jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (273 posts)

Liberals=Taxation=Socialism

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    FYI
    Q. Why does this title look so scary?
    A. The word socialism is very scary to the average US citizen who values his democratic republic.

    Q. Who pays taxes?
    A. We The People do.

    Q. Who is taxed the most?
    A. The wealthy.

    Q. Why is President Obama allowing so many needy illegals to stay in the US?
    A. To maintain a significant/adequate pool of liberal voters.

    Q. Why is Mr. Trump running for President?
    A. To protect his wealth.

    Q. Why should he get to keep and his money?
    A. Because he (honestly) earned it.

    Q. What will Mr. Trump and the wealthy do with their money?
    A. Contribute toward a percolating economy by providing jobs and creating an abundance of tax payers.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Come now, Kathryn.  No wealthy person has ever put a dime into anything that might give a job to someone; all jobs come from the poor.  Just ask any of our liberal friends here on HP.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        (Do you think John H. will jog over?)

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          He might smile

          Can you tell me the name of one wealthy person who has thought "there are a lot of poor unemployed people. I'll create a few jobs to ease their burden"?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            LOL.

            http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/trickle-down.jpg

            1. Alternative Prime profile image87
              Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Pretty much sums it up ~ While millions of Americans remain homeless on our beloved streets ~

              A serious, chronic Wall Street problem that needs to be eradicated by progressives ~

              Our planet and its resources are being plundered by greedy, filthy rich imbeciles like these who have already destroyed the Gulf of MX ecosystem forever, it will never be the same after that despicable oil spill ~

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                It is a lot more like 'tinkle down'. The most stupid idea in the whole world and bamboozle of modern times is that given the money out of the treasury the wealthy are going to create jobs, and not just put the money in their pockets. Even Reagan's old economic budget czar David Stockman came clean in later years describing the concept as just BS!!

                1. Alternative Prime profile image87
                  Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  "Tinkle Down" was and still is a Conservative Con Job ~

                  Give the richest Americans even MORE of our money and just trust them to share it with their slave workers ~ What an unconscionable scam ~

                  Just like we should all trust insurance companies with our HEALTH ~ Don't worry, when execs make their decisions they will value your life over a new decked out yacht ~ Absurd ~

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    what ever is wrong with the gov't it is the fault of the people for allowing it.
                    That it is our fault should be valued.
                    I will take that blame any day.
                    What have I done to monitor the gov't?
                    I have been too complacent
                    and too silent.

            2. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Trickle down is the biggest confidence trick pulled on man.
              Trouble is that too many waiting for the wealth to trickle down to them believe that it will arrive soon!

          2. 0
            TheBizWhizposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Of course there are wealthy people who think like that, just not in the way you insinuate. Unemployed = people willing to accept lower wages. Lower wages = lower costs. This is the rule of thumb for business. Supply and demand. A for- profit business is not created to be a moral entity; it is created to make money. If they are moral, that is just a plus. Morality of the firm is for the managers and stockholders to decide and believe it or not, there are moral business leaders in this world.

            If you would like to read some of my hubs on business ethics, I have several. I would love your input.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        wilderness ~

        The American Worker is Used & Abused by the wealthy and that's an unfortunate fact ~ Try to squeeze a Livable Wage out of an employer, it's nearly impossible without a decades long legal war ~ Finally, after 250 years we the progressives, are making strides in the right direction with minimum wage increases becoming a reality across the nation ~

        The filthy rich have plundered this and every other nation for self enrichment long enough ~ Socialism will correct this and other serious ailments this country suffers from ~

        Keep defending greed driven corporations and Wall Street, dirty entities which could care less about you, the environment, or the one and only inhabitable planet we live on ~

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          The American Worker is Not Used And Abused by the Wealthy / Employers.
          How dare you say that?

          If the Gov't is making it hard for the wealthy and for employers to make money, how can they be extravagantly generous to their employees who they truly love and value?

          The free market system (within boundaries) makes generous employers!

          1. Alternative Prime profile image87
            Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Make Money?? `

            Come on Kathryn, if an exec can only afford to purchase 10 Ferrari's versus 11 annually I really feel for them, my heart breaks in agony ~

            The CEO of United technologies recently retired with an inconcievable total package of approx 172 MILLION ~ This is outrageous ~ 100 million in stock options and 30 million in pensions ~ Insane and Criminal ~

            Where are the slave workers STOCK OPTIONS?? ~ I guess they're not quite as valuable as the CEO right?? ~

            This unjustified distribution of our wealth needs to STOP ASAP and Progressives are on the right track to heal this ailment ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Both my wife and I received stock options at our places of work for large corporations as lowly laborers.  We weren't "slave workers" - not chained to our workspace or whipped - but then neither is anyone else in this country.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image87
                Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                wilderness ~

                And I suppose you will, or are retired with 172 Million in the bank, like every other common worker??? Not likely my friend ~

                *The volume of Stock Options awarded to execs is grotesquely absurd compared to any either given to, or purchased by "Slave Workers" ~ 172 Million delivered to one human being at United Technologies while the other 99% who made it possible for that greedy exec to receive it merely survive is unacceptable in todays world ~

                *Not "Chained nor Whipped" but most Americans are forced to slave over their job for at least 8 hours per day and at least 5 days per week ~ They live to survive not live to live ~ This injustice must change ~

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Most people choose or create their jobs/careers based on their interest, aptitude and EDUCATION. I capitilize education because it takes extreme will-power/motivation to get one.

                  So what are you talking about?
                  Drones? automatons? Mindless idiots who put in their time with no inner feedback, with no thought or concern for the success of themselves, their company and each other?
                  You know nothing of human nature.
                  These people you mention who supposedly hate their jobs/"slaves" would not even get out of bed in the morning if it were so true. Why are the freeways and side streets of Los Angeles SO JAM PACKED with enthusiastic people going to their jobs EVERY SINGLE A.M.????

