McCain: Middle-Class Tax Cut is 'Welfare'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh please, not this shite. Now we all gotta shut up because presumably we ordinary people suck on some rich guy's teat? Give me a fcuking break. The question is not how much payroll a secretary or cleaning person is supporting but how much of Buffet's valuable time these people save him. He's not employing them out of charity but out of necessity to run his business. He's making a profit on their employment. Otherwise he wouldn't be a successful businessman. Warren Buffet understands this. You, quite obviously, do not.

You're the one who doesn't get it, but then, you're a teet sucker. It's hard to see the big picture when you're attached to one part.

I'm sorry but it just so happens that I am in agreement with Buffet on this issue. I get what he says. I also don't consider myself a teat sucker - I work for a living. And I know that the company is making a profit on my contribution. If anything, it's the company sucking on my teat. But who am I arguing with? You're so ignorant it's ridiculous.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm sorry but it just so happens that I am in agreement with Buffet on this issue. I get what he says. I also don't consider myself a teat sucker - I work for a living. And I know that the company is making a profit on my contribution. If anything, it's the company sucking on my teat. But who am I arguing with? You're so ignorant it's ridiculous.

No one is holding a gun to your head to make you work there. If you don't like the company using your labor to make a profit, you are free to leave. The fact is, companies are free to withhold from employees the opportunity to ply their labor and earn wages if business conditions aren't favorable to them. As long as you don't control your own means of production, you are a teet sucker. Call me ignorant, but I'm not in the position of having that as my only choice to earn a living. You may feel superior, but, if you can't understand that, you remain vulnerable to business forces, and that makes you a pawn no matter how you cut it. Ignorant or not, I don't have that problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sorry but it just so happens that I am in agreement with Buffet on this issue. I get what he says. I also don't consider myself a teat sucker - I work for a living. And I know that the company is making a profit on my contribution. If anything, it's the company sucking on my teat. But who am I arguing with? You're so ignorant it's ridiculous.

No one is holding a gun to your head to make you work there. If you don't like the company using your labor to make a profit, you are free to leave. The fact is, companies are free to withhold from employees the opportunity to ply their labor and earn wages if business conditions aren't favorable to them. As long as you don't control your own means of production, you are a teet sucker. Call me ignorant, but I'm not in the position of having that as my only choice to earn a living. You may feel superior, but, if you can't understand that, you remain vulnerable to business forces, and that makes you a pawn no matter how you cut it. Ignorant or not, I don't have that problem.

What exactly makes you think that working where I work is my only means of earning a living? Maybe I enjoy doing what I am doing. That might be a rare thing these days but it still exists. I ain't sucking nobody's damn teat - much less in a publicly owned company. I'd be sucking hundreds of thousands of teats seeing that that is how many owners the company I work for has. The executives, on the other hand, don't own the place - not even close. They're employees of the same owners that I work for. So, we're kinda sitting in the same boat. And hence, they don't deserve any more of a break than I do or I any more of a break than the guy that works for me and so on.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm sorry but it just so happens that I am in agreement with Buffet on this issue. I get what he says. I also don't consider myself a teat sucker - I work for a living. And I know that the company is making a profit on my contribution. If anything, it's the company sucking on my teat. But who am I arguing with? You're so ignorant it's ridiculous.

No one is holding a gun to your head to make you work there. If you don't like the company using your labor to make a profit, you are free to leave. The fact is, companies are free to withhold from employees the opportunity to ply their labor and earn wages if business conditions aren't favorable to them. As long as you don't control your own means of production, you are a teet sucker. Call me ignorant, but I'm not in the position of having that as my only choice to earn a living. You may feel superior, but, if you can't understand that, you remain vulnerable to business forces, and that makes you a pawn no matter how you cut it. Ignorant or not, I don't have that problem.

What exactly makes you think that working where I work is my only means of earning a living? Maybe I enjoy doing what I am doing. That might be a rare thing these days but it still exists. I ain't sucking nobody's damn teat - much less in a publicly owned company. I'd be sucking hundreds of thousands of teats seeing that that is how many owners the company I work for has. The executives, on the other hand, don't own the place - not even close. They're employees of the same owners that I work for. So, we're kinda sitting in the same boat. And hence, they don't deserve any more of a break than I do or I any more of a break than the guy that works for me and so on.

What other streams of income do you have to rely on other than being an employee? Do you own real assets that create passive wealth for you? Do you have a profitable business? If that teet was pulled away, would you have immediate means upon which to fall back on?

