jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (183 posts)

Until There Are No Rich No More ...

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

    Tax the rich and the middle class all you want. sad
    Right, Democrats?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The liberal utopia, where no person can have anything everyone else does not have.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Sounds like Affirmative Action !

      2. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!!

      3. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        And the conservative trickle down myth where the lie continues to yield untold riches for the top 1%. Is there nothing in between?

        1. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          The corrupt establishment is on its way out in the Rep. and Dem. parties, they have been exposed and people are waking up.  Some Christian friends who recently went to Washington DC to pray told me they believe there is a move of God happening there. 

          There is a prayer meeting every week at the Capitol. A guard at the Pentagon said, "Praise the Lord." when they told him they were there to pray.

          1. David Ortega profile image83
            David Ortegaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            I hope and pray you are right.

      4. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I don't know a single liberal who expouses this notion.  Where are these liberals who believe this?

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, exactly. Or anyone else who isn't a right-wing extremist and Fox fanatic.

          1. Dan W Miller profile image84
            Dan W Millerposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            *sigh* Doesn't this counter false accusation by GOPers that don't hold water ever stop? It gets old and predictable, doesn't it? Ho hum. Yeah, I wrote about a GOP candidate being racist. Instantly a GOP backer said I was racist. UH, HUH? Either Plato or Aristotle had a certain word for it and it's not hypocrite. I'll find it.

            ex.: I couldn't get out of a parking space because someone had double parked me in. Went to the desk of the gym and was slightly PISSED OFF, to say the least. There was a woman, quietly listening.
            When I came out, there she was moving her car. Yelled at her that she just cost me 10 valuable mins.  She got so flustered, that when she drove away she said, "Oh, YOU'RE DOUBLE PARKED!" (huh?) which, of course, I wasn't EVEN. She was Republican.
            That's what our person posing the question is like so many I encounter from the GOP. It's really a weird trait I see so often. (PrettyPanther just above would like this answer.) BTW same thing gmwilliams (below mine) is saying. Because I voted GOP in Calif when Reagan ran. Even the GOP calls those The Good Ol' Days but now the party is really quite mental. Like his rant.

            Even Lindsay Graham said WTH is going on with his party and vowed if Trump won, he'd jump parties... and THAT from a leader and dyed in the wool GOP! Romney HAS INTEGRITY and is trying to warn you people. Could you see HIS WIFE as 1st Lady? BWAHAHAHA! What a joke! His daughter plagiarizes a DEMOCRAT'S speech? OMG!  NO SHAME. NO MORALS. Another joke. Chelsea walks all over her as far as... well EVERYTHING MORAL AND AMERICAN!
            Oh, and his wife wasn't BORN HERE BTW. I have no problem but I have a problem with HYPOCRISY. The GOP ideals and conscience FOR THE COUNTRY are all twisted. Not EVEN the same party back then AT ALL and to think an ego-maniac who never governed anything but his own employees, never elected to a public servant position is going to be able to preside over both sides, well THAT'S JUST CRAZY. Megyn Kelly made him come to pieces over a simple question. Every DAY he pops off something stupid and he'll offend someone he shouldn't in negotiations and BOOM WW3.
            He's incompetent, unproven and WILL NEVER WIN because sane people outweigh the extreme crazy thinkers (and they call themselves CONSERVATIVE? BWAHAHAHA! They are the radicals now. ) Can't hide behind The Constitution when YOU TALK HOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT. They don't even know WHAT they want. Their candidate is hated by their own. Consider that.

            Sorry I went off subject but I get so tired of lies, headline grabbing lies, people that only watch FOX NEWS and the low education states that believe this crap and I GET DAMN SICK OF IT! (said the church going Lutheran and US Navy Corpsman Gulf War era Vet with three highly successful kids in their mid-30's that have never been incarcerated and who right now works for a government contracted business that would have the same contract with GOP OR DEM.)
            Yeah, now say some assuming personal comment about me that is always the GOP way with who is debating me as their last line of defense. HUH!? WELL? GO ON!
            Oh, and BTW our economy was RESCUED (banks paid off, Chicken Little. The sky DIDN'T FALL, after all. Hey, great gas prices, too, eh?)
            But the other guy just sat there stunned while OUR SOIL WAS BEING ATTACKED for 20 mins! Before that he had to get his brother to cheat for him, RECOUNT, HANGING CHAD, MY ASS!! He did  NOTHING!! "Scare the kids," MY ASS!  HE WAS SCARED. You get up and say I have to go. Yeah, good job, jr.! Just like his entire 8 year tenure and then left it A MESS!! 

            And he was EMBARRASSING!!  Did things in public that THIS PREZ never even got near. Never a social blunder to make America cringe like when he dusted off the ass of a woman volleyball player visibly DRUNK.  Or gives the German Chancellor a weird unwanted neck rub. Or tries to walk out of a meeting with China, the door is locked SO HE BOWS and stands there...duhhh... THAT list goes on and on. That's why DUBYA hides in exile.  He KNOWS he was a failure.  JUST AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ALL OF AMERICA. Trump is too. Just listen to the feedback FROM the world.
            GOOD DAY REAL AMERICANS! The rest of you... "YOU'RE FIRED!!"
            {BAMM!!! Dan drops mic, walks off stage left >>>> }


            http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126846.jpg

        2. Chanson Intrepide profile image61
          Chanson Intrepideposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I don't know any either. Shhhh! I think they are hiding in some stereotypical limbo.

          As everyone knows, we are all exactly the same. *sarcastic grin*

      5. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        As opposed to the Libertarian utopia of dog eat dog, chaos and anarchy.

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The DEMONcratic Party has metamorphosized from a reasonable party to a party of extreme Liberals, even Leftists.  This new party glorifies the lower socioeconomic strata, believing them to be oh so oppressed by the "Establishment".  The DEMONcratic Party & ideology are the result of many 60s radicals & other leftists attaining power. 

      They want to right the wrongs of those whom they view as marginalized by the dominant society.  They are of the school that people in America are poor because of the socioeconomic oppression of the wealthier classes.  They refuse to acknowledge that many poor people in America are that way because of choice.  Yes, CHOICE.   Many poor people are poor because they possess a negative mindset regarding achievement, education, & success.  They refuse to organize & strategize regarding improving themselves.  They also do things mindlessly.   Simply put, many American poor refuse to take responsibility & be accountable for their lives.  They want to live affluently.....but on SOMEONE ELSE'S dime, NEVER THEIRS.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        And what has happened to the GOP in the meantime ? Theyhave morphed from a Conservative party just right of center to a bunch of rabid, race baiting reactionaries, supporting their desired  new Fuehrer at the helm. With their current agenda, Ms. Clinton could become Jezebel, herself, and it is still preferable to any GOP affiliation. That is how it is for me and many others like me.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I'd label Clinton a Jezebel and I can tell you even if the opposing candidate were nothing but a trained monkey it would get my vote over her. She appears to believe she is somehow due the position and has no qualms stomping on anyone on the way. What they did to Bernie will not be forgotten, even if he is willing to lose his own backbone and grovel at her feet.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            The only thing worse than all of this, L&L, is Trump winning in November. Under those circumstances the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              No. No. No. They are both the enemies of we, the people.