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Maybe in your world Kathryn. In the real world most people take the job they can get with no regard as to whether it is below their ability.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  So there aren't any slaves in spite of your saying there are.  Now shall we speak of just who is "forcing" people to work?  Is it your contention that until some people were obscenely rich that no one had to work for their food?  No one plowed the fields or hunted for their meat?  That no one spent as much as 40 hours a week to sustain themselves?

                  Or is it your claim that the value of product produced is the same for everyone; that regardless of what that value is, or what is being sold, everyone should receive the same compensation for it?  It's the socialist way, after all, but a way that I very highly disagree with.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Odd - I worked for some 50 years before retiring, and have always received a "living wage".  At least after becoming an adult; as a child I obviously didn't.

          Of course, I've always given value for value received and never worked at a job intended for children.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            In the UK children are only allowed to work in a limited range of jobs and for a limited amount of time.
            Children are not covered by any minimum wage legislation.

            The only adults likely to take a job intended for children are the retired.Their motive for doing that kind of work is not money, usually for the activity and companionship.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Young kids (less than 18) are indeed quite limited in what they can do.  I often wonder if that's a mistake, though it is intended to prevent child sweatshops and be safer.

              But I meant older kids.  Those just entering the labor force, untrained and with no skills and probably no work ethic.  "Kids" up to early 20's, say, just starting out in their work career.  Jobs like flipping burgers, mopping floors and now I see a lot on street corners swinging an advertising sign.  And minimum wage applies to them; they can earn enough to live on if they're careful and live frugally.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                So you didn't mean "kids" at all!
                You just thought you'd make a section of society less deserving.

                Or do you mean that you'll let kids police you or "defend" you from foreign nations?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  LOL - guess it comes from being an old geezer.  They're "kids" to me!

                  And yeah, new recruits to the military are just kids.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Yeah well, we know you think of middle aged black men as "kids".

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  But "make a section of society less deserving"?  How do you figure?  I've always said we deserve the value of the work performed, no more and no less.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, less deserving of the dignity of not having to rely on the tax payer to enable them to live.

                    But then we all know that you are in favour of welfare for the business owner!

        3. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Love socialism - Go where socialism exists  , stop wishing for capitalism to morph itself from an earned income  basis to a provided income basis !

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            But an earned income for everybody is a basic socialist creed!

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Not except in your private concept of it.  But in any case the term "earned" needs definition - does "earned" mean "as much as the worker wants" or what really IS earned?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                I really don't think "earned" needs definition!

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Apparently it does: the socialist thinks merely being alive "earns" a "living wage", while the rest of the world demands equal value received for that wage.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Er no! No socialist I know believes that!

        4. 0
          TheBizWhizposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Alternative Prime
          You are right that the worker is used, but that is because they are a commodity. But that can work both ways and can be and advantage to either party; employer and employee. Technically the employer is a commodity to the employee also.

          When a worker offers something that an employer needs, they can have the advantage. My wife is in a field that is in dire need of workers, so she can pretty much name her price and work environment. Every time she complains, she gets a raise. I can imagine her employers feel like they are held for ransom.

    2. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Kathryn ~

      Without taxes the United States will cease to exist ~The wealthy should be contributing much more ~

      This is the covert agenda of conservatives ~ Destroy the fabric of our country by eliminating everything that keeps us together then relinquish power back to the individual states ~ Conservatives like Jed Bush et al are trying to go backwards in time ~

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Backwards-in-time vs Progressivism.
        This seems to be a common theme amongst our liberal friends.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Dear A. Prime,
        <"The filthy rich have plundered this and every other nation for self enrichment long enough ~ Socialism will correct this and other serious ailments this country suffers from ~">

        What SPECIFIC problems ("serious ailments") in America would socialism solve?
        and HOW?
        Do you agree with regulating banking or the reintroduction of Glass-Stegall type legislation?
        Nomi Prins says, "Everyone comes to Wall Street for the money. The ones at the top are there for the money and power. No one comes for the ability to help humanity. If that were the case they'd all be working for non-profits."
        But rather than throwing up her hands saying lets just have socialism, she says,
        "Let us learn from this madness, (the '08 financial crisis) so that we may thrive once again, not because of unchecked greed and the false hope of endless profits, but rather let us thrive with a reliable regulated system of checks and balances that ensures the possibility for growth for all."

        Or do you think it is impossible to regulate or enforce regulation and transparency in the banking industry and Wall Street system, and therefore we must resort to socialism?

        Would you really truly rather live in socialism, rather than in a democracy?

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Do you not know that socialism is an economic system and not a political one.
          so that one can be both democratic and socialist?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            You're saying that socialism is an economic system?

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, of course

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                I think it interferes with a political system when it is based on a democratic republic.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  I can't deny the possibility of that.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    You guys want a parent. We want independence!  Socialism is appropriate for children. Adults need independence. Adults prefer to live according to their own successes and can take responsibility for their own failures.

      3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        "Tax the rich
        feed the poor
        'til there are
        no rich no more."

    3. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I just knew if I ever caught you with your slip showing, it would be a crimson red in color!!

      Standard rightwing claptrap, it is beneath you.

    4. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      http://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/12/5bcc5cce273759254bc28599d28eb695.jpg

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      You might be right, or mostly right, etc.  What i hope is that this stimulates some real thoughtfulness in people.  This isn't about preferences anymore, meaning to vote for what we prefer, even if it hurts us all collectively in the long run especially.  People don't like to think, but especially not about things they disagree with.  Its as if we can get enough people to believe and be on board with bad ideas, then they can some how play out in some unrealistic way.  Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that, and people aren't mean for pointing that out. 

