The question remains, though, just how much should we be taxing these rich bastards who've spent their lives building their businesses and investments? I say take it all. Take every cent from the rich and give it to the poor, Robin Hood style, and then the progressives (and the poor) will be happy. Well, maybe not the progressive politicians who would want to remain wealthy. Like Algore and Hillary.
That would only mean the poor would then be rich and the rich would be poor. What would we have gained? Obama has just appointed a "diversity czar" to go with his 100 or so other czars, whose job it is to make sure the spoils go to a diverse lot. This czar told us a few days ago that a huge lot of important positions of authority are held by a lot of smart competent white people, but, nevertheless, and notwithstanding they are doing a competent job, it is time they should give some thought to stepping down and giving "someone else" a chance at power. I'm guessing the "someone else" he has in in mind isn't white. But then, neither is he. That probably colors his thinking. No pun intended.
So in the spirit of diversity, let's give the poor a chance at being rich, wot? Except there is a hell of a lot more poor than rich, so they aren't going to end up with as much money per head after the redistribution. That sucks. And somehow you just KNOW these new rich aren't going to be any more charitably-minded than the newly ex-rich were, so who is going to feed and clothe these new poor people who used to drive fancy cars and live in mansions? Screw them, I say. (It's ok to say that about ex-rich bastards, whereas it would be politically incorrect to say that about the current
Here's a better idea: let's just take all the money from EVERYBODY, rich and poor, and put it in a big pile somewhere, maybe in a mall parking lot, and then just divvy it up equally amongst us all. Now there's a Karl Marx progressive dream if ever there was one. So we take all the money from the banks and the stock markets and sell off all the real property and personal property and we would have (in the U.S.) a mound of cash amounting to some 3 trillion dollars. Whoa. (At this point, try not to think of the fact that Obama just popped us 9 trillion into the hole recently, if you count the Bush dumbassedness as well. Keep your mind on the prize here.)
So we divide all this wealth up by 300 million drooling souls and each will get... what?...$10,000 or so? And if that's not bad enough, you just KNOW the old former rich would soon have the money back in their hands again anyway; the poor are not that good at making money with money, else they wouldn't have been poor in the first place. Ummmm.... some of them.
Something is wrong with this picture, no?
Hie ye back to The Wizard of Oz where Toto runs behind the curtain and unmasks the "wizard" manipulating all the fake controls. Now substitute "Federal Reserve" in place of "wizard."
It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain that there is no real money in the USA or anywhere else anymore. Take out a piece of that boring green paper and look at it. "Federal Reserve Note" it says. It doesn't say "Silver Certificate" anymore, and it DAMN sure isn't backed by gold - not for a VERY long time.
Your money - your wealth - is only a promise. Backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America." What exactly does that mean? It means you are going down with the ship just like me, that's what it means. Let's hope the poor are good swimmers. We want no poor flotsam.
So, in a very real sense, we are only arguing semantics here, and "rich" and "poor" are relative terms. Actually the poor have more certainty as to what they will be tomorrow; the rich may be poor tomorrow.
Are you going to be the first to tell the rich that the "faith" has been broken? Sounds like you are eager to do that.
There is only one way to keep the magic balloon floating, and that is to kick Toto out of the way and close the curtain back up. It is too late, by far, to do it right - there just aren't enough assets in the US of A to back up THIS kind of debt. Put your hands over your ears and sing "DA DA DA DA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Everything will be ok.
Like Scarlett O'Hara, we will think of these things tomorrow and be at peace tonight.
I do understand that my definition of rich differs from Soubriquet's. The rich I'm talking about were hard-working and made sacrifices and used the extra money their sacrifices provided to invest in starting businesses and putting people to work; eventually they found themselves in nice houses and driving nice cars. They paid by deferring their gratification, unlike the poor in many cases. My friend Soubriquet sees the rich differently. He sees the CEOs and robber baron money movers and cheats making ridiculous salaries and bonuses that they could NEVER deserve, and he's right. Those people I would, as always, shoot behind the ear. I just want you to know who I am talking about when I defend the right of the self-made wealthy to keep their gains. I won't comment on ball players and other entertainers except to say it is we, the masses of hungry poor, who are the ones who drive that kind of worship and income.
Hit me with your best shot. Even if you have to flout logic to argue.
But Oz never did give nothin' to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have...