              I believe the time is right for a third party candidate to swoop in and take the election. Neither candidate is worthy. But, I do believe Trump can do much less harm than Clinton, if elected.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                That does depend upon where you are sitting and your perspective on things, ours will differ, naturally.

                American History has not been kind to the third party concept. A third party on serves to drain votes from yours or the opponents voters.

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  This is true. But, this election cycle is different from any I've ever witnessed. I've never seen two candidates so unworthy.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              No, the only thing worse is for politics as usual, and as underhanded and cheating as possible, to win in November.  Our country cannot continue with the kind of thinking and activity being exposed in the Democratic party.

              While Trump talks a nasty talk, Clinton does - like LtL, it is plain that Trump will do far less harm than Clinton will.  He has neither the ability nor the political contacts to do what she considers "business as usual".

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                The problem, Wilderness, is that it always starts with just "talk"....

                He is comfortable with concepts that would make Clinton look like a teddy bear in comparison

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  And vice versa.  The only difference, as I said, is that Clinton acts on her concepts while Trump talks about his.

                  You know, everyone whines and cries about Trumps perceived racism and bigotry, but Clinton thinks the same way about everybody - she is superior to everybody else.  Can't see much difference there, myself.

                  1. colorfulone profile image87
                    colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Bill Clinton is a Rockefeller, and the secretive Bilderberg group is behind electing Crooked Hillary Clinton, too.

                  2. 79
                    Hxprofposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    If Trump wins he MIGHT start acting on his talk.  He'll be in a prime position to do so.  Clinton has already been in position to act on her talk.

              2. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Your posts are consistently critical of Democrats. Do you have any good to say about any Democrat? Just curious.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, of course.  The democratic platform is far superior when it comes to personal rights and freedoms, with the exception of gun rights, where the PC thing to do is to limit ownership as much as possible, and the attitude that the liberal knows much better than the individual what to do with money that individual has earned. 

                  Gay rights and abortion - these are much superior to the conservative stance that their god has declared them to be evil and therefore everyone must comply.  Smaller things like prayer in schools are superior in the liberal stance as well.

                  The problem is that religious control of government is fading fast, while the people have learned they can vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do so with a vengeance.  Of the two, then, socialism is currently the far greater danger to the country.

          2. Misfit Chick profile image93
            Misfit Chickposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            The GOP tried to do the same thing to Trump - but didn't succeed. Doesn't anyone wish that there had been an email leak on the Republican side over Trump's nomination? I bet they were worse. Add to that, Bernie was never the 'favorite' among Dems. Bernie made quite a mark, way more than expected to the point that he got to contribute to the platform. That's about has good as it gets. Go ahead and blame Clinton if it makes you feel better. You were voting for Trump before her a long time ago for less reasons.

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        The RePUKElican Party has morphed into a group of rich billionaires who want to own everything and drive the rest of us into servitude.

        See, I can come up with silly names too.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Right about now shouldnt you remind everyone that you are a republican?

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            You clearly miss my point.

            But in response, I was a Republican back when the party wasn't controlled by extremists and Libertarian billionaires.

            Now I am a right of center independent, as I have said previously when someone doesn't think my posts are extremist enough.

            Or must I tow the party line and mimic everything they order me to say?

    3. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I love right-wing propaganda. I'm no Democrat, but I have known many very wealthy people in my life.

      Some of them are good people. But the majority will lie, cheat and steal to protect their wealth and power. They don't hesitate a moment to crush anyone who gets in their way.

      I have seen many good careers destroyed by these same elites.

      People should earn wealth through moral and legal means. But no one should earn it immorally or illegally.

      And no one "needs" or "earns" $50 billion.

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Your comment makes me curious about your personal world, (not derogatory, we all live in personal worlds), that allows you to have such sure knowledge and contact with wealthy people.

        You say your experiences with wealthy people are that some are good, but the majority are bad. In my world, and relating personal anecdotes as you did, I find a different picture. From Christmas parades and community festivities to public service activities like food drives or community service areas, it is the wealthy that carry the load. When a church has a project or need beyond their resources, where do they go? To the business leaders of the community. When a civic organization in my community wants to accomplish a community project,they go to the business leaders for money and support.

        Doesn't your community have any hospital buildings named after wealthy successful business people? Doesn't your community have any public good facilities like parks or playgrounds that have been supported or expanded by the support of your business community? How about youth sports, doesn't your community have baseball Little Leagues or other youth sport groups? Mine does, and in my world it is the business leaders that support and fund these activities.

        I haven't had the experience of ruined careers that can be specifically blamed on unscrupulous wealthy folks, but I suppose that must be because you and I live in such different personal worlds.

        In my world your condemning  criticisms just sound like more of the thoughts behind such actions as Occupy Wall Street and other "99%" mantras.

        ps. If you have determined that no one "needs" $50 billion, what have you determined to be the maximum "need" of a successful person? What limit on "earnings" do you see as moral?

        GA

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Great questions, GA. My answers:

          1. I spent nearly 30 years in management including more than a decade in senior management positions at two large corporations. I had regular and numerous direct contacts with owners and executives at the top of both companies, most of whom had net worths well into the tens of millions and others into the hundreds of millions. Many had annual total compensation well north of $1 million a year.

          2. Because of my career path, I was able to afford to live in the wealthiest communities in the three cities where I spent most of my corporate career. As a result, I had much more contact with very wealthy people.

          3. A truly charitable person gives anonymously, and some wealthy people do. But many of the examples you cite are examples of power plays in the form of: a) strategic tax deductions; b) naming rights for the sake of self and business promotion; c) networking; d)  social status; e) simple guilt near the end of life. Bill Gates (a legendary tyrant according to Microsoft people I met who worked with him) is a great example of it. That being said, I acknowledge the benefits to charity despite the motives involved.

          4. My condenming criticism applies to a majority of them but not all of them.

          PS - The number is whatever makes sense for rewarding hard work while not damaging the country economically with extreme levels of wealth and poverty, which is what we are currently experiencing.

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Also, do you at least agree that no one should earn their wealth immorally or illegally?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            We know who defines "illegal", but who will be chosen to define what is immoral?

            I would accept me as the judge, as will all other moral people (did you catch the sarcasm?).  But I won't accept the pope: he will find it quite moral to hoodwink people out of 10% for the church to do with as it wishes.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I have the impression from history and other books that the majority of people and major institutions in a society have usually decided what is moral.

              Law seems to be mostly just the codification of moral principles. Morality by itself is declining as laws expand. But law can't cover every single event in life.

              If an executive led a subtle campaign against a co-worker in a way that eventually cost that co-worker a promotion, a raise or even the job itself, there may be no law for that co-worker to pursue. Heck, he or she may not even know they got burned by that executive.

              So then, is that executive acting immorally?

              If you wonder if I'm posing a hypothetical, I'm not. I've seen it happen many times.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                LOL  I've had your "hypothetical" happen to me.  I thought it immoral.  The boss obviously did not.  Which is kind of the point.

                Things that are important enough, AND common enough, are made into law, just as you say.  Others are not - is it immoral to negatively affect the business of an abortion clinic by blocking the entrance?  By handing out pamphlets there?  Is it immoral to refuse commercial service to gays?  To refuse rental of an apartment to them?  To refuse them rights guaranteed by the law?  Is it immoral to enter a country illegally and live there indefinitely?  To drive without insurance, putting others at financial risk, just because you can't get a license?  Is it immoral to punish your wife in the manner proscribed by Allah?