      Tired of the demonization of those that do want to think, and think hard about issues of all kinds.  I think people truly can't handle the truth sometimes.  OR, they genuinely don't care about it, and don't care if it harms others.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, we need to be on the same page. We need to understand the individual's need to reign supreme over his/her own life (within the boundaries of justice for all.) 
        We are not a school of fish.
        We have the safeguards in place to protect individuals from tyranny from the ever invaluable govt.
        Well, we need some more safeguards and a revolution in regulation in the financial sector of the banks and Wall Street.
        Other than that, we are doing just fine!   
        ...moving right along!
        We don't need change as much as preservation.

        We need to monitor our gov't
        and know what to monitor it for.
        Mostly shady financial dealings here and globally and over-taxation of the people.

        And think about the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren!
        "At the end of FY 2015 the total government debt in the United States, including federal, state, and local, is expected to be $21.694 trillion." 
        http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us

  2. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago

    Always remember ~ Greedy Corporations take care of themselves first and foremost ~

    Apple Computer a prime example ~ Expatriating a significant portion of their operations to foreign countries to take advantage of "Slave Labor" as an appeasement to "Wall Street" and a snub to the American Worker and the United States ~ Let them stay there where they belong ~

    God forbid earnings come in at 29.999 Billion versus 30.000 Billion for the quarter ~

    I wouldn't buy an Apple Junk Pile Computer if the deal was buy 1 get 5 free ~

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Q. Why are they sending work out of country?
      A. Over burdensome regulations of a tyrannical government.
      You would be on the right track to blame the government instead of Apple…
      But,  NOOOOO!!!! yikes

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        That's the excuse they use Kathryn ~ Corporations would continue to move "Jobs" or should I say "Slave Slots" even if regulations were at NIL ~

        execs use the "Burdonsome Regulation" rhetoric as an exscuse to fill their pockets while workers suffer ~

    2. 59
      retief2000posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      And Apple lobby efforts and political contributions are aimed at Democrats, their erstwhile allies.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    It is only natural that Mr. Trump would want to run for president. If he is acting self-orientedly, it is for the good of ALL. Funny how that works sometimes.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Over spending/printing money is appeasement to Wall Street!
    Faling to regulate the market is appeasement to Wall Street!
    (TARP and AIG)

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Government Control through lack of state and people power is remedied by Conservatism and the rights guaranteed by:

             ~ Our System of Justice, The Constitution and The American Way! ~
                                                            cool

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Here is one way to look at it:  Nomi Prins states in her book, It takes a Pillage:

    "We must not forget that we finance our own government. We are a nation of taxpayers, and nearly 80 percent of the tax revenue our government takes in each year comes directly from We the People. Our country is founded on the principle that in return for paying taxes, we get a say in how things are run. Taxation with representation. So here is what we must find out:
    How do we ensure that the banking system doesn't collapse and, moreover, remains stable in the future? In other words, how do we ensure that we don't keep getting screwed?"

    "Despite the documented reports on the lack of transparency in the TARP process, there was no demand for comprehensive evaluations of junky assets."

    She concludes, "Wall Street legal teams will continue to exploit loopholes in everything from how stocks are traded to how executives are compensated."

    "…true change requires more than campaign vows and dramatic congressional gestures; it requires courage the likes of which haven't reigned on Capitol Hill since the 1930s and briefly in the mid-1950s. It requires not only a re-regulation, but also a complete restructuring of the financial arena, of all banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Not just the illusion of transparency, but the real thing. Not merely promises of accountability, but true legally binding responsibility." Pages 192-194.

    Hedge funds:
    " A limited partnership of investors that uses high risk methods, such as investing with borrowed money, in hopes of realizing large capital gains." Dictionary

  7. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago

    Sorry, I have been around long enough to have nothing but snickers for those who still think that giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations will result in a "percolating economy."

  8. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    I will never understand those who say ,"A company should pay me a livable wage ",  because THAT is the problem ,   who's interpretation of "livable wage" are talking  here ?  The bean counter of the profiting or non- profiting company or the  lowly worker who will never have enough of a wage ?    Who the hell told you guys  , in economics class  , that a livable wage was  so  guaranteed  ?

    The American dream  goes like this , if you're not earning "enough " - go forth and  earn more , that is the only guarantee of the American dream !

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I love that "living" wage.  Food (steak), housing (2500 sq ft minimum), clothing (Nike's).  And a smart phone, big flat screen TV, computer with an internet connection and a car.  Lots of paid time off, satellite programming, more phones for anyone over 7 years old, unlimited doctor's care, hair salons.  Microwave oven, portable fridge for the bedroom, a bathroom per person and a six pack per day.

      Funny how it changes - I grew up without any of that but a car and food and somehow lived through it.   And the food came from a big garden and hunting at that, not from the "living wage" providing the "necessities" of life.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        No, a living wage is earning enough so you don't have to sit down and decide whether you'll spend your money on food or heating!
        When you don't have to go without food because your kid needs a new pair of shoes.
        Where you don't have to phone in sick at the end of every month because you can't afford to get to work.

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          John Holden , "A living wage " =    When in the history of mankind has any family ever  been guaranteed a living wage ?     I grew up in America in a house where  paying  the bills   ALWAYS involved ," Which bill to pay and which bill waits until next week " , was the weekly  question , there was always   enough in our house , food , clothing ,  electricity , heat  ...........although never too much of any one of these things .

          I'm not sure when it happened  , but at some point the difference between understanding this mentality  of the American Dream and  that of   " I am  now entitled to a livable wage ",  has created some  socially dividing  confusion !  Personally ,   I hope I never live in a nation that guarantee's  that you can have all you want of whatever you want  , as I'm sure that's the way it is in England ?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Essentially  you are saying that you were brought up in a house in receipt of a living wage!

            A living wage doesn't involve having all you want when you want it.
            Leave that concept with the 1%.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    laboring
    3: task, job, chore, mission, assignment.
    The wealthy give themselves (first, before others) their own jobs, tasks and assignment based on self-chosen missions.