The reason why the rich pay less in tax is because they create wealth and jobs, and are rewarded for it by communities and governments who want their ingenuity to benefit their constituancy in a symbiotic relationship. You don't do that, so you ride the tide. In this country, you have a choice to be a teet sucker or to be the teet. Don't blame the teet for you being at the wrong end of it.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sorry but it just so happens that I am in agreement with Buffet on this issue. I get what he says. I also don't consider myself a teat sucker - I work for a living. And I know that the company is making a profit on my contribution. If anything, it's the company sucking on my teat. But who am I arguing with? You're so ignorant it's ridiculous.

No one is holding a gun to your head to make you work there. If you don't like the company using your labor to make a profit, you are free to leave. The fact is, companies are free to withhold from employees the opportunity to ply their labor and earn wages if business conditions aren't favorable to them. As long as you don't control your own means of production, you are a teet sucker. Call me ignorant, but I'm not in the position of having that as my only choice to earn a living. You may feel superior, but, if you can't understand that, you remain vulnerable to business forces, and that makes you a pawn no matter how you cut it. Ignorant or not, I don't have that problem.

What exactly makes you think that working where I work is my only means of earning a living? Maybe I enjoy doing what I am doing. That might be a rare thing these days but it still exists. I ain't sucking nobody's damn teat - much less in a publicly owned company. I'd be sucking hundreds of thousands of teats seeing that that is how many owners the company I work for has. The executives, on the other hand, don't own the place - not even close. They're employees of the same owners that I work for. So, we're kinda sitting in the same boat. And hence, they don't deserve any more of a break than I do or I any more of a break than the guy that works for me and so on.

What other streams of income do you have to rely on other than being an employee? Do you own real assets that create passive wealth for you? Do you have a profitable business? If that teet was pulled away, would you have immediate means upon which to fall back on?

The reason why the rich pay less in tax is because they create wealth and jobs, and are rewarded for it by communities and governments who want their ingenuity to benefit their constituancy in a symbiotic relationship. You don't do that, so you ride the tide. In this country, you have a choice to be a teet sucker or to be the teet. Don't blame the teet for you being at the wrong end of it.

BS. As I just said, the "rich", more often than not, are employees rather than entrepreneurs.

Not that I thought it needed to be said: My streams of income are none of your damn business.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BS. As I just said, the "rich", more often than not, are employees rather than entrepreneurs.

BS, you are totally ignorant of the rich or how to get rich, as is to be expected.

[Heracles 417]

Guys come on. The poor here are ridiculously poor. Examples like taxes going to dog charities therefore we should not pay our fair share is ridiculous. If you are dirt poor here, the chance of breaking the cycle are extremely hard. So why not help them? After all middle class consumers are more important and generate more profits than the poor.. no? Someone with a good paying job is worth more than someone on welfare gang banging. Common Sense.

I work with Douche bags who live in gated communities and think they have this lavish life, on loans, but laugh considering where do they have to go, what do they have to do. The country is a freakin ghetto. Yes they drive $85k cars and live in 5000 sq ft homes but this is really laughable. Is what what people call quality of life?

I don't know anyone in Australia who does not own a house over $550K. I have various family members who drive 750i BMW and are in executive positions. The 750i there cost around $170K to buy. They own them outright. I know at least 6 people who are worth over $25 mill. The thing is they do not have a problem paying their fair share of tax because they know they are helping out others and this is what got them on their feet. Most of them migrated to Australia with $10 in their pocket. Do they make use of tax minimization rules, yes. Nothing wrong with that. The purpose of this rules is to give people a tax break who are investing back in the country. Well in Australia anyway.

It is the greedy rich in this country who have brought it to its knees again. Why should good Americans, even those liberal fucks, be penalized because of the greed of others. Heck I would not give wall street a $7 bailout.

To be honest I don't think anybody should be making over $2 million. Anything over that should be 100% taxed. I would like to see how many of the 1% of the wealthy, who own 90% of the wealth, kids are enrolled in the military.

PS Giving me a tax break so I can buy a Lambo (foreign product) does nothing to help the people in this country. Most of the rich buy foreign goods and travel to foreign destinations anyway.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Aficionado

[Heracles 417]

When we invest in the poor we get richer as well.

When we invest in the country we get richer as well.

When we invest in the people and the return is priceless. At least in Australia where I pay a little more tax I don't have to worry about someone coming up to my spouses and holding them up. He gets his basics and has the opportunity to do better. So the desperation is removed. This is what tax is all about. We call it an investment.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Aficionado

[IAMX 3,055]

Aficionado, something tells me you'd be better off somewhere else.