                At the end of it, I can certainly agree with the illegal bit, but not the immoral for everyone makes their own and they DO differ by individual even within a community, let alone a country the size of the US.  It sounds so easy to just add the immoral, but what the speaker always means is "immoral by MY morals".

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  I do understand your point. In a situation involving two people, there can be a big difference of opinion about what is moral and what is not.

                  If immorality is an act that tangibly harms other people (for example, physically or financially), then most of your examples aren't immoral.

                  It is not immoral for someone to stand at the entrance of an abortion clinic to protest abortions. It is immoral if that protester prevented a woman who was going there for a necessary abortion because her life would be in danger without one (to use an extreme example).

                  If 12 people say that our bosses harmed our careers because they obviously spread deceptive information, why shouldn't the judgment of those 12 be just as acceptable as a jury verdict by those same 12?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Tell that to the gay couple that couldn't get a license in the state they lived in.  Tell it to the lady suffering under sharia law.  Tell it to the couple that were forced to commute miles extra because of a bigoted landlord.  To the victim of an uninsured illegal alien that crashed a car into them, or the man that lost his job to an illegal.  Or even the young lady so intimidated by the 20 protesters blocking her path and screaming at her that she didn't get the abortion she wanted and was forced to carry the fetus to term (and it makes zero difference whether it was "necessary" or not).  Explain to them that they were not harmed financially or physically.

                    The 12 people - because the nation (state, whatever) has not agreed enough to make it a law.  Plus, of course, you have hardly picked a random "jury" of peers - you have handpicked 12 people that all have an axe to grind.

                    No, promisem, we have tried for years to legislate some pretty big, and important, morality issues and failed miserably to get a consensus.  So while it really does sound easy to find what is immoral and what is not it really isn't.  I figured that with that big a list (out of thousands) I'd hit a sore point, and I did with the abortion angle.  For it is NOT immoral to get an abortion for any or no reason; our society has declared it so whether you like it or not, and I'm sure that if you are honest with yourself you can find others.  I can, that's for sure - I find quite a bit in our law that is immoral (to have there) and immoral things that are NOT in the law and should be.  By my lights, not necessarily by yours.

          2. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Yes I do agree with the illegal part.. But I don't see a reason to limit what some one is able to honestly earn. I also don't think that my definition of need should be an arbiter of anyone's earning abilities.

            GA

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Morals is like personal or certain groups rules. Then you have ethics that are down for universal business like stealing and murder, that is how you get rid of negative Corporatism.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                "Corporatism is not stopped by moral rules which apply only to some, while ethics pertains to ALL."
                So, you might think … hmm

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Following and enforcing LAWS LAWS LAWS!  Is there a problem with this idea???
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … itrust_law

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Get rid of laws? Do you prefer anarchy?

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              That is a libertarian view. It is not your definition of need. It is society's definition.

              We have laws and a government (including tax laws) for the sake of order. Our society tries to find a balance between the individual and the nation.

              And as many very wealthy people have shown, give them $50 billion (i.e., the Koch brothers) and they will try to corrupt democracy in their favor.

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Well then maybe the Libertarians have a point. Who is this society that will determine "need" if it isn't me? You say society will determine "need," but how? By a committee of 300 million, or a legislative action? Isn't it society's definition of "need" that is debated every election. One group says you don't need that much money so we will tax you higher than some less financially successful folks. Another group says all citizens should be taxed the same. (I think tax rates are an good example of society's attempt at determining "need")

                Do you think your definition of "need" would be the same as mine? Who determines which of us is right?

                GA

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Your point is clearly that you are more important than the community. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

                  It is a path to dictatorship and the destruction of democracy.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    huh? In a democratic REPUBLIC …..

                  2. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Holy cow! Is that what you really think of anyone that does not agree with your perspective, that they are selfish and self-important?

                    You even illustrate my point with your paraphrased quote. It begs the same question; "Who determines the "needs" of the many?"

                    GA

    4. Will Apse profile image89
      Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I'm curious to know how the rich benefit you as an individual and America as a country.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Should other human beings "benefit" us?

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        It was a rich man (by my way of thinking) that provided me with work the last 20 years of my working career.  Cooperating, he gave me food in my belly and a roof over my head: I added to his wealth.

        It was with his efforts, and money, that a multitude of churches, schools and stores were built.

        But I'm curious to know how the poor benefit you as an individual and America as a country.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I wanna be benefited.

        2. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          So the rich organise your economy. And you agree to that.

          That is a fair enough response.

          It is a social contract, they have the means to act in the world in ways you cannot . The rules have been worked out over a couple of centuries...

          But there must be other benefits, after all the rich also impact politics, No one gets to be a President in the US without a great many billionaires behind them.

          How do the rich help you in the political arena?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            If someone truly great / appropriate ran, he / she might get elected no matter what the financial backing ...


            No???? I mean, we can all see through the Don and the Hil, but no other canidate seemed as appropriate!

            1. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Individuals don't matter that much in party politics, normally but Trump is pretty unusual.

              Personally, I reckon he is good for the Republican Party. He has been able to say a lot of stuff that is true but could never be said by a Republican before:

              The Iraq War was a disaster
              The US should not be the world's policeman
              The rights of LGBT people should be respected
              Globalization has harmed the welfare of ordinary people in the West

              It is also obvious that abortion is not a big issue for him.

              As an individual, Trump is too mean-minded, erratic and shallow in his grasp of politics to ever make a good President but he has certainly shifted debate into saner territory on many issues.

              Democrats should follow his lead on that list above.

        3. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Credit nation will win out on a debtor nations.

          The only reason BRICS strong military is for defense from a new world order prison planet.

          They are not attacking, yet US/Israel are attacting or planning attacking everywhere. Very insane.

          Same within America public guns. it's  fear over their own US military, fear is opposite of love.

    5. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      You know what? I am getting really really sick of these 'liberals are evil' comments & questions. There's a big deal about how the Dems didn't display enough (or the right kind) of American Flags on the DNC stage; and I've seen Hillary dragged through the mud by idiots who somehow expect HER - out of every political candidate who has ever ran for office (ANY office) to have a sqeaky clean record above and beyond any other. And of course, the things that are said about Obama are atrocious.

      So, I'm bringing my perceived reasoning for these things into the forfront: EVIL This is the reason why we are supposed to care about these things to the extreme; because there is EVIL afoot and we need to be DILIGENT so that God doesn't let it GET US.

      People should be elected based on their works - Hillary has done MUCH GOOD for this country; as has Obama and many others that you don't respect. And FYI, this is why we don't respect you:

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126000.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126001.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126035.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126037.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126038.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126039.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126040.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126042.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126044.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126047.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126051.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126052.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126053.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126054.jpg

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126059.jpg

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126060_f1024.jpg

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Boy, aren't you on a roll, this morning...

        I just have to get these posters put in virtual bronze frames

        My sentiments exactly

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I suppose posting a page worth of pointless posters may, to some, seem to make a point. To me, it simply says the poster doesn't have anything of value to say.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Why people want to vote between a lesser evil, is beyond me.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Could we could establish anarchy today by shutting down the Fed? Refuse to vote at all???
            States / governors would still have jurisdiction over their own territories. Conventions of State Governors would meet and decide all national affairs such as Defense Needs ...
               That would be quite a revolution. Could we close down the Fed? Only if we were 100% on the same page. Part of this revolution would be to refuse to pay federal taxes. Only State.

