You Can Not Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

[TLSnell1981]

* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

* You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

* You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves.

Do you recognize the author?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Abraham Lincoln. Very wise words written years ago.

**edited to add** This quote is erroneously attributed to Abraham Lincoln. According to the book They Never Said it: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, they are not from Lincoln.

The quotes were published in 1942 by William J. H. Boetcker. He released a pamphlet titled Lincoln On Limitations, which did include a Lincoln quote. It also contained these statements written by Boetcker himself.

The words are still wise. I hope they produce thoughtful debate.

 

[bicker]

And irrelevant. No one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

Another red herring desperation appeal.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Now rolling back taxes on the top 2% to Clinton era levels equates to destroying the rich...good lord....

How the McCain supporters don't see how silly and ineffective this "throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks" line of reasoning is, I'll never know, but what the hell...more power to them.

 

[just4today]

And irrelevant. No one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

Another red herring desperation appeal.

Are you speaking for the entire voting populace now? You may agree or disagree, but it is not a red herring (which seems to be your characterization of anything outside of what you believe).

 

[bicker]

It is a red herring because no one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

You may aagree or disagree, but it is not speaking for the entire voting populace now (which seems to be your characterization of anything outside of what you believe).

 

[Green Tea]

I will pay more taxes under Obama, but I certainly don't feel like he is destroying me. I guess I don't understand why folks think that paying 4% more on the portion above a certain threshold is taking all their money or is something that will keep them from ever having two nickels to rub together.

 

[just4today]

It is a red herring because no one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

So you've studied everything that's been said or written about this election and economics and history and everything known to man, and have determined this? Maybe YOU haven't said it, but you are one person.

 

[bicker]

 

[just4today]

I think you mistake my nausea and weariness for desperation. They are often confused.

 

[bicker]

I sympathize... Having done it once before, myself, I can imagine how wearying it could be supporting the lesser candidate.

 

[Pin Wizard]

I will pay more taxes under Obama, but I certainly don't feel like he is destroying me. I guess I don't understand why folks think that paying 4% more on the portion above a certain threshold is taking all their money or is something that will keep them from ever having two nickels to rub together.

That's 4% more they are getting which is taking away an additional 4% used for providing for my child. Honestly, if they want to put tax money somewhere, put it into education so there are AFFORDABLE programs for people to get training in order to better themselves. Send that tax money to the colleges, universities, trade schools. Have it offset tuition rates. Help people move out of their rut instead of giving them a handout that's temporary...and means nothing in the long run as people fall behind.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I will pay more taxes under Obama, but I certainly don't feel like he is destroying me. I guess I don't understand why folks think that paying 4% more on the portion above a certain threshold is taking all their money or is something that will keep them from ever having two nickels to rub together.

I think the majority of Americans agrees with you. However, a number of DISers have determined that the only way that they can help their candidate is to turn the volume on the hyperbole up to 11 and pray someone buys it.

 

[just4today]

I sympathize... Having done it once before, myself, I can imagine how wearying it could be supporting the lesser candidate.

My weariness has nothing to do with politics.

 

[bicker]

Get some sleep!

 

[just4today]

Get some sleep!

Why would I do that when there is so much to say?

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Good reasons to get the Repubs out of office. They are hell bent on destruction.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Why would I do that when there is so much to say?

Talk is cheap.

 

[just4today]

Talk is cheap.

How fortunate for us.

 

[Charade]

I will pay more taxes under Obama, but I certainly don't feel like he is destroying me. I guess I don't understand why folks think that paying 4% more on the portion above a certain threshold is taking all their money or is something that will keep them from ever having two nickels to rub together.

You know what I don't understand? How raising the taxes on the top 2 percent of earners 4 percent and lowering the taxes on the bottom 95 percent (plus all the handouts) is going to bring in $700 billion. IMO, the math doesn't work out. According to taxfoundation.org (from IRS data), in 2006 the total tax (income) collected was about 1 trillion dollars. Does anyone really think that their is $700 billion on the table to collect (on top of the 1 trillion already collected from all taxpayers) from the top 2 percent of earners if he increases their tax rate by 4 percent? Another reason it doesn't work is because the 4 percent is a raw number. It's highly unlikely that the full 4 percent will be collected. In the data I got from taxfoundation.org, the average income tax rate is 22 percent for the top 1 percent of earners. So that 4 percent may only actually yield 2 or 3 at most.

So (and I've asked several times) where is that $700B coming from? Hiding under the rabbit in his hat?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

 

[just4today]

So (and I've asked several times) where is that $700B coming from? Hiding under the rabbit in his hat?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

I think he said something about a scalpel. He's going to end up with a surplus, remember?