Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
... the rich fared better under Bush than anyone else.
|
We can agree on the above, but I think for different reasons. If you measure "better" in terms of monetary measures ( as opposed to other measures - i.e. my grandmother lived in a 3 room house in rural Arkansas without an indoor bathroom until 1966, but was the happiest person I have ever known - I visited her in that house as a kid and loved every minute of it with the exception of the mosquitoes at night, they really seem to enjoy "city" blood ) "rich" people will have the biggest improvements in absolute terms when the economy grows. But they are also the biggest losers in absolute terms when the economy shrinks. So, in a weird way you can pretend you support economic growth and pretend that you want everyone to participate equally, but that is pure fantasy. What I want, and what I think you fail to understand, is for poor people to have the opportunity to get "rich", or at least have the financial security to own things like their home, be able to pay for their children's education, retire without a drop in living standard, and to leave a little something for their heirs after paying for the funeral, all without having to worry about government programs.
The Bush tax cuts did more for giving poor and middle class the opportunity to get "rich" than you seem to be willing to acknowledge. In order for a poor or middle class person to get rich they have to be able to keep more of the money they earn and then put that money to work through investments. Very few, percentage wise, get rich solely through the wages they earn from working for others. The "system" works against a person getting "rich" through the normal 9-5, corporate, wage earner routine.
---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
is Ace using "the rich" and "small business owners" interchangeably?
|
No.
However, "rich" are generally people who own resources that generate income or capital appreciation. They usually file something more than the 1040EZ.
There are "rich" politicians and "rich" activists, you know like Jessie Jackson or Ralph Nader. I won't put my speculations in writing on how they got "rich", but I acknowledge they are not "small business owners". People like Paris Hilton and descendants of Joe Kennedy are not small business owners either but are "rich". And then we have people like, oh, everyone who plays for the Yankees, are not small business owners.
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Assuming that this "rich" person lives among other "rich" people (and not among the "poor"), his taxes buy him better roads, better hospitals, more police protection, better hospitals, better schools, etc. You could say that they are "buying" those things with their tax money
|
I lived in California for a period of time and now I live in North Carolina. When I look at the demographic statistics where I lived in California had a much higher average household income than where I live now, but in North Carolina the schools are much better, roads better, hospitals better, and it is safer, the police and fire response times are lower, crime rates are lower, air is cleaner, utilities cheaper, taxes lower, etc, etc, etc. On the basis of your point the "rich" in California are getting screwed. I have some neighbors from New York who would agree with me regarding New York compared to North Carolina.
P.s. - We are not accepting anymore people from California or New York in North Carolina.