            (?)


            Or run to the hills of S.A.

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            That is modern democracy. Very, very sad.

      3. Dan W Miller profile image84
        Dan W Millerposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        "... because of Benghazi!" OMG BWAHAHAHA! How ignorant! Because I even WORK FOR MEDICARE and have heard that from some GOP idiot. Those posters are CLASSIC!

      4. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I think these forums would be better off if neither side posted such graphics.

        They're usually just inflammatory, and we already have enough inflammatory posts.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I know what you mean. Some of these post calling people nutjobs and extremists at the drop of a hat. Thatll be the majority of their post. Over the top inflammatory and pointless to consider anything they say. Oh wait..oops. My,  isnt this embarrassing.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Your sarcasm is duly noted. Thank you for your support in raising the discussions to a higher level.

    6. tamarawilhite profile image87
      tamarawilhiteposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      To paraphrase Dennis Prager, it is more important to liberals that everyone be equally poor than anyone to be prosperous.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        " Tax the rich and the middle class all you want.
        Right, Democrats?"

        Strangely, no democrats have agreed. Do they not want to admit it? Do they not understand where all the money comes from for their programs geared toward equality? Why is "equality" a worthwhile goal?

        Education should be the priority if we want true equality. True equality exists not from taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but through paths toward accomplishment / success. Shut down self-effort, shut down motivation, shut down percolating economy through over-regulation, shut down joy of LIFE, shut down opportunity.
        So open up education, and free market opportunities. (Self guided will = Joy of life)

        Right, Democrats?

        1. Dan W Miller profile image84
          Dan W Millerposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Tax what they are  supposed to be taxed and accept America has OUR'S, YOUR'S AND MINE AND THIS COUNTRY'S BEST INTEREST IN MIND. Not some greedy GOP that wants to be taxed less. Wake up, psychotic!
          RIGHT DEMOCRATS? RIGHT? Because WE ARE RIGHT! Evil people those GOP. Right Democrats? Right
          You're going to lose. Face it. Better start planning now some evil scheme as always like be a baby and close down the government or something STUPID like vote to abolish the FBI because poor boobookitty didn't get your way and that big looooooong taxpayer wasting witch hunt committee WAS ALL IN VAIN.
          Right Democrats? Right?

          http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126898_f248.jpg



          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126899_f248.jpg



          http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126900_f248.jpg



          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126901_f248.jpg



          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126905_f248.jpg

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I have not met a single liberal in my entire life who thinks that way.

    7. Jan Michael Ong profile image87
      Jan Michael Ongposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The old rob Peter to pay Paul. Have we learned nothing?

    8. Denmarkguy profile image94
      Denmarkguyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Meh... the country is run by extremists... right-wingers who won't stop till they own everything and the rest of the world either become mindless robots or are living in refrigerator boxes... and left wingers who think legislated equality somehow results in a utopic society. Meanwhile the country rots because the apathetic middle can't relate to either of those perspectives and fall into a stupor of "my vote doesn't really matter, anyway."

      Ego gratification is not a real "need." I'm all for a free(ish) market, but how much does a single person NEED? Once your house is paid for, your kids collecge educated, your food, transportation, health, vacation and basic overhead living expenses are covered... nobody "needs" anything more. If you're making $500K a year, what exactly is "lacking" in your life that compulsively makes it "necessary" to strive to make $1M? $5M?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Your talking sense, there is no desire for that around here. Lol

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          " If you're making $500K a year, what exactly is "lacking" in your life that compulsively makes it "necessary" to strive to make $1M? $5M?…"

          ~> who says it is "compulsive?"  Maybe I want to live in a five million dollar beach house in So Cal. To do so, I need millions. It is a practical matter based on my want. Why limit what one can attain in life?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Actually Your right 5- 10 million is not all that much.
            I once was a millionaire , still money did not go that far.  Over a billion is starting to get too much

          2. Will Apse profile image89
            Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            So many people who will never have two pennies to rub together buy into the 'one day I will be rich' fantasy.

            They follow the lives of celebrities and live vicariously instead of taking the simple political steps to ensure that they and their children have a decent education, good healthcare, provision against unexpected personal disaster and a  reasonable retirement.

            Why do they do this? Nobody knows.

          3. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Nothing is wrong w/becoming wealthy.  That is what intelligent people do who have self-esteem & self-awareness.  They want to become wealthy in order to live a high qualitative life.  They also want to leave a monetary legacy so their descendants can have an easier life.

          4. Denmarkguy profile image94
            Denmarkguyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            >>> Maybe I want to live in a five million dollar beach house in So Cal. To do so, I need millions. It is a practical matter based on my want. Why limit what one can attain in life? <<<

            No need to limit what anyone can attain... however, in the US (especially) we tend to worship "the individual" and individual rights, success, achievement and so on... and toss out any kind of social responsibility for the common good. Your $5M beach house in Malibu would probably be a lot safer (and thus more enjoyable?) if the system were a little more egalitarian so the lower echelons didn't face an eternal future of ghettofied entrenchment at unsustainable minimum wages so they "need" to go break into your house and steal your Picasso and big screen TV just to live. (Extreme example for illustration purposes)

            Point being, it seems we could have a better world if at SOME point our tax/social structure encouraged people to stop looking just at their OWN wants, and perhaps looked outward at the world they inhabit, and those less blessed and fortunate who cohabitate in it. Personally, I'd be happy to pay somewhat higher taxes to feel less like I might get carjacked and I live in a police state...

            There's always the argument that people "should just get an education and a better job" which has marginal merit but is ultimately meaningless because a world in which EVERYone is a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk is an impossibility. "All chiefs and no braves" just doesn't work. Someone still has to clean the toilets, mow the lawns and take out the trash. So why not make it so that aforesaid lawn mowers and trans collectors can actually make a living doing their thing? Even if it means it takes a few years longer for others to get their Malibu beach houses because the minimum wage is $20/hr instead of $7.25...

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Where would you draw the line on how much companies should be able to make in a capitalist society?.  Without even thinking about Corporatism greedy bastards

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                As much as it pays out in wages?  After taxes, of course, as owners must then pay taxes of their share of profits.

                Half that? Double that?

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        You forgot owning a computer.  And internet access.  And a smartphone for each family member.  And an RV of some kind or another.  And monthly entertainment.    And sports programs for the kids.  And a flat screen with satellite or cable.  And a video game or three.  And day care for children.

        OR

        Only 30% have a college degree; it is obviously not a need.  Only 25% own their own home free and clear - obviously not a need.  Millions were without health insurance (no one can guarantee health) only a few years ago - obviously not a need.  No one needs a vacation each year.  Food, clothing and shelter are needs: after that it is luxury.

        Point being that one person's need is another's want, and vice versa.

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          So poor education, poor health prospects and generally poor opportunities for those not born into wealth, lol.

          Is this masochism (I deserve nothing) or sadism (I enjoy seeing other people's lives blighted)?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            What does any of that have to do with need vs want?  Outside of a tenuous connection between "deserve" and "need" (I deserve whatever I need) what possible connection is there?

