TAX THOSE RICH BASTIDS

[jimboston]

But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Please expand on this idea.

Get ready for a lesson in Biology

Whatever she says... it's gotta be good.
I honestly can't wait for her to defend this comment.
Greek... save this it should be material for next years Greekies!

[GreecePwns]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...like tackling the deficit. You want government to run like a business? Well businesses find ways to increase revenues too, not just slash everything by the same percentage (because, you know, every government department is of equal worth, right?)

Furthermore, a person making 1 billion dollars is taxed the same rate as a person making 400,000 dollars. The rebuttal I'm expecting is a proposal for a flat tax. Well, taking disposable income into account, a flat tax is in effect a regressive tax. Especially during these times, people with the power to purchase things is just what we need, not corporate welfare health bills, not cutting funding for abortion for "non-forcible rape" (drugging up a girl or raping a mentally ill person isn't considered forcible in Bachmann's opinion), not across the board cuts. We just need to take in more than we lay out. For a less drastic effect on the economy, there needs to be a combination of more income and less cuts. To put all the money we can to good use, the masses need to be able to buy stuff. Therefore, I believe in a more progressive tax.

But no. I'm lazy and don't work 1924372143 hours a week and don't pay taxes and am not considered rich so this is wrong.

[Phatscotty]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...

Is this, basically, like telling people where they can and can't spend their money?

[Timminz]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...

Is this, basically, like telling people where they can and can't spend their money?

No. It's you, either totally misunderstanding, or attempting to twist the statement into something it's not. If it's the first, I'd recommend reading up a bit on economics. If the latter, I'd suggest fucking off; you're not doing anything productive.

[GreecePwns]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...

Is this, basically, like telling people where they can and can't spend their money?

Not in the slightest. I'm sure you've heard of an estate tax. Really this is way off. How paranoid are you?

Especially now, the last thing we need is everyone holding onto their money with their lives. We need to give the masses a reason to spend their money. Lowering taxes on the lower incomes could eventually be paid for and much more by a slight less increase on the higher incomes + the added revenue from sales tax that the lower incomes would be spending on.

That is fiscal sanity. Across the board cuts...not so much.

[Phatscotty]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...

Is this, basically, like telling people where they can and can't spend their money?

Not in the slightest. I'm sure you've heard of an estate tax. Really this is way off. How paranoid are you?

Especially now...

that's what it sounded like

[GreecePwns]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...

Is this, basically, like telling people where they can and can't spend their money?

Not in the slightest. I'm sure you've heard of an estate tax. Really this is way off. How paranoid are you?

Especially now...

that's what it sounded like

By that same logic, a flat tax argument can be reduced to...
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

[Phatscotty]

I'm just dropping that last line, but fine, what about the estate tax. There already is one so what's your deal with it?

[radiojake]

About Us:

We are producers of values. We work hard and are competent. We deal with others on the basis of values and free choice. We benefit others. We never usurp values from others. We deliver values to others. We provide values: we give much more than we take. We are fair and just. We respect the privacy, lives, and property of others. We love life, value love, and strive for happiness. We are honest. We are good. We are innocent.

About Them:

They are destroyers of values. They are lazy and incompetent. They deal with others on the basis of usurpation and force. They harm others. They live by usurping values from others. They consume values: they take much more than they give. They are unfair and unjust. They violate the privacy, lives, and property of others. They hate life, envy love, and strive for unearned power. They are dishonest. They are bad. They are Guilty.

Can you expand? I'm specifically talking who is 'Us' and 'Them'

[Aradhus]

About Us:

We are producers of values. We work hard and are competent. We deal with others on the basis of values and free choice. We benefit others. We never usurp values from others. We deliver values to others. We provide values: we give much more shit than we take. We are fair and just. We respect the privacy, lives, and property of others. We love life, value love, and strive for happiness. We are honest. We are good. We are innocent.

About Them:

They are destroyers of values. They are lazy and incompetent. They deal with others on the basis of usurpation and force. They harm others. They live by usurping values from others. They consume values: they take much more shit than they give. They are unfair and unjust. They violate the privacy, lives, and property of others. They hate life, envy love, and strive for unearned power. They are dishonest. They are bad. They are Guilty.

Can you expand? I'm specifically talking who is 'Us' and 'Them'

You just had to ask, didn't you..