    Q. What do the wealthy do for the poor?
    A. Offer jobs.
    Q. What do the wealthy do for themselves
    A.  A lot.

    Q. What do the poor do for the poor?
    A. Not much.
    Q. What do they do for themselves?
    A. Little.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      As you so like dictionary definitions here's one for you

      labourer (ˈleɪbərə) or laborer
      n
      1. (Professions) a person engaged in physical work, esp of an unskilled kind

      Does that sound like your typical wealthy employer?
      They only offer jobs if they are sure that they can profit from them.

      Q What do the poor do for the wealthy?
      A make them even wealthier.
      Q What do the poor do for themselves?
      A They support each other.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        And whose responsibility is it if the person laboring is doing:
        definition 1. (menial labor) OR definition 3. (self-assigned interesting labor?)

        ONE'S OWN INDIVIDUAL SELF.

        (sorry to yell...
        NOT)

        Q. What do the wealthy do for the poor?
        A. Give them a SELF-CHOSEN option to living with NO INCOME!

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          In the UK that option often means actually working for less than the meagre amount paid to the unemployed.
          People do take those jobs though. Despite the common conception of the lazy and feckless poor many have pride.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            The poor are those who do little for themselves for a Variety of reasons. If you look at the phenomenon of poverty objectively, its generally not a matter of character flaw... but circumstance.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              You contradict yourself there!

              The poor do little to help themselves but it's not their fault! See what I mean.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                No. I did not say they do little to HELP themselves. It is sometimes not in their hands to be able to help themselves. They do little FOR themselves.
                Sometimes their hands/minds are tied for whatever reasons.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Who do they get to do things for them then?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Family members. If family members want nothing to do with you, that is most likely your fault. One must keep on good terms with one's loved ones, friends and family.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    If the Fed makes it hard for states and citizens to do things for themselves by over-taxing, over-restricting, over-regulating and illegal fining, the state's power and the people's power is greatly reduced.

    In which case, poverty becomes not the fault of the state's/ citizen's, but the Fed's.
    IS THAT WHAT WE WANT???? RAMPANT POVERTY???
    NO.

    So, don't vote for the global/elites, Bush or Clinton, just in case this is their devious plan.
    This is the grass roots revolution.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    <" Q What do the poor do for themselves?
    A They support each other.">


                       HOW?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      One of the local food banks collects in a local supermarket about once a month.
      Watching the people who contribute shows the generally less well dressed donating more than the well dressed.
      I know that state of dress is not a fool proof way of determining somebodies wealth but it is an indicator.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        The wealthy are busy with other matters just as worthy, maybe more so… Such as enabling others a means for buying fresh food through JOBS.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          WHAT! low paid zero hour contracts that rely on heavy government subsidies to enable the recipient to live!

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            This comment does not seem appropriate in the least.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Why not? You said "The wealthy are busy with other matters just as worthy, maybe more so… Such as enabling others a means for buying fresh food through JOBS."

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                I'll let wilderness take my place.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Q. What do the poor, (through their own individual faults or not,) do for their OWN individual selves?
    A. Little.
    … and they sure can't support anyone else if they can't even support their own individual selves.

    Well, they would if they could. smile 
    (Of course, pats on the back and words of encouragement will help some, I'll give you that.)

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      You then would be very surprised! They poor rely on other poor for much more support than they get off the wealthy.

      As for doing nothing for themselves, you don't think working all the hours that god sends is doing anything for themselves!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Then they are not that poor, are they now.
        and if they want to make more money they can always go back to school and find a career.
        Right?

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          How do you measure poverty then?
          If you think that somebody who can, say, mind a neighbours child for no reward is not poor then who do you think is?
          What if that person has reached the highest level of education for them and still can not find a better paid job, and how do they live if they do go back to school?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            How do they live going to school?  Same as if they do not - work.  They just don't get to play much for a few years.

            I did it, my son did it (with a family of 5) and two daughters-in-law did it.  People can, you know - they would just rather play.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Oh the total lack of imagination and empathy!
              "If I can do something there is no earthly reason why everybody else can't do exactly the same!"

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Not very close.  If everyone I know graduated by working their way through, nearly everyone else can.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Like i said, no empathy.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Unlike the liberal mind, I recognize that empathy does not produce food on the table or a roof over the head.  Hard work does, and if you're unwilling to do that you don't need the result of it.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    I just met a man who worked at Trader Joe's until he finally got his MFA at a state University. Now he is substitute teaching until he finds a teaching position at the university level.
      How can he do this?
    NO KIDS!

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      And what would he have done if he'd had a secure job, had kids in the belief that he could provide for them and then been put out of work?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Find more work in his field, of course. Or find new work in another field!

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Say he'd been a buggy whip maker? Or say he was older and therefore more expensive than a younger more energetic man?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            He can have his kids teach him the new ways. He can mentor with young entrepreneurs who would welcome his work ethic, sense of responsibility and ability to follow through with discipline and ability to learn. For instance, my ability to learn is increasing as I age. I am learning piano and could not have learned it, as I am today, when younger.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    <" Do you then agree with the concept of keeping people unemployed to hold wages and inflation down?">

    No, who would?
    (You have to tell us, you know.)

  15. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    For the entitled - Definition of a living wage !    All I ever wanted , ever needed , ever will want , dream or  envision for myself that should come from  the hourly , weekly , bi weekly or monthly salary that I now earn.  Including but not limited to :

    prescription drug addictions
    other drug addictions
    alcohol addictions
    unpaid college loans
    unpaid offspring's college loans AND addictions
    excessive spending habits
    fishing boat w/motor
    second and third home mortgage payments
    etc.

    Please provide  job  of dreams and salary to go with it !

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      No, when you described your early life you more than adequately described a living wage.

      What you describe here is just greed.