    9. 83
      We are awakeposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Anarchy is humanities only hope. It has been subject to a huge smear campaign as that would mean no government. I ask, why should we pay taxes to the government to do stuff we can do for ourselves and do a better job at it?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I do agree to good degree anarchy would be a better solution than the :Greedy bunch: Who are  families of monopoly Mafia's that are an unstoppable disease until we stop them. Along with the fungas Government who is also chocking us and killing us.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    Make a cap of a billion dollars, who needs more than that.

    Take away military intelligence and give unlimited health and education benefits. Just take away the military and feed healthy, houses and love everyone and thing on the planet.

  3. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 4 months ago

    Please define rich. By my definition, the rich get richer the middle class gets squeezed where we are ready to pop and the poor tumble deeper into poverty.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      A suggestion, if a company can prove their product is completely Healthy for everyone, allow them the sky as the limit.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I disagree. For one, companies would lie through their teeth to scarf up on that offer. And two, I think we need to accept that money is a resource. It should not be horded by a few, to the detriment of the many.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Get rid of Corporatism, they will never be responsible about judging their own product. A body of knowledgeable council to test their products with reward. The greatest threat to humanity is Environmentally related.

          Finance should be only 1/5 of the equation in life, as it is now profits is most equation in our lives.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            I agree. Unfortunately, amoral decisions with the goal of attaining more money are the norm for even the average person. They are taking their cue from the filthy rich corporations. We need to realize this greed is not healthy and it certainly doesn't make you happy.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I gave part of a solution

              Yes, most of us know greed is the worst virus on earth. Yet we hire mercenary politicians for the rich to control our lives.

              Even when most are aware greed is all wrong . We still are all brainwashed by the greed machine to steamroll through. Like many top economist say, we must collapse first, then rebuild a new system.

            2. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              It is like we can only fantasize about solutions, yet none of these solutions can happen as long as those greedy bastard own every thing.

              We must collapse then rebuild and find those little greedy bastard. For there is no place on earth they can hide from us.

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

    "Democrats are working to make progress on issues like
    1. Job creation
    2. Education
    3. Health Care
    4. Clean energy"
    https://www.democrats.org/about/our-party

    Job Creation: "Republicans favor free trade in order to keep costs low for consumers and make businesses more profitable so they can grow. Republicans tend to oppose increases to the minimum wage, citing the need for business to keep costs low so they can prosper and all Americans can have access to products and services.

    Education: "Republicans tend to favor more conservative changes such as longer hours and more focused programs. They are also divided on student loans for college, with Democrats favoring giving students more money in the form of loans and grants while Republicans favor promoting the private sector giving loans and not the government."

    Health Care: "Republicans, who opposed the Affordable Care Act, believe too much government involvement in the industry will drive up costs and have a negative impact on the quality of care that consumers receive."

    Energy: "Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.

    http://www.enkivillage.com/differences- … icans.html

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I know many Americans are die hards at heart. This system is doomed and I can not share in an unfixable living night mare until it crashes and burns. I'm grateful what America has given me,  at best I will be there for the cleanup of the mess.

      I'll cheer you guys on, that are stuck in the destructive collapse from Bolivia. Remember non violences is the only answer towards your new solutions.

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    Crazy !  The only rich people I've ever known were people who generally gave more than they get from their fellow humanity !  Why are liberals so  hateful of self made success stories !

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Not a liberal, but again I'd say define rich. Most rich people (by your definition) you or I would interact with are not what I would define as rich or the ones I think need to have their wings clipped.

    2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126144.png

      Many here obviously define "rich" as owning a nice double wide at the end of a dead end street; replete with velvet Elvis posters and a refrigerator full of beer. They are content to live out their days shooting squirrels on the weekends and collecting their pittance at the end of each week. A full figured sweaty woman who showers once a week, and who is practiced in the preparation of TV dinners tops it all off. Some might refer to this as "Hog Heaven", but I just call it the American Mainstream. A person must necessarily be educated to truly understand the evils of the filthy rich here in America. But these two questions will help to jump start the process.

      • Why do people with college degrees have more difficulty succeeding today than those with only a 6th grade education 60 years ago?

      • How does an entire city like Flint Michigan become contaminated with lead poisoning when Israel receives approx. 3 billion in foreign aid each year?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        To answer your questions with an opinion:

        College grads have more trouble that 6th grade education 60 years ago because they have been coddled their entire lives with everything given to them.  They don't want to work, won't work, and still demand a huge salary for it.

        Apparently (the truth is not out yet) is that a handful of people carried out criminal acts resulting in massive pollution.  There is no connection whatsoever to Israel or what foreign aid it is given.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
          wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          The man who has no college degrees, and who can't follow a link to read an article of 500 words or less now accuses college "graduates" of being lazy! What a joke. Concerning your second "idea":  Is it really that hard for some people to connect the dots? Where do you think the 3 billion comes from? Do you think that it falls from the sky, or grows on a particular type of tree?

          It is taxpayer money that is being funneled to Israel by politicians and other wealthy people; miscreants who become even richer through the process. Personally, they have little to gain financially by directing tax dollars to the  poor and working class  people in Flint Michigan, or any other American city.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            You need a new spy system.  Strongly suggest one smart enough to read profiles as you are apparently unable to do it yourself.

            Very good!  Taxes come from the people, not from the sky.  But it still doesn't have anything to do with criminal activity in Flint.  If we gave every Flint resident $30,000, (using all 3 billion) there is zero indication that it would have done anything to stop that activity.  Get your new spies to explain this to you - perhaps they can explain why simply giving someone else's money away doesn't solve underlying problems.

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
              wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126360.png

              Are you serious? If the number is insignificant, and of no great use, then what on Earth is Israel doing with that 3 billion? I don't need to do the math in order to understand that a fraction of that amount would have gone a long way toward fixing the Flint water system. The major of Flint has estimated 55 million! And the foreign aid to Israel is just one example of how the money is spent. After all is said and done, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to cost between 4 and 6 trillion dollars! How ridiculous to base an argument on dividing the 3 billion amongst the population. The government of Israel doesn't divide the foreign aid equally among it's citizens. Is that what you really think? Really? Just to help you along, instead of dividing the 55 million equally among the citizens of Flint, it would be used to fix the water system that the citizens depend on. You should run for political office, as you would fit right in.

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                You might actually blame the continued liberal leadership of Flint Mich .  for the water problems there . Perhaps the  funds that could have fixed this problem went to the salaries and bennies  for liberal union memberships  in Flint , from city employees to the extremely expensive  education system .   Ask the mayor  why  this has happened  not the  Jewish people of Israel  , they 've got their own problems .

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Charity begins at home .

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13126373.png


                    Hey I know , lets ask the Clinton Foundation for a donation  . ..................
                    Never mind ,they already gave their  9 %of   total donations out of their account !.     
                    The only liberal  political office in Michigan is the governor,   all the locals are liberals .
                    I hear Michael  Moore's got nine houses ,.......... let's ask him.
                    .

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Not in this country.  It begins with taking money from those that have it, at gunpoint if necessary, to give to someone else.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Oh I see!  Your contention is that a massive influx of money would have prevented crime.  Funny how that never works, isn't it, but we keep on doing the same thing in the hopes that the next time will be different.