This "ghetto" thing is embedded into society. We will always have them. When you have runaway capitalism in the way we do here, and winners, you also have losers. And as long as others want to tear these people down, like you do, rather than help them, it will never change. There's a good time for a kick in the a$$, there's a good time for a helping hand. You're doing neither, with your assertions of nuking people and shooting them in the head. You're part of the problem.

So unless your idea is more than some armchair activist ####### and sensationalist talk, packing your bags and heading back might be the best thing for you. Just a thought.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What is a "fair share" of tax? How do you avoid diminishing incentive in your Quixotic quest to make everyone equal? How do you make everyone want to be equal anyway? Obama wants to force it on us. Good luck with that; we're not a kingdom yet.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Heracles 417]

Aficionado, something tells me you'd be better off somewhere else.

This "ghetto" thing is embedded into society. We will always have them. When you have runaway capitalism in the way we do here, and winners, you also have losers. And as long as others want to tear these people down, like you do, rather than help them, it will never change. There's a good time for a kick in the a$$, there's a good time for a helping hand. You're doing neither, with your assertions of nuking people and shooting them in the head. You're part of the problem.

So unless your idea is more than some armchair activist ####### and sensationalist talk, packing your bags and heading back might be the best thing for you. Just a thought.

Dude shut up and go market somewhere in your neon.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

When we invest in the poor we get richer as well.

When we invest in the country we get richer as well.

When we invest in the people and the return is priceless. At least in Australia where I pay a little more tax I don't have to worry about someone coming up to my spouses and holding them up. He gets his basics and has the opportunity to do better. So the desperation is removed. This is what tax is all about. We call it an investment.

How does handing out free money create initiative in the lower classes? How does penalizing productivity among the rich benefit the poor who lose jobs when business needs conflict with government policy? Free money is not an investment, bro. It's like the proverb "When you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he feeds himself for a lifetime".

Tax cuts for one level of the population at the expense of another only creates animosity and a sense of entitlement, not opportunity and equality for all.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Virtual wife

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Question to the Right Wingers - if the wages of the majority of working Americans has been stagnent over the last decade, while the top income earners salaries have significantly increased, is that not, by your definition, a redistribution of wealth? That increase in wealth among the top earners came from somewhere, and as exampled in the recent financial crisis, are not necessarily compensatory for how well a company is doing.

[Heracles 417]

What is a "fair share" of tax? How do you avoid diminishing incentive in your Quixotic quest to make everyone equal? How do you make everyone want to be equal anyway? Obama wants to force it on us. Good luck with that; we're not a kingdom yet.

VW the system works. Trust me. Before I came here I obviously lived in a welfare state and cheered on Americas nothing for the poor approach. But after coming here and now being here for nearly three years, I can say the policies here have failed. The country is falling down the ranks of most international standards. The poor are dirt poor and there are just so many ghettos, no go zones. I joke with these fools, like SVRT and six, that it is the inner city African Americans fault to rile the stupid up but I know these guys have little chance of getting on their feet without government assistance.

What Obama suggest, what I have heard, are sound principles which work overseas. Whereas the scare tactics are erroneous and based on fear or ulterior motives.

Lifting the poor up is a win win. It doesn't work is when you have to pay for 21,000,000 illegals. Hence why every single other welfare country refuses to pay for illegal immigrants and has a extremely strict immigration policy. With illegals, the system fails because no country in the world can afford to pay for so many people who generally live off the books.

[Heracles 417]

When we invest in the poor we get richer as well.

When we invest in the country we get richer as well.

When we invest in the people and the return is priceless. At least in Australia where I pay a little more tax I don't have to worry about someone coming up to my spouses and holding them up. He gets his basics and has the opportunity to do better. So the desperation is removed. This is what tax is all about. We call it an investment.

How does handing out free money create initiative in the lower classes? How does penalizing productivity among the rich benefit the poor who lose jobs when business needs conflict with government policy? Free money is not an investment, bro. It's like the proverb "When you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he feeds himself for a lifetime".

Tax cuts for one level of the population at the expense of another only creates animosity and a sense of entitlement, not opportunity and equality for all.

but the man needs to buy a boat to fish and needs somewhere to live while he fishes. He also needs something to eat. This is what basic welfare provides in AUS, where you get basic unemployment benefits indefinitely. If he has none of the above he will resort to crime. That is the reality and that he will provide zero to the community. I then have to pay even more taxes for correctional facilities, law enforcement etc. Whereas by providing this guy the basic welfare payment, as soon as this guy gets on his feet he starts paying back into the system. He shops in stores I own shares in. Uses services I own shares in and so forth. Which leads to taxes being lowered

No one should get a tax cut period and those earning over $250K should pay about 42%.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Aficionado