  16. Alphadogg16 profile image89
    Alphadogg16posted 16 months ago

    Well first of all, Donald Trump didn't earn his wealth, it was inherited. I'm not insinuating he shouldn't be able to keep his money, However the man has filed bankruptcy on four separate occasions. How can he run the country if he can't control his own finances?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      He is probably worried he will be taxed overly much if a liberal gets in.
      I am thinking, he will not fall to the temptation others have while in office. He will not be become beholden to the Elites with their temptations of $$$$. He 's got his own $$$$.
      Maybe. Its just a thought.
      Also if he failed that many times he has learned really good.
      Failure gives us the best education of what not to do.
      And he overcame.
      I am not saying he will make an adequate president, only suggesting his possible motivation for running.
      I wonder what other motivations he has.
      Does he care about the sovereignty of individuals who are citizens and the preservation of their rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Liberals/Progressives want the government to have a big role in making life better for people. Conservatives want the gov't to get out of the way, so people can make life better for themselves.
    Which way sounds better? The former or the latter?
    I prefer the latter.
    Then I can do it my way.
    - something wrong with that?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      In the UK certainly the Conservatives ramp up government control at every opportunity.
      It gives them much greater control of our money.

  18. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    John Holden A little  reality check ;   
    There ARE poor people who will never do better than they are now because of whatever limitations  .
    there always has been 
    there always will be .
    There are also programs in our system that take care of those
    there always has been
    there always will be

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Agree with the first part of that.
      Disagree with the second.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Have you ever lived here in America ?    There are  more programs , grants , services , umbrella organizations , social service  organizations  for the poor than ever in this country  !   All one , who is in need ,  has to do in America is be  vocal  ,  ask and ye shall receive ! Big time !  If one is an minority - all the better .
        Check out welfare statistics in  our major ,minor cities !

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Actually you should have aimed the first part of your previous post to Wilderness and Kathryn who seem to believe that the only reason why people are poor is because they are lazy!

          So you have a welfare system that depends on the people in need of support being vocal! How many does that policy let slip through the system?

          ETA a quick search suggests that the USA has much the same problem as the UK. The majority of those receiving welfare actually have jobs.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            The city of Seattle raised their minimum wage to $15 recently.  One of the results is that workers are asking that their hours be cut - as they earn more their entitlements go down.

            "Seattle became the first city in the nation to implement the $15 per hour minimum wage this past spring. Fox News reports that one unintended effect is that workers who are earning the higher wage are asking for fewer hours, so they can remain eligible for low income government benefits like childcare and tax credits."  http://www.westernjournalism.com/seattl … ected-way/

            Explain again how all those people getting charity are hard working folk that only want to support themselves?

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Fox news says so!
              Wow.

              The effect of the minimum wage on a big mac
              http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/0 … e-big-mac/

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, the price of products from minimum wage employers will go up.  That was always expected, but your point?

                And yes, minimum wage jobs will decrease in number - that was also expected and is happening.  Businesses close, fewer employees do the same work, etc.  But we won't discuss that, eh?

                No, the welfare rolls don't go down, as now out of work employees add to the numbers, but we won't mention that, either, will we?

                No, we'll continue to pretend that we can force employers to pay artificially high wages without any ill effects because, after all, they have unlimited funding at their disposal, just as the government does.    And above all, when the negative effects begin to come in we'll just insinuate that Fox news is lying when they report it - that'll cure everything!

                LOL - the comments are so predictable!

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  So you didn't read the link then!
                  What a surprise, rather you would rely on your information from a man who is not only bitterly opposed to the minimum wage but who thinks wages should be even lower!

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    No, I read it.  Prices will go up 4% (plus additional increases due to extra taxes not mentioned or considered).  And of course business can "easily" make it up (unlimited funding, don't ya know?).

                    But, again, your point with information that prices will go up as a result of raising costs?  It does seem like a no-brainer.

                    Nor is it just Fox - the subject of workers wanting to cut hours, letting charity provide for them, is a pretty hot topic - radio shows, TV, publications, etc.  Check around a bit - it isn't just Fox talking about this.  Early indications are that one of the reasons for failure is exactly what I've been saying for months: take away the incentive to work and people won't work.  Pay them to sit at home and they will sit at home.  What in the world is so difficult about understanding that?

            2. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              You explain how none are hard working people that only want to support themselves!

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                John I know a guy  , who had an almost  blind child , another with severe  learning disabilities , I know for a fact that  he always did hard drugs and alcohol  and spent eight years in prison for involuntary manslaughter - all besides the point, right ?        He works , his wife didn't .   They, together  as a family receive SSI benefits ,  however he would never work over forty hours a week , would not accept any raises .  All just to remain on SSI disability ." Dale" was  always adamant about not losing his bennies by earning too much , almost to the point of being fired , he would earn pretty good money "on the side "charging cash  only prices for work outside of his job .

                Now , twenty two  years later ," Dale" is  almost sixty  years old now ,   his kids have graduated from colleges ,  one from a  college for the blind ,  "Dale" can now work overtime and does quite often ,  Here's the thing though , You and I paid for it all , his welfare supplemental food , all of his family medical benefits , operations , college funds , living costs and  tuition and even state prison for him ! ,   I know him and his entire story because "Dale" worked FOR me for a few years in this company setting although I didn't hire him  ,    while I and the rest of the crew and the rest of the tax payers made up for his lack of commitment to life  .

                I still run into" Dale" occasionally ,   his blind son is getting his masters degree , his wife is now working because the "kids " are grown , " Dale" now works overtime ,  so does his wife as a matter of fact   , But here's the point , "Dale" is about to retire and begin drawing   " his" social security retirement  ! Now ,  No one [ even the dastardly conservative  ] would deny  anyone the benefit of doubt  in time of need , however , THIS story and many like it  are  pretty widespread in our culture .   I didn't turn him  in to the social security administration then or now ,although I should have .

                THIS , is just how "hard ' working people stay on the system .

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  One example proves that everybody is on the take.

