Yes, the voting public, for voting for the inexperienced Governor Haley. This woman has been lying since the day that she took office. The people of this state ought to be ashamed of themselves for voting for this woman. She was not qualified for the position and she needs to be impeached. This was a disaster from the start. People should have known that once Sarah Palin endorsed her, something was wrong, because Palin is a racist idiot.

Cornell,
Please put a stop to your "war on women" comments. Why do you hate women so much, is it just only non-black women or non-democrat women, or both?

Amen!

gee what a surprise. If you think its only this bunch of crooks guess again. It starts with the cops and doesn't trickle it flows like a waterfall only up. Judges, attorneys etc. that is why they all want to be involved in the grand larceny. the only difference between a dog and a public laying in the middle of the road is the dog has skids marks in front of it. formula for getting rich? start with being a cop ans rob your way up

@Dr. John: "...in every part of life 99% of the people will be in the bottom 99%..."

COMMENT
sigh oh/my...there was not a 1% v 99% economic divide til the GOP icon Reagan...

the analogy to yo football powers has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth in USA...poor analogy

re: This whole premise is based on envy of other people.

oh/my..it had/has nothing to do with envy...just fairness...and perhaps Jesus teachings if the USA is a christian nation...eg, "sell all you have and give to the poor..."

re: will you surrender your prosperity to someone say, in China or Syria? Why not?

indeed why not? what would Jesus do?

Stanley,
Please help me define fairness of income. Who gets to keep what and who gets what from who. I need to know if I should feel guilty for having too much or jealous for having too little. What is the most or least anyone should have?

@Dr. John: "...What is the most or least anyone should have?"

the most or least is what "anyone" has the ability to earn...the question is what the tax code allows "anyone" to keep...sooo

the question is what is a fair tax code...my opine is, it should one which provides the middle class with a chance to make it better for their children...ie/eg;

what worked in the 1950's...when the gap between rich and po folks was: the richest 20 percent of Americans controlled 42.8 percent of wealth...not what it was (1:99 distribution) that preceded 1929 and 2008...

re: Jesus' point was that the man loved his money more than God.

typical of many Christians that they know Jesus 'point...and use IT to prove their ideological (oft misguided) points. even if IT was/is Jesus' point (and it partially is) this does NOT does NOT address your point and my counter point that:
"envy has/had nothing to do with it (1% v 99% wealth distribution...it is about fairness...NOT envy..." and;
i shouldn't have thrown in the bit about Jesus...it was not clear and gave you the opportunity to beg the issue (your opine) the position of those who say 1% v 99% is based on envy...it is based on fairness.
and to clarify and expand: if the USA is truly a Christian nation...the nation would agree it is NOT fair...the fact is most Christians are hypocrites who believe 1% and 99% is a fair distribution...eg, GOP failed economic policies are fair policies...of course they succeed extremely well for the 1%.

...you take my premise; change it; ie, put words in my mouth then basically argue with yourself...or so it seems...eg;

JohnH say: "Otherwise, as you state it, if they are poor already then they should be going to heaven, right?"

wrong and i never said: "if they are poor already...etc"...you did.

re: "the right time to interject Christianity into politics"

the right time is when christians mouth christianity and practice greed...ie, the 99% deserve only crumbs from the 1% table...did Jesus say sell all you have and give to the rich...

Stanley,
Please give me the one definition of fair. Does it limit how much someone makes or how much someone takes from them? Does everyone get exactly the same? Are there penalties for haveing too much? I am sure you will get 100 answers from 100 different people about what fair is? You should know that redistribution of wealth at some point will kill wealth creation at some point. After the money is taken/stolen from one person who is deemed to have too much, who decides on where the money goes? My guess is, like other redistribution programs, there will still be a majority of people who have less than others. Just like anti-poverty programs, in 1960 we spent $443 inflation adjusted dollars per person in poverty and the poverty level was 15%, in 2010 we spent $8000 inflation adjusted dollars for each person in poverty and the poverty level is still 15%. I still believe that redistribution policies are immoral because it takes, by force, someone else's property and gives it to someone who did not earn it. At the same time charity is very laudible because the wealth is given voluntarily(many wealthy people do). Your arguement about envy vs. fairness does not stand. For there to be perceived "unfairness" , someone must use an arbitrary definition of wealth based FIRST on how much they have and how much someone else has. Then that person must decide what percent should not be that persons property, but should be anothers property instead. Class warfare is envy.