                But if I might ask, why wasn't proper maintenance being done for the last 50 years or whatever?  Because cities know that if they DON'T do it the federal govt. will eventually give them someone else's money to do it with instead of using their own?  That's gotten to be a pretty common tactic lately, whether it be water, sewage treatment or anything we have to have to live in cities with.

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  If the federal government has no responsibility to the cities and states who are funding the federal government, then the federal government is serving no other purpose than to extort money from citizens in the form of taxes, and should be abolished! It would be a simple matter for the federal government to monitor the infrastructure throughout the nation and to create a hedge against city and state corruption. Of course they could! They have no problem monitoring the activities of the average American citizen, as Edward Snowden has revealed. Neither do they have a problem meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, or fulfilling their Imperialist ambitions. Perhaps you would benefit from some remedial college courses. I would offer to help, but I am certain that courses at a local college in Boise would be more affordable.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Well, yes.  The eternal cry of those that want ever bigger government is to put ALL responsibility on ignorant bureaucrats somewhere for every matter of every citizen in the country.

                    Personally I disagree with that - I assume that people are responsible enough to not require Big Daddy to watch their every move.  And that are typically more knowledgeable of their problems than those bureaucrats are as well.  You do not, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

                    Boise would likely be more affordable, yes, and the return on investment MUCH better as well.  Hard to imagine that much could be learned from the College of WB.  How to be egotistical, perhaps, but that's not something I'm much interested in.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    "If the federal government has no responsibility to the cities and states who are funding the federal government, then the federal government is serving no other purpose than to extort money from citizens in the form of taxes, and should be abolished!"

                    neutral hmmmmm……

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            3 billion? Considering the population including arabs in israel, how much is that per person? If you would cipher that figure and then equate that into budweisers and hungry mans, so i can grasp it, what kinda loot we talkin?

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
              wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13126374.png

              It's funny how my subordinates, in seeking to portray me as a fool, only betray themselves, and reinforce my superiority. My response to you is the same as my response to wilderness. Obviously neither one of you are aware of how  government works, or how the money is spent, or can be spent. And so, being a kind and thoughtful person,  I will take you by the hand:

              Imagine a  city with a population of 100,000. Now imagine that the people would like to beautify the riverside and create a theme park along the river. But to do this the city estimates it will cost at least ten million dollars. Of course, they would not divide the ten million amongst the people , but instead, they would use the money to buy materials, pay various contractors, etc.. Now do you understand? I am sure I would make a very good 5th grade teacher, as I often feel that I am playing that role here on Hubpages. Make this your mantra: Read_Learn_Comprehend!

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Pretty simplistic, opinionated argument that does not allow for any  consideration as to how the World and Nation has changed in the last 60 years demographically, technologically and culturally. Must be nice to live in that 'big bubble' known as Idaho.......

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            About as nice as it is to require others to pay for what we want because we refuse to do work considered "beneath us".  All it takes is the "new" liberal philosophy of sharing the wealth regardless of contribution.

  6. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    Mortally and legal well, there goes most of Corporatism.

    If 99℅ of us rush them, we can take them.

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

    The liberal policy does not take into consideration the element of self-interest. This is a natural human concern. When one's neighbor is truly loved as much as oneself, then we will not need government. When will that be??? Anarchists should answer this question.

    Who wants to work in a socialistic environment where the individual is diminished and the group is promoted. Bernie supporters should answer that question. How can such an ideal be possible when every person in the group has one main true concern: Himself or herself ...
    as it SHOULD BE!!!!

    Human will can only cover one's self. It can't cover all selves.

    Its impossible.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ber … 10-issues/

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

    Bernie advocates a single-payer health care system where federal and state governments provide healthcare insurance to all Americans. Such a system would cost  $13.8   T R I L L I O N  over ten years. It would be funded via
    1. Health care premiums:
         a. Individuals   
         b. Employers
    2. Increased income tax rates:
         a. Those earning over $250,000, boosting their income tax rate to 37 percent.
         b. Those earning more than $10 million a year, boosting their rate to 52 percent.
    4. Additional fees / taxes, including raising Social Security taxes for higher income earners.
    5. Taxing capital gains at the same percentage rate as taxpayer income.

  9. Joe Bridge profile image61
    Joe Bridgeposted 4 months ago

    Nice talk ..

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      to be fair, Bernie does have some good ideas. But, his brilliance is limited.
      Bernie supporters need to hear ALL of what he has to say. Wake Up, You People!

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Kathryn  , More important today and totally ignored by most voters  , is the fact that no one VETS  a candidate correctly . Sanders  hasn't amounted to much  but to exist with a  dead political system for thirty five or forty years . He is a typical political  do nothing .  EVEN THOUGH HIS RHETORIC SAYS OTHERWISE .   He is from my state  and I would just love someone to show me his accomplished record.   Vermont is , economically , in horrible shape


        But his idea's are great .

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

    Bernie advocates free preschools, colleges and universities by:
    1. Increasing taxes on the wealthy
    2. Increasing taxes on Wall Street transactions.

    This plan will cost  SEVENTY  B I L L I O N  DOLLARS  A  Y E A R ...

    So how is this free again????


    Oh yeah, tax the rich cuz they don't need all that money they have worked like dogs to attain.
    If they are doing it   i l l e g a l l y,  this is what needs to be stopped. Meanwhile, if legal, why should the wealthy be stopped from contributing in a positive way to the economy?


    Wondering

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

    "Centro banks and military don't really use them ( laws), they make up their own."

    Q. Who polices the Central banks / Military????

    A. THE PRESIDENT, SENATE AND THE HOUSE = WE THE PEOPLE

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

    Questions
    1. Why did PRESIDENT CLINTON I remove Glass-Stegall?
    2. Why will PRESIDENT CLINTON II prevent it from being reinstated, when it is clearly necessary?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/busin … l%20Act%20

  13. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    Misfit

    A few really funny posts both sad and funny.

    Like :We told them the money would "trickle down.

    Looked at a list of Countries that think Religion is important.

    America ranked 100th with 65℅ thinking religion is important. The most Religious countries were mostly in Africa and middle east, where many are poor and unhappy.

    Countries that were under 50℅ Religious had most of the land mass on earth. Countries like China, Russia and Canada

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

    Stop voting for the President and all Federal matters.
    Stop paying Federal Income Taxes.
    Give governors jurisdiction over Interstate Commerce, Military and Safety of the Nation.
    All fifty governors convene at agreed upon intervals to run the nation round-table style.

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

    Meanwhile the federal government has done everything in its power to come to the aide of Flint, Michigan.
    Well, Good!!!!

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … d-recovery


    ( would you guys stop arguing?)

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      He seems to enjoy an argument. I like a good argument too, especially with women. I often find it to be cathartic. And if everyone agrees, how can you have an argument?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        "A state-appointed task force preliminarily found that fault lies with the state DEQ, (Department of Environmental Quality) and on December 29, Wyant stepped down.
        Last week, three months after high lead levels were detected in Flint children, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder declared a state of emergency over the issue.
        (Dan Wyant, the former quality director at Michigan's Department of Enviromental Quality.)"

          oh, well I learned a lot too. So fine. Keep it up guys.
        smile

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
          wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Snyder should be on his way to prison with Hillary. If this was Japan he would settle the matter by falling on a sword. His actions could lead to the deaths of thousands of people. Thousands more could be permanently disabled. Chelsea Manning got 35 years in prison and didn't kill or hurt anyone.