                  I don't think so.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Only problem is John , this "one example "  is widespread  in SSI  benefits !    This doesn't even begin to describe  what happens on our  welfare systems .  One would have to be blind or uncaring  to accept it !  Maybe I should really ask , Which are you ?

                2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  May I offer a different perspective? As far as I can know from your story, Dale did nothing illegal, right?  He made a decision to receive less salary in order to provide the best benefits for his blind child.  He looked at the system in place, and chose a route to help his family and his blind child prosper.  Now that his child is grown, he is free to make decisions based upon his own situation and chooses to work more hours and make more money. 

                  Please explain how this is any different or worse than a wealthy man hiring accountants and lawyers to analyze the system and its complex legalities to maximize his wealth?  Both are perfectly legal.  Why do some people praise the wealthy man for using the system to protect his wealth, and chastise the poor and middle class for doing the same?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    No one is talking about illegal actions.  Just ones that should not be allowed to happen at all.  Make a system that gives ever more charity and it will be abused, just as the rich will abuse the ever increasing tax breaks offered.  Quit using the tax code to social engineer and that will stop - reform the welfare system to only give to those in true need and the abuse will stop there, too.

                  2. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Pretty Panther ;Hi !

                    The difference between the two ends of the spectrum  you describe  are that , the rich guys earn their own , after spreading the wealth  if they employ people !

                    And " Dale "simply decided to take from EVERYBODY else . 

                    And yes , he did do much illegally ?

  19. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    John , The most obvious welfare recipients  in America seem to be just as they say  ,  . I would be surprised if a majority of welfare recipients here  actually work  !   Probably  the most obvious ones  could care less about  the image that they project .   I just know that In this small town that I live in -  they pretty much  fit the worst descriptions possible .   I'll go check the stats!

  20. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago

    While everyone here sqwables like a few testicle-less hens about how much they dislike, disrespect, and would socially DEPORT our poor and income challenged Americans, a corporate raider minus a conscience employed by United Technologies recently retired with a ridiculously excessive compensation package valued at approximately 172 MILLION DOLLARS ~ ONE PERSON 172 MILLION ~ Criminal ~

    While the United States of America has always adopted components of socialism, it’s nothing new and it’s absolutely a good thing, just ask any quasi-sane tea party member who defends his/her well earned SS income by shouting “Tell the government to keep their hands off my social security”, a more aggressive shift toward this wealth leveling program is critically important for the future well being of Earth ~

    The Capitolism Experiment had 250 years to play out and it did ~ End result? MASSIVE FAILURE ~ A tiny fraction of our greed driven population has acquired enormous piles of wealth while the rest breathe heavily every day to merely survive  ~ This atrocity of wealth concentration must end ~

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      There is nothing socialist about unemployment benefits. They are pure capitalism.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        John Holden ~

        That depends on your definition of "Capitolism" and or "Socialism" ~There are many interpretations, but usually misrepresented by backward conservatives ~

        Unemployment Benefits traditionally are made possible via the collection of evil taxes which are pooled, then re-distributed to those evil Americans who dare file a valid claim instead of doing what conservatives would consider the noble thing, like pull up a comfy bench or 1 square foot of firm  cozy concrete ~

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Socialism dictates that everybody who can, works.
          Capitalism demands that many are unemployed to keep wages down.
          Welfare payments (which are not paid by the winners) are a tool to stop the poor from rioting and stealing.

  21. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 16 months ago

    This is Not as SHOCKING to me as I SHOULD be. 

    Hillary Clinton's big contributors are also Jeb Bush's big contributors.
    http://drudge.today/v2/r?n=0&s=18&a … -bush.html

    1. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I'm not convinced of the accuracy of "DRUDGE" ~ Very erratic and erroneous info distributed ~ A conservative hack basically and it's reflected in his blog ~

      However, contributors sometimes overlap parties yet the Clinton/Bush platforms are dramatically divergent ~

      For instance, Hillary has spent her life fighting for women's equality while Jeb Bush is not convinced millions of our dollars should go toward women's health issues ~ The differences get even sharper from there ~

      Jeb is not so bright, he's proving day by day that George W is the intelligent sibling of the Bushs ~ Not very comforting is it? Even if you're a conservative I would think ~

      Jeb is basically an extremely wealthy numbskull just like his brother who is looking for something to do to pass the time, he could care less about America or true American values, nor do I think he even understands what they are ~

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        No, not too comforting at all, not when there are huge amounts of money changing hands. ( It smells like the love of it, ... hahaha!  smile

  22. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago

    "Liberals = Taxation = Socialism"

    Partially Correct Kathryn ~

    Liberals understand "Taxation" is an essential element of a "United Nation" ~ Without tariff or "Tax" our Government will not function and cease to exist, which is the actual underlying agenda of many conservatives ~ At times taxes must be increased, sometimes substantially, at other times we can cruize along without major adjustments ~

    "Socialism" ~ Yes, from our very founding as a country there have been socialistic components intertwined with our very fabric, no big surprise and it feels pretty good to most Americans ~ Drifting further into a "Fair & Equitable Wealth Distribution" will only create a better quality of life for the majority, yet an uncomfortable squeeze on the filthy rich ~

    If there is an "Evil" most would agree it's absolutely "Capitolism" where a few individuals have raped and plundered this nation only to hoard its treasures ~ This is no longer acceptable to Americans ~

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      "To each according to their need", taken too far will destroy any society in the long run, and we are already on the verge of that. 