[PLAYER57832]

Why do people think that taxes mainly levied against the rich are the best answer to a country's economic problems?

(Alternatively, why tax the rich more so than now?)

Because no one else has enough money. But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not. The wealthy have also benefitted far more from previous tax breaks.

but really, its not just a matter of who has more money, its a matter of how they got the money.

No, it's actually because of people who believe that the government has to provide everything for everybody.

Some of those people do exist. too bad you only want to point fingers at those who are happy getting a bit of food and housing, not the ones who insist we ALL owe them multi-billions just because they happen to invest in a few things and have the right connections.

[Phatscotty]

what an Eichman

[Army of GOD]

what an Eichman

Yea! You're all just little Eichmans!

[jimboston]

But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Please expand on this idea.

Player

Could you please explain what you mean by this sentence?

I think you first need to define "wealthy"... i.e. income over $X per year? or some other measure?

Then please explain how "those who are wealthy" caused the "problems".

You may also want to define the "problems"... for example I think the problem is rampant run-away gov't spending, in combination with public employee unions, and of course entitlement programs.

You probably think it's something else.

I am though very interested in hearing how "the wealthy"... "by and large" caused all these problems.

[Fircoal]

Because no one needs a fuckton of money? And there are other people that need money and stuff to have a good life?

EASY QUESTION ANSWERED!

[BigBallinStalin]

Because with more income, marginal propensity to consume drops. The money that rich people don't use to contribute to the economy (i.e. saving it for inheritance) could be put to much better use...like tackling the deficit.

But that money DOES go back into the economy [(unless of course they're putting the money under their mattresses, which nearly all don't because it's just stupid--unless it's gold ]

How do you think that money for inheritance builds?

Saving money is done by spending it on stable investments over long periods of time. It goes into buying bonds and stocks (something that again benefits the economy and in some cases the government itself). Savings even in banks is also beneficial for the economy. All the above provide long-term stability and sustainable economic growth.

And what's so great about increasing the incentives for short-term consumption compared to long-term investment? Consumption is way too high proportionally for the US anyway. By decreasing interest rates, the Fed just incentives people to spend money for the short-term.

Reckless consumption and poor investments over time will just keep the poor poorer. There should be higher incentives to save, payoff personal debts, and decrease unnecessary consumption (like building unnecessary bridges, fixing good condition roads, etc.)


And the same could be said of "not-rich" people who save. THEY SHOULD BE SPENDING TO SAVE THE ECONOMY according to your logic.

Your plan is short-sighted.

You want government to run like a business? Well businesses find ways to increase revenues too, not just slash everything by the same percentage (because, you know, every government department is of equal worth, right?)

The government and its services already run themselves like a business. They're on average more inefficient and don't face the threat of bankruptcy.

The problem with publicly run "businesses" is that they have no need to reduce costs, because that would reduce their budget or money received--the entire incentive-system is screwed up, and because they're a monopoly--there's no competition forcing them to improve. Publicly run businesses have no need to improve quality because their customers are involuntary forced to pay for their services (taxation), and once again it's a monopoly--no competition, thus no need to improve. There's no market forces acting as a balancing force on monopolies that forcibly extract wealth from their customers.

Furthermore, a person making 1 billion dollars is taxed the same rate as a person making 400,000 dollars. The rebuttal I'm expecting is a proposal for a flat tax. Well, taking disposable income into account, a flat tax is in effect a regressive tax. Especially during these times, people with the power to purchase things is just what we need, not corporate welfare health bills, not cutting funding for abortion for "non-forcible rape" (drugging up a girl or raping a mentally ill person isn't considered forcible in Bachmann's opinion), not across the board cuts.

Yeah, flat taxes aren't my preferred method of involuntary extracting wealth from people either.

If you want more purchasing power, then the current monetary policies need to be readjusted. That's the first thing the US government should be doing, but it really isn't doing so fast enough. The monopoly on monetary supply needs to be readjusted, or the Fed requires more regulation.

If you wanted higher consumption, then allow deflation to occur. It would benefit consumers the most, and hurt producers--with the more inefficient ones being weeded out. It would be interesting, but it's never been allowed to happen ever, so people are reasonably scared.