@ dr john:

believe you try to convince yourself the 1:99 division of wealth is fair...convince yourself greed is good...convince yourself millions of dollars to WS CEOs/brokers is good/fair...

re: "redistribution of wealth at some point will kill wealth creation at some point."
the 1:99 redistribution of wealth is killing the middle class...

convince yourself that the 1:99 division has not and is not destroying the middle class which made america great and fought our wars...

why dont you retreat to a quite place and search your hearts of hearts (if Christian, read the Bible...or if whatever, read whatever) to determine what's fair...

there is no argument re envy v fair...you say it's envy that drives the 1:99 discussion...i say fairness and equality are the drivers...fairness and equality for all NOT JUST THE 1%...

there are no arguments just opinions...everybody has one.

there is no class warfare either...people are at war with injustice...BTW i am not at war with the koch bros...where did the GOPs come up with this class warfare bit to justify/rationalize their failed policies...more atwater, T-blossom, ilk, type bs.

PS
@drjohn: "Please give me the one definition of fair..."

this original thread (i think ) was the fairness of the tax code...and i got off on morality and hypocrisy of society...apologies.

a tax code that allows a buffet to pay less than his secretary...a tax code that contributes to the deficit...tax loop holes that allow oil (etal) companies to pay NO IRS tax: is not fair to the middle class.

i dont know anyone who begrudges buffet, gates, soros, or even the koch bros of what they have earned...they only want them to pay a fair share...

a fair share from the 1% would help maintain police/fire protection, allow quality schools and adequate safety nets.

BTW the 1:99 distribution proceeded 1929 and 2008...think just a coincident...

PS
the marginal tax rate in 1950's was 90%...ie, what rich folk paid...now around 30-40%...also capital gains and corporate taxes were higher in the 1950s...see chart: http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VisualizingEconomics+%28Visualizing+Economics%29

any clarification of chart...tax then and now appreciated...

BTW the 1950s (i remember them well) were pretty good economic times compared to 2001-08...

PSps
correct/change proceeded to preceded in my previous post...damn spell checker.

Stanley,
Those evil rich people paid almost 35% on the money the first time they earned it. They put their money in investments, which by the way, provides capital to other companies to open businesses and for other economic production, and they are taxed again a 15% rate on investment income. There is no guarantee that they will make money in the investment. Now, if you tax this money more, there will be a point where people with the money will just say it's not worth it to take a chance to risk losing money in an investment, and then, if they do make a profit, have to give 20-30-35% back to the government. They will keep their already taxed money and either save it interest free or buy things of value that cannot be taxed. This economic lesson is visible in something as simple as cigarette taxes, as the price of cigarettes go up, less people smoke. When these people think it is no longer reasonable to invest thier money, they will withdraw it from the economy, and that will truly damage the middle class.

@Dr. John: "...Now, if you tax this money more, there will be a point where people with the money will just say it's not worth..."

to repeat: "the marginal tax rate in 1950's was 90%...ie, what rich folk paid...now around 30-40%...also capital gains and corporate taxes were higher in the 1950s...see chart:

the much higher taxes (income, cap gains, corporate) in the 1950's did not stop investments then and it wont now...

you state your opinion NOT facts...can you provide one instance where higher taxes have reduced investments by the evil rich folks.

re: "This economic lesson is visible in something as simple as cigarette taxes, etc..."

not a good analogy and certainly not an economic lesson...you confuse apples with oranges...the price of consumer items (cigarettes, TV sets, whatever)...is not the same as investment in stocks/bonds or small business development.