      "If there is an "Evil" most would agree it's absolutely "Capitolism""

      Only if "most" refers only to the socialists among us.  The majority of people (in this country) recognize that Marx was wrong.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        wilderness ~

        The majority among us understand the only thing that has come close to destroying this nation is "Capitolistic Greed" ~

        President Obama had to dig us out of the greatest financial catastrophe in history, yes it was even more critical than the great crash almost a cntury ago ~ How did it occur? What triggered it? "Wealth Grabs" by the Jed Bushs and Mutt Romneys of the world with the assistance of WALL STREET ~

        A critical financial catastrophe which started under the watch of Jed's idiot brother George W by the way ~

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          I hope you'e wrong, but you might be right.  If so, the country hasn't that many years before the hunger riots begin.  Enough, maybe, to last my lifetime.

  23. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 16 months ago

    I kind of like Trump's tax plan for America:

    * $30,000 per year will pay 1 percent in federal income taxes
    * $30,000 to $100,000 will pay 5 percent
    * $100,000 to $1 million will pay 10 percent
    * $1 million or above will pay 15 percent

    1. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Trump reflects the real conservative sentiment but this plan if authentic is ridiculous ~

      Where will the balance of funds to effectively operate our country come from? With this anemic revenue stream the United States would cease to exist in a few years if not sooner, which is of course the underlying agenda of many conservatives as I've previously mentioned ~

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        I don't see any deductions here - it might even be an increase.

        On the other hand, if it's "taxable" income, we'll quickly be bankrupt.

        1. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          President Roosevelt declared that the United States was bankrupt in 1933. 

          Nothing has changed except the national debt has increased.

      2. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        We would have to get rid of every single loophole that the very rich know so well. A good starting point would be DC the biggest scam corporation in America.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Sounds good to me.  No more tax credits for hiring minorities or from a depressed locale.  No more tax breaks for locating in a particular city, county, state or any location.  No more tax cuts for charitable donations.  No more tax deductions for home mortgage or second homes.  No deductions for medical expenses or political contributions.

          Deductions for dependents.  Nothing else.

          1. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            smile

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Lets get this stuff fact checked to see if it works in the real world beyond "Trump Towers"

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    what are the "ramifications to others of a world according to KH…" according to C2?

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Re stated question:

    Do you agree with regulating banking or the reintroduction of Glass-Stegall type legislation?
    Nomi Prins says, "Everyone comes to Wall Street for the money. The ones at the top are there for the money and power. No one comes for the ability to help humanity. If that were the case they'd all be working for non-profits."
    But rather than throwing up her hands saying lets get rid of capitalism, she says,
    "Let us learn from this madness, (the '08 financial crisis) so that we may thrive once again, not because of unchecked greed and the false hope of endless profits, but rather let us thrive with a reliable regulated system of checks and balances that ensures the possibility for growth for all."

    Or do you think it is impossible to regulate or enforce regulation and transparency in the banking industry and Wall Street system, and therefore we must get rid of capitalism?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      First question:Yes  the difference between responsible banking and speculating needs to made clear to the consumer and kept separate.

      I agree with Nomi Prins.

      I think that it is possible to regulate and enforce law upon the banking industry and Wall Street if only the conservatives stop resisting this initiative and get out of the way.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        ...and why don't they?
        I guess because we let em.
           Can you progressives hold them accountable somehow?
        can you tell us who they are? and who not to vote for?
        and who to let know we don't approve of?
        Its hard to know who the actual culprits are.
        Do you have any names?

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          No names but I do have a political party

          http://samuel-warde.com/2015/07/gop-vow … afeguards/

    2. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Capitoiism is a demonstrably FAILED Experiment which needs to be repealed, revoked, discarded, and rendered invalid ASAP ~

      As an individual who is very familiar with "Glass Steagell", the re-instatement is critical to ensure a more stable financial environment long term ~ When you watch as greedy investment reps try to sell annuities as FDIC insured instruments in a deceptive ruse, you'll quickly understand the corrupt nature of intermingling traditional banking operations with greed driven Wall Street Infiltration ~

      By the way, I see so much bashing of our poor, income challenged, working people, senior citizens and just about every other American group by those who claim to be republicans in here, but not word one about oil boy Jeb Bush and cohorts gouging Americans for about $2 per gallon of gasoline ~ Anything above and beyond approx $1.50 to $2 per gallon in this inventory flooded market is a con job ~ This is an outrageous scam that actually AFFECTS your quality of life, or lack thereof ~ So try not to worry too much about the pennies per month you pay toward social security, medicare, or to re-enforce unemployment benefits, you are getting ripped off by republican controlled oil companies to the tune of anywhere between $100- $500 PER MONTH ~ And that's a fact ~

      Still digging conservative values?? Well they continue to dig very deep into your pockets friends ~

  26. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 16 months ago

    Having known some very wealthy people, I can say with confidence that they earned some but not all of their money honestly.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Oh no, you've got that totally wrong. Every rich person is scrupulously honest and pays every cent in tax that they should whereas all the rest are totally dishonest and steal every penny that they can
      <removes tongue from cheek>

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        You're right. Shame on me for being cynical.  smile

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    <"Capitoiism is a demonstrably FAILED Experiment which needs to be repealed, revoked, discarded, and rendered invalid ASAP ~">
    and replace it with what system
    and how should that system be administrated?

  28. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    That system is socialism but that system is not easily administrated as Woodrow Wilson pointed out.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      What system is socialism?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Repeating:

        <"Capitoiism is a demonstrably FAILED Experiment which needs to be repealed, revoked, discarded, and rendered invalid ASAP ~">
        AP
        <"and replace it with WHAT system
        and how should that system (I am assuming it is socialism) be administrated?">
        KLH

  29. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Socialism is not easily administered, is it?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Why is it any harder to administrate than any other system?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Well, look at how it must be administered.
        Have you even thought about that?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          I don't see the problem; just tax everyone 100%, borrow as much more as you got in taxes, and give it all out to anyone that "needs" it! big_smile

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          How must it be administered?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Most of us here in this very thread, except for A Prime, I would imagine, are against socialism.
            WHY?
            Hint 1:
            Socialism is administered by overly taxing those who are not happy to be overly taxed.