We just need to take in more than we lay out. For a less drastic effect on the economy, there needs to be a combination of more income and less cuts. To put all the money we can to good use, the masses need to be able to buy stuff. Therefore, I believe in a more progressive tax.

But no. I'm lazy and don't work 1924372143 hours a week and don't pay taxes and am not considered rich so this is wrong.

I disagree. If someone has no money and keeps spending money, then they need to sell assets and/or reduce unnecessary expenditures. A goal should be set for decreasing government expenditures in sections A, B, C, etc, by X% in the next 10 years. Then the objectives on how to do so should be drawn up, critically examined, then carried out for each section--just like an efficien and effective business does it.

Simply throwing money at people doesn't do long-term good... you wouldn't happen to be a Neo-Keynesian, would you? Because you sound like one...

[Phatscotty]

Take your money back!

[BigBallinStalin]

So here's why we need to tax the rich, people:

1) because it is the most instantly gratifying? It makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside too!

lol

2) Because no one else has enough money.

Right, wealth redistribution for the US! How would that outweigh the loss of real wages of the rich? On average, are poor people better and smarter spenders than rich people are?

3) those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Yeah, damn rich people! All they've done is raise the US's GDP per capita for the past 100 years!

4) The wealthy have also benefitted far more from previous tax breaks.

And it stimulated great growth after 2003 and up to 2008. But that gets into a larger argument about monetary policy (most important), and lack of regulations and unintended consequences of previous laws related to certain banking practices.

Show us the evidence that the poor have been getting poor when taxes decrease for the rich! SHOW ME, PLAYER!! I CAN HANDLE THE "TRUTH."

5) Your country is in a shitload of debt. That's not a problem that will be fixed solely by cutting spending.

So taxes should be enacted to reward the government for poor expenditures and dumb decisions!
Let's not bother asking WHY the US is in so much debt. Let's just tax the rich, discourage acquiring more wealth, and spend that money inefficiently on government-provided services, that probably aren't necessary!

6) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

And let's ignore the consequences of our actions! THE POOR NEED MONEY--provided through government-run organizations, of course!

7) Because they don't need it as much as young, poor children with stupid-ass parents do

Ah, yes. Let's spend your money for you! We're the government! We spend wisely! Why! Just look at our spending history, and tell us, the government, that we're wrong!

8) "From each according to their means,
To each according to their needs."

Oh, hey, Karl! Man, your policies sure did f*ck up the world! Thanks for that social experiment! Your words (well, really Engels' plagiarized works) truly did inspire many to do some of the dumbest things the world has witnessed. Thanks, buddy!

9) Allow poor kids to get a good education, invest a lot of money into research for cures to children's cancer, make sure EVERY kid has a roof over their head and food on their table. Those rick pricks piss me off knowing there are homeless kids fighting for food out there.

The rich also set up charity foundations and NPOs and NGOs to aid and assist these very kids... The "rich" supply the jobs, products, and services this country's people demand. The Department of Education has really been inefficient in giving kids a better and less expensive education since the late 1970s. Yet, you want the government to have money to fix a problem it's continually been messing up for the past 40 years?

10) Because no one needs a fuckton of money? And there are other people that need money and stuff to have a good life?

EASY QUESTION ANSWERED!

YEAH! Reward the poor and punish the rich! DAMN YOU FOR SPENDING YOUR MONEY WISELY! DAMN YOU FOR MAJORING IN BUSINESS AND GOING OUT THERE AND MAKING MORE MONEY! DAMN YOU FOR TRYING TO START YOUR OWN BUSINESS, YOU GOD DAMN ENTREPRENEUR!

It's funny to assume that the government can spend money more efficiently and effectively than individuals can. It's crazy to say what amount of money is necessary per an individual and then justify extracting that wealth by distributing it to others. You're just being a pawn of propaganda, to which many fell victim in countries with command economies.

[/end 67% joking, 33% serious]

[BigBallinStalin]

Why do so many people want the rich to be taxed more?

Because people are ignorant of long-term consequences, and because people are willing to go with a policy whose costs are born more heavily by others.

They fail to realize that the government DOESN'T spend money as efficiently as businesses in good competition with one another do. They fail to realize that by increasing taxes to earn more money, only decreases the incentives for others to earn more income. They fail to realize that higher costs born by businesses only force businesses to reduce costs or improve profits. How do they mainly do that? Cutting jobs is the short-term solution. Long-term planning is more complicated, and is besides the point.