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

    This is not true:
    "You might want to remember that if the people of Flint had done reasonable maintenance they wouldn't be in trouble now.  Instead they waited until there was a major problem and then want someone else to pay for their failures, year after year, to take of their own needs." w


    The governor of Michigan cared only about saving money and lied to the people. The mayor went as far as drinking the orange water on TV! The people of Flint were purposefully kept in the dark to protect the bottom line: MONEY.
    In this case, the federal govt. HAD to step in. Also, federal regulations were broken. It is not a simple case of frivolously spending tax money. Actually, this case illustrates the importance of maintaining the federal government / executive office!
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/to … -michigan/
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … d-recovery

    (Is any one following along?)

  17. 83
    cwritesnowposted 4 months ago

    Make no mistake.....when you see a democrat such as Clinton or Waters or Walters, you need to think, "elitist, billionaiare," or "millionaire."

    None of these individuals have ever worked a day in their life to achieve what they wanted. They never started a business; they never had to hire or fire employees. They never had to deal with tax codes or tax laws and they never had to set for themselves goals that they would have to achieve because if they DIDN'T, they would've gone under and lost their asses.

    Are all rich people bad? No. I work for several who are in the upper 1 percent and they are decent, hard working people who treat those under them with respect and dignity.

    The Clintons and other democrat elitists are completely out of touch with the reality facing average Americans because never once did they have to live that reality - ever.

  18. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 4 months ago

    You will never shakedown the 1%, they are untouchable. Who will get shookdown via taxation are these people or similar stories: Their grandparents were workaholics. Not only were they workaholics unlike today's folks they were also competent and produced actual goods and services. They worked in the 40s 50s 60s etc. They built stuff that is still standing today. They also may have got a little lucky and got some big contracts. Then in the 70's after working all their lives they were wise and invested in real estate and commercial property etc. Then they passed that on to their kids who were also workaholics in cases. Being rich is often a lifetime of 50 years of 60 hours a week, work ethic, competency and good decisions and passing it on to their next generation, who repeated that until the grandkids are rich if they had those same ethics, in general, in general.

    I do not understand why liberals or progressives whatever, who unamericanly relish taxes for other people don't just cut out the middle man. The middle man bureaucracy, who will give them undeserved freebies, so inefficiently as all government does, pennies on the dollar and just rob some perceived rich person of their wallet on the street like a common thug. It would seem a little more honorable.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!

  19. QuoteAmber profile image91
    QuoteAmberposted 4 months ago

    That is a completely ridiculous statement that is not based in fact ... at all. Democrats and liberals just want wealthy people to actually pay their taxes. Did you know that last year alone the wealthy class of American weaseled their way out of paying $100 million in taxes by hiding their money in off-shore accounts? That's enough money to fix our entire decaying infrastructure. Also, it is completely ridiculous and nonsensical that many corporations don't pay taxes at all. I'm talking companies that make millions and billions of dollars a year that don't pay any taxes at all because they have some senator in their pocket. And I don't want to hear anything about the trickle down theory. History has already proven that the trickle down theory does, in fact, not work, and yes there are also facts and statistics to prove that it doesn't work. The middle class and poor people pay more in taxes than the wealthy class. Only the truly ignorant or truly selfish would not see something wrong with that. It is really, really sad that so many wealthy people are so money hungry that despite the fact that they have more than enough money already, feel the need to cheat on their taxes. Anyone who thinks the wealthy and upper middle class are being unfairly taxed have either fallen to propaganda, or are greedy and trying to protect their own wealth.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      This Just In:

      1.  Many wealthy people hide their money in off-shore accounts.

      2.  Many corporations don't pay taxes at all because, "they have some senator in their pocket."

      3. Facts and statistics prove that the trickle down theory does not work.

      4. The middle class and poor people pay more in taxes than the wealthy class.

      5.  Many wealthy people cheat on their taxes.

      6. The wealthy and upper middle class are NOT being unfairly taxed.

      Thanks, Q. Amber!

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      QuoteAmber, you mention facts a couple times, first when you say they prove the OP to be ridiculous, and again when you say they prove that trickle-down economics did not work. But then it appears facts weren't needed for the rest of your points.

      *As a note, of course there are some wealthy folks that cheat and try to hide their money from the tax man, but my perception is that they are the exception rather than the rule. Your comment seems to paint them as the rule rather than the exception. Although I too think the cheaters should be made to pay up, I do not paint them as the entire "wealthy class."

      You say that Democrats just want the wealthy to pay their taxes, but as shown by the infographic below; the top 25% of tax payers pay about 87% of all income taxes paid. The bottom 45% pay no income taxes. This does not seem to support your contention that "The middle class and poor people pay more in taxes than the wealthy class."

      You say "the wealthy class of American weaseled their way out of paying $100 million in taxes by hiding their money in off-shore accounts," but in 2014 our government collected about $3 Trillion in revenue. So the wealthiest 25% paid about $2.61 Trillion of that. Now, $100 Million sure sounds like a lot of money, but what percentage of $2.61 Trillion is $100 Million? .00003%?
      *caveat: I just grabbed these numbers as examples. They may be off by a bunch, but even then, they still support my points.

      Do you really think $100 Million is enough to fix our entire infrastructure? Sounds like enough for major one bridge or road project to me.

      Here is a note about Interstate Highway costs:
      Interstate Highway costs under government provision - "The cost of building highways varies considerably according to real property acquisition costs, terrain, degree of urbanization, roadway width, pavement and base thickness, and any special safety or environmental features required. On the extreme end of the spectrum, Boston is home to the most expensive road in United States history, which had an extraordinary cost of over $1 billion per mile (Simon [NPR], 1996). Paradoxically, another New England road was criticized as "wasteful" because it cost $19 million per mile (Frandsen, 1996), a pittance by comparison."

      There are several more "factual" issues in your comment, but my point is that your statement; "Only the truly ignorant or truly selfish would not see something wrong with that."  isn't supported by anything other than rhetoric. I think that it is you that have fallen for the propaganda.

      I found this contradictory information with a simple 10-minute Google search. You could have done the same.


      http://www.ntu.org/library/imglib/who-pays-income-taxes-2013-block-3-1-.png

      GA

      1. 79
        Hxprofposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        We need to stop hammering on "the wealthy" as a class, and simply accept the facts that 1) There are, and always have been greedy people.  2) Trickle down economics does NOT work when those who are supposed to allow money to trickle down keep it all (basically, it NEVER works well). 3) Humans ultimately can't do anything to stop greedy people, because in order to stop them, we'd have to change their hearts.  Progressive/liberal attempts to "redistribute wealth" are simply destructive measures that accomplish little for those they're supposed to help; the supposedly "greedy people" these measures penalize, will find ways to reacquire their wealth.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          How about we do not allow out-of-country storage of money and we abide by the rules, such as no monopolies, back-room deals, taking advantage of loopholes and providing bailouts, etc. We need to follow morals, plain and simple. It must be hard for the rich who through their money have more than just money. No, now they have power and (mis-)using this power is the temptation.

          These people with money AND power get away with cheating, skimping on their taxes, getting you to go along with crooked schemes by promising there is something in it for you. Meanwhile, the greedy rich give the fair-playing rich a bad name. They give all who are wealthy a bad name.