            Hint 2 Who is the most hated of all men?
            The tyrant.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Funny,in the UK when we had a far more socialist government than the present right wing capitalist government that we have now we had much lower taxes!
              How do you work that one out?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Why do you suppose they named their baby, George?

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  And what is the relevance of that comment?

                  Mine countered your claim that a socialist government would be a high taxing one.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Why would they name their baby after the tyrant king We Americans rebelled against a few centuries ago?
                    and why did we rebel against King George III? Unfair, unrepresented taxation!
                    I can't help it if you brits don't rebel against your right-wing tyrants!  You do have a democracy after all!
                    We here in US are in a position to prevent the tyranny of a socialistic gov't., no matter what party tries to implement it.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              I'm not against socialism. I'm also not against capitalism. Just about every industrialized nation uses elements of both.

              We have elements of socialism in this country. Other countries (especially the Scandanavian countries) have a higher standard of living, less crime, less poverty, generally happier population, etc. They have even more socialism than we do.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                They are smaller countries with no states. They have no rap stars. They are even-keel and boring.

  30. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    How could socialism result in lower taxes? I don't think this has ever been the case. Name one country and explain how. Yours, for instance.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I have done.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        No bankers bail outs, no subsidies to big business for wages, no subsidies to landlords for rents.
        No artificially high unemployment. I could go on but I'm beginning to think I'm a parrot.

  31. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    It's sure interesting when you do look at subsidies ,  there are SO many .     But it is just  about everyone that gets them , in one form or another .  Yes the corporate farms , the oil companies , but also the  education system -system wide !   One can argue for a fact that EVERYONE gets them here !

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      ...and what would prevent this?
      John seems to think socialism would!

  32. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    Kathryn , I believe we have to return to a minimally regulated democracy , white house and congressional cowards  have failed miserably to reel in exorbitant profits from  Energy and   Banking  and Wall Street  . Controlling excess' from those three alone  would feed our economy into the next century ! 

    All Socialism's , communism's have proven to the entire world that they NEED  Capitalism's growth and profiteering  benefits just to stay above water !

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Capitalism = Free market = Percolating economy

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone" John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)

        "Many people consider the things which government does for them as social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism." Earl Warren (1891 - 1974)

        To have any degree of success there has to be a balanced degree of capitalism and socialism. Unbridled either way tips the scales against one while rewarding the other. Is it any wonder in our highly divisive social and politically charged society we tend to champion only our own agendas?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Freedom needs boundaries. Not socialism.
          Boundaries, as in rules, laws and restrictions to Doing What One Likes.
          We may want to do what we like without regard for others and that is human frailty. Because we are human we need laws and gov't.  Because we are also strong and independent, we need limited gov't. Socialism increases gov't control/influence over the people and takes away their necessary freedom.
          Freedom and boundaries are two sides of one coin.

          Socialism has no place what-so-ever. Get rid of it.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            "Socialism has no place what-so-ever. Get rid of it."

            Then get rid of your police force, your fire department and how about the park service? Close the schools and turn all of this over to private enterprise? See how well it has worked for Health Insurance? Close the prisons and any of the Mental Health facilities and let the for profit corporations run them?

            Lets see what running social services based organizations can do in providing us with the most basic of needs based on a profit margin. Ridiculous!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Providing services that were voted for and agreed upon is not socialism. It is part of freedom in a democratic republic.

              "The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism"... The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth. They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition." Extracted from Wikipedia

              I am all for individualism and have faith in the good nature of people to willingly help one another of their own volition.
              We are not schools of fish and the individual needs its independence, as a matter of human nature, to be happy.

              Independence leads to individuals, freely chosen partners, their families, communities, towns, cities and states, all chosen and therefore loved. Love is the principle which needs to increase: Love which naturally flows forth from freely guided individual will, not state controlled issuance.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry to inform you but shared services based on an uneven tax contribution is a socialist agenda. While you may feel the freedom of voting for these services they are provided to all equally despite their ability to pay. Property taxes that are paid based on a market value unequally pay for those services. If we were in a socialist free country it would be on individuals or groups of individuals to pay for private police and fire services for their own usage. A homeless person who pays nothing in taxes is just as protected as a billionaire in his mansion who pays much more than him.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  AND????

                  what?
                  we VOTED to pay those taxes unequal or whatever!

                  1. rhamson profile image75
                    rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    That provide a universal service to all. This is the equalization of income and services to all not based on the ability to pay. A socialists agenda.

  33. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    A social democracy is okay for now, but what about when people go to sleep?
    Look at Greece. As they were going bankrupt all the people cared about was what a wonderful time they were having and how little the economy was affecting their peace of mind. I read it on-line.

  34. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 16 months ago

    Commercial Break:  this made me cry while I laughed too hard.


    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12573796.jpg

  35. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    ~ how about the one where he and Michele are both pledging allegiance to the flag with their left hands over their "right" (left) hearts.
    what? is that mean?
    I could never be mean …

    Sorry. I'm the same sign as Trump.

  36. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    That picture just tragic , I mean really !  It's just got to be photo shopped .........please ?   This is the "Leader of the free world "!   Isn't it .........

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      The obvious truth is that the evil GOP snuck in and stuck the wire onto the wrong end of the handset.  They're always doing something to make the Pres. look bad, don't ya know?

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, it's photo shopped.  As is this one:

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i-Wvk_fKEHs/Tebi3R-vmlI/AAAAAAAAAHA/MUDnBg9HiH4/s1600/George-W-Bush-phone.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Very good, PP.  Gotta love the internet!

      2. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        See!

        History does repeat its self.
        How scientific can it be? 
        Its just that we agree to agree?

        Turn up the heat!  smile

      3. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        But this one isn't. I got to hand it to 'Ole Georgey Porgey he was quick on his feet. lol


        http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12575069.jpg

  37. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    Oh noooooo, I'm starting to hate mass media !

 
working