both i and my unborn grandchildren are tired of subsidizing the uber rich's share of america.
But you aren't subsidizing their share of America. Well to a limit extent in certain specific situations you are (they do get various forms of corporate welfare and other benefits that I'd like to see end), but adding it all together they don't receive a net subsidy from the government (quite the opposite), or from you (unless you have some compulsion to write checks to rich people without receiving any goods or services from them)
>>Also the higher tax rates that many (including both Democratic presidential candidates) call for are not only on the "uber rich".<<
not enough information and this is open to wholesale lying manipulation. perhaps you could think how this could be true and explain how such a generality is easily manipulated to twist and distort reality.
What do you mean. My statement was pretty simple, and its also highly accurate.
If you want a bit more, well the Dems are calling for canceling Bush's tax decreases, or alternativly canceling them on people they consider wealthy. But even if canceled only on the "wealthy" your talking about a lot more than the "uber-rich", say someone making $150K a year. That's pretty far from "uver-rich", unless perhaps your using third world standards for wealth.
>>The majority of federal benefits go to people who aren't "uber rich", or even just rich.<<
that depends on one's perspective.
No its a simple fact. Only a tiny part of social security spending doesn't go to the "uber-rich", much less of Medicare goes to such people (because they would prefer to use their own expensive doctors, and no Medicaid goes to them. Those are the larges federal benefit programs. They do get some farm price supports, and corporate welfare, but those are much smaller totals and don't go exclusively to the "uber-rich" (and also are programs I would cancel if I was in charge).
some would argue every dollar spent on the iraq war was to protect the interests of the wealthy
Than some would argue with a false statement. And even if it was true it still wouldn't be a federal benefit program for the wealthy (let alone the uber-rich)
look at the $10 BILLION quarter an oil company recently logged.
Yeah look at it. So what? They make a large profit because they are such a large company and times are good in their business right now. Their margins aren't extraordinarily high, and also are from selling their product not mostly from federal programs or benefits.
that $250 million dollar alaska bridge isn't the only such allotment to the uber rich.
To the extent that I understand the details it seems to me to be an unjustified waste of money. But it isn't a handout to the uver rich, its an investment in building infrastructure, it just happens to be infrastructure where the need is not enough to justify the costs.
oh, an microsoft's government supported monopoly brings them in $10s of billions, even though the general public is shafted in the process.
The only type of "government supported monopoly" the Microsoft has is the copyrights on its software. If your against software copyrights then say so, but that issue is not strongly connected to any general flow of funds from the government to the "uber rich".
you should read up on history if you can't see the meaning.
I'm pretty well versed in history. You should try to present facts or argument, rather than just implying the person your talking to is ignorant. Esp. when they are not, but even in cases where they are such statements don't support your ideas.
run the numbers... $10 trillion in debt X 12% interest rates = $1.2 trillion just to finance the debt.
The government doesn't pay 12% interest.
12% interest rates will come into play at some time - this is reality, not imaginary land.
For now its imaginary land.
i don't think $20-30 trillion in debt is out of line over the next 30-50 years... yes, population is increasing
AS is the GDP per person. $20-$30 trillion in debt 30 to 50 years from now may be less of a burden than our current debt.
In any case I'm not arguing for large government deficits or increasing debt so I don't see your point. It doesn't seem relevant to the whole "the uber-rich are on the net subsidized by the government" issue that I was debunking. |
