their victory is to keep people poor and promising them "free" stuff.

What's funny is that the dems, who are the party of the lower working class, are always talking about raising minimum wage.

Well anyone who understands anything about economics knows that once you raise minimum wage, you hurt all small businesses and many times even large business such as chains and franchises. When the wage is increase and profits do not reflect an equal growth, the employers are often forced to cut back on labor and other costs to equal things out.

This act hurts the very essence of people that the dems are supposedly trying to help. Primarily, teenagers from lower class families are now cut out from entering the job market, albeit even a minimum wage job.

[Staberella]

and what does the RNC stand for? Talk is cheap. They all spew the same crap year after year. You have to get beyond talking points.
I'm not a fan of either party, but can you tell me the 8 years Bush has been in office has been any better than the 8 years Clinton was in office?

Has government gotten any smaller?

Is the tax code any less complicated?

The Republicans of today are not what they use to be. It's silly of you to isolate the Dems when the Republicans are just as worse.

To me the RNC is the same. There is no difference. I'd much prefer a 3rd party or a 3rd Party candidate. Oh wait, Ron Paul 2008!

[kappakai]

If you are concerned about the growing tax burden of the middle and lower class, why would you want a consumption based tax (not that I'm opposed to that tax)? Consumption taxes are regressive, targeting the poor more heavily than the rich because the poor spend a significantly larger percentage of their income on basic necessities.

ah... 1st time i've agreed with the right wing nut.

[V8 Muscle]

If you are concerned about the growing tax burden of the middle and lower class, why would you want a consumption based tax (not that I'm opposed to that tax)? Consumption taxes are regressive, targeting the poor more heavily than the rich because the poor spend a significantly larger percentage of their income on basic necessities.

not with a tax allowance it wouldnt. first X amt of tax dollars paid would be refunded each year. Look up Mike Gravel's tax policy, its a hell of an idea that would revolutionize the current system and take away all the loopholes and ways of getting around paying.

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=fair_tax

[teenyGreen]

This article describes a campaign appearance by Hillary Clinton (with mega-billionaire Warren Buffet as a prop) arguing in favor of keeping the "estate tax."



Why do Democrats insist on telling other people what they should be allowed to do with their money? Why do people in a country that claims to be "free" stand by and let busybodies like Clinton tell you that you're not allowed to give your money to your children, because that's not fair to the rest of society?

Cliffs:
- You earn $100,000 at work, the government takes $40,000 and lets you keep $60,000
- You invest that $60,000 wisely, and grow it back into $100,000 (which, coincidentally, is what you had before the government raided your paycheck)
- The government sees that you've made $40,000 profit and takes half of it, leaving you with $80,000.
- You die, and the government takes half of that remaining $80,000. Your kids get $40,000 (even though you've earned and created $140,000).
- Fair? No.

Good example, but most people I know that make that kind of money are smart enough to have a trust and tax shelter. Also you can donate your money to charities, pay for education, deduct interest from your mortgage, and so forth to reduce your tax liability.
I do wonder why people with money I know are Democrats. They probably want to have more social programs and healthcare. Well they should donate their time and their money to non government associations that help people, instead of having everyone else that doesn't make that much money contribute to programs they can't benefit from, or people that make that money and just don't want to pay extra taxes for bs.

[proteinpump]

Socialism at it's finest, keeping people poor and providing them with no motivation to get ahead, and punishing those who do work hard.

Well said!

[Staberella]

What's funny is that the dems, who are the party of the lower working class, are always talking about raising minimum wage.

Well anyone who understands anything about economics knows that once you raise minimum wage, you hurt all small businesses and many times even large business such as chains and franchises. When the wage is increase and profits do not reflect an equal growth, the employers are often forced to cut back on labor and other costs to equal things out.

This act hurts the very essence of people that the dems are supposedly trying to help. Primarily, teenagers from lower class families are now cut out from entering the job market, albeit even a minimum wage job.

A lot of people don't realize this though. They just think of the short term and the now. Taco bell starts having to pay their workers $10 an hour? They are going to pass that onto the consumer, not eat it. That $1 taco will be a $2 taco. Raising the min. not only hurts small businesses but inflates the cost of living for everyone. Walmart btw is in full support of raising min. wage, it would help kill their local competition.

[Jon89]

what America needs atm is more political parties that produce viable candidates, unfortunatly this can never happen unless we have an absolutly catastrophic event such as another depression or something along those lines because the average american will either not vote or vote only for a reblican or democrat based off of how many of their policies they agree with (i.e. if the republican says 2 good things but 11 bad, the democrat says 3 good things but 10 bad), and party candidate X says 13 good things the democrat would get the vote do to familiarity with the party)

[V8 Muscle]

what America needs atm is more political parties that produce viable candidates, unfortunatly this can never happen unless we have an absolutly catastrophic event such as another depression or something along those lines because the average american will either not vote or vote only for a reblican or democrat based off of how many of their policies they agree with (i.e. if the republican says 2 good things but 11 bad, the democrat says 3 good things but 10 bad), and party candidate X says 13 good things the democrat would get the vote do to familiarity with the party)

true that. thats why the Founding Fathers of this country hated political parties and did everything they could do to keep them from coming about...

[DRK]

not with a tax allowance it wouldnt. first X amt of tax dollars paid would be refunded each year.

The problem with the consumption tax is how would it be applied to corporate spending?

Btw, I fully intend to have a trust established as a tax shelter with LLCs for both real estate and stock trading, and ILIT for life insurance, and possibly an FLP as the executor on the trust. I will pay next to nothing in taxes, regardless of my income. Fukc paying taxes to support everyone else.