The point I want some of you to understand is this:

Many people fail to realize that in order to put something into the economy, one must take something from the economy.

[esiemer]

How about because it works better? Because countries are stronger and more prosperous with a fair tax rate that encourages upward mobility and fiscal responsibility. Because oligarchies lead to revolutions and then the whole country fails, and then the rich get screwed because they had more to lose. Because we are rational humans who want our country to be long lasting and solvent.

Specifically, what are we talking about, raising the upper tax bracket from 35% to 39%? Can anyone tell me what the upper tax rate was when our budget was last balanced?.... oh, it was about 39% in the late 90's. Our budget will never be balanced with a 30% tax rate.
Also, all this crap about lower taxes on the rich gives us jobs and trickles down is BS, where are all the jobs and money from the Bush tax cuts? Did they get lost solely because he grew the government faster than anyone else or because the economic model of reward the rich screw the poor is unsustainable? Or maybe because he was a terrible leader and did both?

The only time tax cuts for the rich worked was when Kennedy dropped the upper rate from about 90 to 60 (don't recall the exact numbers), and bless him for that because 90% is way too high for anybody.

And all of you who say the gov't can't do anything efficiently need to raise your own militia (cause you don't have faith in our military, which is pathetic) and do some research on health care. Universal, single payer health care is the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to run a country, as well as being the only morally acceptable choice. If you are for our current American system, then you are against balanced budgets and the teachings of Jesus.

Oh, by the way, I grew up on food stamps and free gov't lunches. Now I make more than most of you do, and by the time I retire I will be rich (which to me means making over 200k/year). I don't care how much they tax me, as long as its not over 50%, and if you really think that getting taxed 39% is a huge injustice and totally unfair, then you need to reevaluate your life. If taxes are you biggest worry in this life, there are about 6.8 billion people on this earth today who would switch places with you in a heartbeat.

Death and taxes exist and you can't avoid them. Get over it and go do something productive with your lives.

Aloha.

[Phatscotty]

what an Eichman

Yea! You're all just little Eichmans!

I got some stuff you should read...

[john9blue]

tax_rate = 5 * ln(annual_income)

math solves everything

[BigBallinStalin]

How about because it works better? Because countries are stronger and more prosperous with a fair tax rate that encourages upward mobility and fiscal responsibility. Because oligarchies lead to revolutions and then the whole country fails, and then the rich get screwed because they had more to lose. Because we are rational humans who want our country to be long lasting and solvent.

Well, what's "fair," right? There are diminishing returns with taxes. Enacting higher taxes and less tax breaks for the "richer" are only useful if we assume that all that money would be better spent elsewhere. But it isn't. It goes to a wasteful and reckless organization, which itself has led some of us to the reasoning that now we need higher taxes for it to balance its own budget.

I say no, keep taxes and tax breaks the same, and instead cut expenditures and open up more opportunities for freer trade domestically and abroad.

Specifically, what are we talking about, raising the upper tax bracket from 35% to 39%? Can anyone tell me what the upper tax rate was when our budget was last balanced?.... oh, it was about 39% in the late 90's. Our budget will never be balanced with a 30% tax rate.
Also, all this crap about lower taxes on the rich gives us jobs and trickles down is BS, where are all the jobs and money from the Bush tax cuts? Did they get lost solely because he grew the government faster than anyone else or because the economic model of reward the rich screw the poor is unsustainable? Or maybe because he was a terrible leader and did both?

GDP growth was exceptionally good after the recession starting in 2002 up to 2008--which in turn led to lower unemployment and yada yada. Then again, as you've said Bush did expand the government (and Obama is no proponent of cutting what Bush created). But when posing such questions, we have to be aware that there are plenty of other factors at work. I'd say most of the benefits in those tax cuts/breaks were absorbed negatively by government expansion.

The "rich" giving you jobs which create more jobs is shown to be self-evident, but of course it isn't the only way, right? Expenditure from consumers aids the system too. There's multiple systems at work, but by crippling one, it starts to fail.


Also, this conversation really depends on how one defines "rich." For tax purposes, it's anyone who makes over $138,000 per year.