BTW as you know evil rich folks, like mitt, pay no IRS income tax only capital gains at around 15% and with loop holes, possible less and in some cases zip.

most of the norquist gang have no understanding of tax laws and and how they effect the economy...they just quote limbo sound bites.

i though you were an exception but am beginning to have doubts...

Stanley,
Please don't take us back to 1950. It is a simple fact of economics that the more you tax something (cigarettes) the less consumption/manufacturing of it you will get. Also, the more you subsidize something the more consumption you will get (cash for clunkers). Here is research from Harvard Business School that show that when looking across 85 different countries over the period 1996 to 2004. http://www.hbs.edu/units/finance/pdf/10_03_shleifer_new.pdfIt shows that for every 10% increase in corporate tax rates economic growth is decreased 1 percentage point per year. Our economic growth rate is only about 2% this year. It also shows that countries with high corporate taxes have a 44% higher debt to equity ratio, which means they have to borrow more money to do business. Not only to higher corporate taxes decrease growth, they also stiffle entrepreneurship as quoted here "The effects of taxation on entrepreneurship are large. A 10 percentage point increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces business density by 1.8 firms per 100 people (average is 5), and the average entry rate by 1.3 percentage points (average is 8). These effects are highly statistically significant. " jgwartne/Documents/GwartneyLawsonSocialPhilosophyandPolicy.pdf

Stanley,
I do understand also that we are talking about personal tax rates and not corporate rates. But your remark about going back to the 1950's tax rates bothers me. You cannot choose just one aspect of a certain period such as tax rates. Although you disagree with the tax rates that have progressively lowered over the last 60 years, you are disregarding all of the progress, socially and economically that has happened since then. I would not want to go back to the era no cell phones, no space program, no medical advancements (MRI, CT, cancer treatments), no computers, no modern day air travel. To say that these things would have happened anyway, despite high tax rates would be a poor analysis. I don't think people like Bill Gates would have taken the risks he did knowing that the government would basically own 70-90% of his company through the tax code. In the bigger picture, we all know that there are certain individual things of the past that we would like to have back, we cannot pretend that those things acted independently of the others. Also, look at other countries that have had relatively high tax rates for the wealthy, what have they produced. I mean new ideas they have produced. I the middle class is much better off now than 60 years ago in this country. There are many countries that have had no change to the middle class over the last 60 years, no computers, no refridgerators, no cars, no healthcare. Those countries have no economic freedom.

Cornell how can you expect Nimrata to govern?? She is busy vacationing and writing books,pandering to the right wing nuts, do you really expect her to govern too??

Not to pick too many nits, but that's not necessarily true. Half of all people in any group fall below the median, which is the half-way mark, but depending on your sample size and the particular thing you are measuring far more or far less than half of the people in that sample group may fall below the average, or above it for that matter. If for instance you are measuring wealth and there are a few extremely wealthy people in the group you are measuring, but the measure of the wealth of everyone else in that group falls within a narrow range much lower than that of the very wealthy few, that upper echelon of wealth will skew your average higher, and more than half of your sample group is likely to find themselves below that average.
Now if you look at the spread of something like IQ on a Bell Curve you actually find a fairly large group of your sample population falling within the "Average" category with smaller groups falling into each the "Above Average" and "Below Average" categories.

@ Jonathan Allen: "....but depending on your sample size and the particular thing you are measuring..."

thanks for picking nits...maybe statistics 101 will help all understand "stats, lies and damn lies"...but;

it's amazing/criminal how products are approved (studies accepted) based on ,eg, inappropriate sample size...so what can be expected of political discussions re averages...

@Cornell Davis: "She [SC gov] is a joke in every sense of the word..."

disagree...she is the essence of the GOP ideologues...and, at least, she hasnt been hiking on South America's Appalachian trail...speaking of jokes.