          Wealth is not a bad. It is good in the right hands. Kind of like a hose. It depends on who is holding the hose. One might be spaying their neighbor's car getting water spots all over it. The other might be minding their own business watering their own lawn, roses and Azalea bushes. Is the HOSE bad?
          I ask!

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Canadian are Hosers, we are not that bad.

            Most of these greedy bunch own most of the wealth. These are people who are untouchables and they do not have conscious like most Americans.

            The people either emprison them or  deal with their wrath in wars and collecting on your debt to them to support more wars. America is bankrupt a debtor nation and they just haven't anything to pay their foreign countries creditor nations. Rothschild/ Rockefeller could pay the debt yet the won't spare dime to America. They use NATO or UN to protect their priceless gold in vaults and drugs in vaults.

            One thing that will cave US in, is when the BRICS dumps US dollar.

          2. 79
            Hxprofposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Pretty much agree with you Kathryn, though those with money and power have been been getting away with things like this since, well, always.  There's no stopping them, but yes, if we can put an end to storing money offshore, let's do it.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          how can we stop an abuse of free (self-guided) will?
          I ask!

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            As I have stated in another thread, we stop them by refusing to buy their goods and services. Without consumerism the greedy rich are essentially dead in the water. We do not have to change their minds. We simply need to change our own.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, this would be the patriotic thing to do… but I know you pretty much hate American patriotism.

          2. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            The Greedy bastart is like the host of a disease.  This disease dose not know how to stop itself.
            Like megalomaniac the Hitler disease it is always stopped by the collective consciousness of at least 80℅ of the people .  People that continuousally throughout human history stopped these kings for their love of money at all cost. We must stopped them at all cost.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              its the power. We must stop ~> the power ~~> the power 
              ~~~> the  p o w e r !
              BOUNDARIES. 
              FOLLOW / ENFORCE BOUNDARIES ...
              BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
              BECAUSE YOU WILL SLEEP BETTER AT NIGHT!
              BECAUSE YOU WILL REAP GOOD KARMA!
              Gosh, you greedy bastarts!!!! Is it so hard to do the right thing in this life?

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                They can print money, yes power is the word.

                Absolutely power corrupts.

                Oh my' oh my ears Kathryn!!!

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, but I'm yelling at all those greedy bastarts! Including those that over-work the presses. sad
                  My grandfather worked for the United States Department of the Treasury. He was the purchasing agent for the dollar bills, responsible for procuring the right inks, etc.

                  "The first Secretary of the Treasury was Alexander Hamilton, who was sworn into office on September 11, 1789. Hamilton was asked by President George Washington to serve after first having asked Robert Morris (who declined, recommending Hamilton instead). Hamilton almost single-handedly worked out the nation's early financial system, and for several years was a major presence in Washington's administration as well. His portrait is on the obverse of the U.S. ten-dollar bill while the Treasury Department building is shown on the reverse. ( Not for long sad sad sad )

                  Besides the Secretary, one of the best-known Treasury officials is the Treasurer of the United States whose signature, along with the Treasury Secretary's, appears on all Federal Reserve notes.

                  The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint."
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … e_Treasury

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    The basic functions of the Department of the Treasury mainly include:

                    Producing all currency, coinage and postage stamps of the U.S.;
                    Collecting taxes, duties and money paid to and due to the U.S.:
                    Paying all bills of the U.S.;
                    Managing the federal finances;
                    Managing government accounts and the United States public debt;
                    Supervising national banks and thrift institutions;
                    Advising on domestic and international financial, monetary, economic, trade and tax policy (fiscal policy being the sum of these);
                    Enforcing federal finance and tax laws;
                    Investigating and prosecuting tax evaders;
                    Publishing statistical reports.
                    With respect to the estimation of revenues for the executive branch, Treasury serves a purpose parallel to that of the Office of Management and Budget for the estimation of spending for the executive branch, the Joint Committee on Taxation for the estimation of revenues for Congress, and the Congressional Budget Office for the estimation of spending for Congress.

                    From 1830 until 1901, the responsibility of overseeing weights and measures was carried out by the Office of Standard Weights and Measures, which was part of the U.S. Treasury Department.[4] After 1901, the responsibility was assigned to the agency that subsequently became known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology."

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … e_Treasury

  20. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 4 months ago

    Envy is greed's lazy, shiftless brother in law.

    I know men in wheelchairs that became financially successful. Who wants their cut?

  21. Johnny James A profile image78
    Johnny James Aposted 4 months ago

    This whole notion of we as a nation tax the rich and middle class more because their is a vendetta against them or because of some socialistic belief is annoying and lazy thinking. Sometimes a simple review of why we collect taxes will explain why you must tax the rich and middle class more than the poor.  Tax revenue is used by the government to provide services to ALL people, as well as to help those in need.  Tax revenue help maintain the bridges, roads, public transportation infrastructure available to all.  Tax Revenue helps maintain the armed forces for our protection; CIA and FBI and other policing agencies for our protection.  Social Security and Medicare for maintenance in retirement (will not argue if it it too much or not enough, just that it is there.) Taxes help maintain air traffic controls, environmental protections, education, medical testing, etc.  The government needs to collect revenue to run all of this without shoving people so far into poverty that it would be better for the person to engage in criminal activities and not report the income for tax purposes, thereby draining more resources on law enforcement without the opposite collection of taxes. The US (federally) has always preferred the marginal tax rate regardless of which party was in office, and federally fought hard to have the power to tax.  Let us not forget the last time the US gave the power for collection to just the states, and trusted the states to pay off their debts as it was a total cluster ***** for which the Articles of Confederation were tossed and replaced and still the Federal government would not officially get the power to tax correctly until 1913 via amendment. Yes there are a lot of taxes, federally, state and local (which includes property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc).  However, instead of merely yelling we need to bring in costs to lower taxes people need to actually run and win office in order to come up with a solution rather than just stating we tax this group too much or this group does this.

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

    would anarchy be better than socialism?
    Why?
    Because with socialism one works for the whole. With anarchy one also works for the whole. In a democracy the individual matters. Each person votes and the majority wins. In a democratic republic, the majority has representatives that vote according what the majority wants. A large amount of trust goes along with each form of government, but the only one which safeguards against the abuses of majority factions is the democratic republic which guarantees that, with enough people, a reasonable consensus will win over an unreasonable consensus.
    … something like that.
    ?

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      A democratic republic simply does not work. It has been proven here in the United States. It only works for a ruling elite that comprises less than 1% of the population! Anyone who believes that they are "living the good life" who is not a member of that "less than 1%" group is suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. A democracy bundled with  a moral code  would be a step up from a democratic republic, as there would be fewer opportunities for corruption. Democracy is the logical step toward Anarchy. World governments are afraid of Anarchy because in an anarchist system the citizen is only beholding to himself and the community. He is not obligated to pay tribute to a federal government, nor is he subject to fines and imprisonment based on transgressions against the immoral laws of a corrupt government. I predict that within 500 years , all world governments will be abolished, and outlawed forever. There will be a renaissance of mankind, and humanity will grow and prosper unlike any other age.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        WB said it better than me.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      America public have no say in what or who  country should be invaded. The corrupted Congress votes where most Americans would vote against another war like Syria. There no more important decisions democracy anymore for the people. A mix anarchy with Socialists would work Wonders vs a slave or even worse a slavery/ debtor nation.

 
working