The only time tax cuts for the rich worked was when Kennedy dropped the upper rate from about 90 to 60 (don't recall the exact numbers), and bless him for that because 90% is way too high for anybody.

And all of you who say the gov't can't do anything efficiently need to raise your own militia (cause you don't have faith in our military, which is pathetic) and do some research on health care.

Ah, yes, the "common goods are provided by the government because the government deems that such goods can only be provided by the government itself" argument. It's circular logic at its finest. Granted, there are plenty of common goods problems, but honestly, a Limited Government has little need for an aggressive and expanded military to fulfill its unnecessary, troublesome, and costly interventionist agenda.

Local militias that are decentralized and organized are a good alternative. Besides, who's going to invade the US when we've got all these nuclear missiles? Current expenditures on current military levels are unnecessary to maintain the same domestic security.

Besides, we wouldn't have to even abolish the federal government army's either. We could scale it back to 80,000, and have our allies stop freeriding by incentivizing them to appropriate more of their own funds into their own national security.

Universal, single payer health care is the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to run a country, as well as being the only morally acceptable choice. If you are for our current American system, then you are against balanced budgets and the teachings of Jesus.

Prove it.

Oh, by the way, I grew up on food stamps and free gov't lunches. Now I make more than most of you do, and by the time I retire I will be rich (which to me means making over 200k/year). I don't care how much they tax me, as long as its not over 50%, and if you really think that getting taxed 39% is a huge injustice and totally unfair, then you need to reevaluate your life.If taxes are you biggest worry in this life, there are about 6.8 billion people on this earth today who would switch places with you in a heartbeat.

That argument doesn't work because it doesn't matter what other people outside the system would like to choose, especially since they don't even have the option of doing so.

Your story is personal, thus limited by its own subjectivity. You can't take your own life story and apply it to everything.

If you didn't care about being taxed 50%, then why don't you pay an extra 11% right now?

Death and taxes exist and you can't avoid them. Get over it and go do something productive with your lives.

It's important to ask questions and critically think about problems in order to provide a better alternative, or to open up a bigger realm of possibilities. That's the cause of innovation, of technology, of improved productivity.

Clamoring on and chest-thumping about your $200k per year while asserting that "I herp; therefore, I derp" isn't really productive.

[jimboston]

But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Please expand on this idea.

Player

Could you please explain what you mean by this sentence?

I think you first need to define "wealthy"... i.e. income over $X per year? or some other measure?

Then please explain how "those who are wealthy" caused the "problems".

You may also want to define the "problems"... for example I think the problem is rampant run-away gov't spending, in combination with public employee unions, and of course entitlement programs.

You probably think it's something else.

I am though very interested in hearing how "the wealthy"... "by and large" caused all these problems.

Player

Are you going to elaborate on this?

I guess it's OK to just through things like "rich people are evil" out there.

[PLAYER57832]

But also, those who are wealthy, by and large are much more a part of the cause of the problems than those of us who are not.

Please expand on this idea.

Player

Could you please explain what you mean by this sentence?

I think you first need to define "wealthy"... i.e. income over $X per year? or some other measure?

Then please explain how "those who are wealthy" caused the "problems".

You may also want to define the "problems"... for example I think the problem is rampant run-away gov't spending, in combination with public employee unions, and of course entitlement programs.

You probably think it's something else.

lol I am sure you do. After all, that is what the right wing (and even much of the middle) keeps trying to say. But, they ignore why so many entitlements are needed and how the wealthy truly get their wealth.

I am though very interested in hearing how "the wealthy"... "by and large" caused all these problems.

[/quote]
Yes, and "evil", which I have below.

I don't consider those making over 150K or over 200K or even 250K to be "wealthy", just a bit better off than many. In fact, some of the worst harm in our system is caused to those making 100K- 1 million. They are not poor enough to get most lower-level subsitance type benefits (a very few exceptions exist... families can make up to 250K and still have their disabled kids covered by Medicaid, etc.). Those people are usually not wealthy enough to get the upper benefits, either. Small business owners can take quite a few tax breaks, but they tend to be more direct costs. Again, there are exceptions. (Stock investments are usually tax free up until you claim the money, etc.) To be wealthy means making several million. However, even looking at income is a distortion, because this is really about power. Money is only part of that.

