Another Billionaire compares progressives to Nazi's

[Sbee]

Home Depot founder Ken Langone today said

?Because if you go back to 1933, with different words, this is what Hitler was saying in Germany. You don?t survive as a society if you encourage and thrive on envy or jealousy.?

This comes after Sam Zell compares the stigma of the 1% to the jew's in Nazi Germany.

It must be a tough life for those guys.

 

[Sbee]

good question for these guys, do you want smaller government and less taxes, smaller welfare state and no national health care? ok, then pay your employees a living wage and provide full benefits. You don't get it both ways, I for one get sick of paying taxes to fund medicaid and food stamps because these companies don't pay well.

 

[Thumb]

They're the product of a system that eventually allowed the low-middle and lower class to become such a large part of the voting block that they were able to elect a black democratic president, to the horror of those fat white rich guys.

The difference between the have's and the have-not's is there will always be more have-not's.

 

[Michchamp]

I thought it was going to be another comparison to slavery. idiots have been doing that a lot lately.

according to Fox News/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh/Bachmann the following things are like slavery:
- welfare
- food stamps
- allowing immigration to occur
- taxes

actual slavery is not like slavery, however. it wasn't that bad, and that one movie that won the Oscar exaggerated things just to make a couple bucks and pander to Hollywood liberals.

 

[Sbee]

They're the product of a system that eventually allowed the low-middle and lower class to become such a large part of the voting block that they were able to elect a black democratic president, to the horror of those fat white rich guys.

The difference between the have's and the have-not's is there will always be more have-not's.

I get why guys like Zell and Langone are republicans, it's the rest of them that are just rubes, voting against their own financial interest.

that being said, they're not all bad, Gates and Buffet have a proper attitude about their wealth and give the majority of it away. Buffet was quoted recently saying that he should write a book on how to get by on 500 million since it's apparently such a problem for some.

 

[Thumb]

sbee, I don't have a problem so much with small government, as I do with all the tax loopholes in the code. Rich people and cooperation's should not be able to write off the amount they do through loopholes while the bulk of the nation pays between 1/5 and 1/4 of their income in taxes, and is often forced to need the welfare state.

 

[Sbee]

sbee, I don't have a problem so much with small government, as I do with all the tax loopholes in the code. Rich people and cooperation's should not be able to write off the amount they do through loopholes while the bulk of the nation pays between 1/5 and 1/4 of their income in taxes, and is often forced to need the welfare state.

I don't have a problem with small government and an eroded welfare state if we don't have the income inequality that we're seeing. you get one ore the other, better wages and benefits or smaller government, otherwise you're running an experiment in social darwinism that isn't going to end well

it's funny how people get mad about those making under 30k paying no federal income taxes but GE can keep 108 billion in profit overseasn and pay $ taxes. sounds like some displaced outrage

 

[jdeb]

The current monetary system does not work.

http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

 

[zyxt9]

I'm all for reducing the bloated government. I am pretty sure we could shrink it enough that thr current taxes would provide a surplus able to start paying down the national debt. Oh, right, that is a bad thing, paying down the debt (that barb is directed at both parties).

 

[Michchamp]

I'm all for reducing the bloated government. I am pretty sure we could shrink it enough that thr current taxes would provide a surplus able to start paying down the national debt. Oh, right, that is a bad thing, paying down the debt (that barb is directed at both parties).

paying down the debt is not necessarily a good thing.

as long as we're paying obligations as they come due, i.e. we're not defaulting or in danger of defaulting on it, it often makes more sense to invest the surplus in infrastructure or other government programs that generate or create additional economic activity... which creates additional revenue that can be taxed. win win.

the interest rate on U.S. debt is rock bottom, and has been, despite what politicians and the mainstream media wants you to think, so it makes sense to use our surplus on other things.

this idea that the government's finances are analogous to a household spending more than what they make is not well-founded.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Ultra rich people aren't against big government anymore. Now that the biggest corporations have figured out how to capture the regulator, the forces that used to have a tug of war over big/small government or free market/regulation aren't on opposite sides of the rope as much as they used to be.

Debt is a good thing for an organization that can grow faster than interest rates. How that could apply or does apply to the US is a multifaceted discussion. Probably everyone agrees that we waste to much to justify the amount we borrow, but where the waste is is another argument.