I will start with one axiom often ignored by the right. If you look at history, one marker of a society about to collapse is increased wealth disparity. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The wealthy concentrate their power. Everyone from Marx to Machiavelli acknowledged this fact. Marx talked about the poor revolting and eventually equalizing society. Machiavelli talked about keeping the masses just happy enough to not revolt.

In truth, those who stay in power do play part Machiavelli. That is, they recognize they can only take so much from the "masses" before they revolt. However, the way this plays out keeps changing. Today, credit cards, welfare, etc all help mask what is really happening.
That its important to keep the lower classes blaming each other and not the top is the consistancy. Teach people to blame welfare recipients for high taxes, even though you oculd eliminate every welfare payment and still not make a dent in the deficit AND, the resulting turmoil would be huge. I personally think paying a few deadbeat parents is better than letting kids starve. (I DO think we need reform, but not elimination of welfare.. and the kinds of reform we need are not what is being proposed. Ironically, its cheaper to just pay people off than to truly fix the problems making them poor.)

Anyway, when I say the wealthy cost us more than they contribute, I mean externalities and enviromental damage mostly. Too many like to pretend that pollution "just happens" and that we can ignore its impact, relying upon some future technology to "fix" the problems. In fact, there is a huge movement to, even now, in 2011, teach people that environmentalists are just a bunch of liberal idiots who are "anti business" and to pretend that there is no real problem, just people who want to bring up imaginary issues.

The other part they ignore is why so many people need to have subsidies and who they are. Though Phattscotty and, it seems, you, like to talk about those who "don't work" as if they were the problem, the real truth is that most of those getting subsidies are working. Sometimes working fulltime, often working more than one part-time job. That AND talking care of kids, etc. The truth is that these as much or more subsidies of the employers as the workers. Claiming that its OK to let an employer pay only $6.35 an hour (or whatever the new minimum wage is), even though that is too low a wage for even a single person to support themselves is fiction. When someone works fulltime and still has to get subsidies to get by, it means that taxpayers are artificially supporting the companies with our tax dollars. That is not being responsible. That is using taxpayer money for profit. When you see that many of those companies are also getting discounts in property taxes, etc... those payments made to stockholders are not real profits earned, they are fake profits drug off the backs of taxpayers, INCLUDING those low-wage workers about whom you and others complain.
(but particularly the more middle of the road income earners).

The argument that raising the wage will just drive businesses out is false. The FACTS are that those businesses are not really providing for their communities anyway, they are draining them or, at least, nor providing as much as they pretend.

Why is this allowed to persist? Because so many companies make profits off the money from entitlements as well as getting the artificial tax breaks when their employees recieve them. For example, several local grocers would go out of business if it were not for Food Stamps and WIC. Even things like "Toys for Tots" encourages people to buy toys. It doesn't matter if the parents are buying them or neighbors, they still get bought. Now, understand, I am not criticizing "Toys for Tots" or food stamps. I am criticizing the ethic that says its OK for an employer to hire someone who will then need those programs and then turn around and complain about 'entitlements" causing high taxes.

Medicare is a serious problem, but so is everything to do with healthcare. Again, the right likes to ignore the real issue. The real issue is that 50 years ago an apendix opperation was "serious surgary". Now, even heart transplants, knee replacements are basically commonplace. Kids that used to die now live into adulthood, hooked up to machine after machine or supported by multiple operations and medication. Those things just plain cost more and our system of payments has not expanded to compensate well enough. The ugly fact is we need triage, but the right wing wants to sit back and talk about "right to life" and "death panels" as if unlimited healthcare were a real and true option instead of acknowledging that it is necessarily limited and helping to ensure that good decisions, right decisions based on facts, medical realities and not just "happenstance".

I guess it's OK to just through things like "rich people are evil" out there.

[/quote]
I have never said that. You folks keep trying to claim I say it because I do say their actions have negative consequences, but evil means causing intentional harm. They do cause evil sometimes, but that does not make them evil. THAT is the real point. If only bad people did bad, we would not have most of the problems we have. Even truly evil people require the "assistance" of many who are not evil. This is why education is so critical, AND why the greatest harm created today is the erosion of our educational system. All those going along with that are not evil, but the result absolutely is.