Liberals=Taxation=Socialism
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.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.
He might
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"?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 ~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!!
"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 ~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.
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!
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.
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 ~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!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 ~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.
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 ~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.????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.
Should we then pay them to stay home? To show up for an hour and go home? To show, do nothing and go home?
Or should we trade, at a mutually agreed upon price, money for what they can produce?Your mutually agreed price is like the mutual agreement between a man and a crazed mugger, one agrees to give the other whatever he has of value in the hope that that will satisfy the mugger.
Pretty much. If you are willing to pay whatever you have in order not to be mugged then you will do it. It's how the world works, and all the dreaming, scheming and planning will not change how nature works.
So you agree that your "mutually agreed" price for labour is a sham!
Did the "muggee" agree to pay or not? If so, I'd have to call that an agreement.
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.
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.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.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.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?LOL - guess it comes from being an old geezer. They're "kids" to me!
And yeah, new recruits to the military are just kids.Yeah well, we know you think of middle aged black men as "kids".
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.
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!How would you give them dignity? Passing laws that require more remuneration for the product of their labor than it is worth? That promotes dignity and doesn't require dependence on the taxpayer (the ones passing the law requiring artificially high pay)?
You mean there are employers out there who don't make a single penny off those they employ!
Did you read this time? Not only did you not answer the question, you have made an inference that cannot possibly be found in what I asked.
How so? Did you not suggest that employers could not afford to pay a decent wage?
If you can find where I said employers couldn't pay an (undefined) "living wage" and quote it, I'll concede. Until then, I most certainly did not. I have not mentioned at all what employers could or could not afford; that would be foolish as some have a much larger profit than others.
"Passing laws that require more remuneration for the product of their labor than it is worth?"
What in the world does that have to do with what a company can afford? Or are you assuming that the value of a product is not what should be paid for it; that what should be paid is the maximum a company (but not an individual) has?
"Worth" is a totally man made concept. The worth of a man is a purely arbitrary concept.
A company "affords" the minimum amount that it can for labour. You'll never find a huge difference in pay between the abc burger company and the gold plated burger company even though their prices are totally different.Still trying to define the worth of a person, are we? We've been over that before, and I denied then that it was impossible to do.
Of course, whatever number you might put on a person, the value of what they are selling (the product of their labor) is something totally different. Do you disagree - do you define the value of a human being to be the market value of the product they can make?'tis you defining a man's worth as what profit he makes for his master.
Nope. I don't buy, for example, a person to fix my air conditioner. You might think you do, but I buy the repairs he does.
But you know this; you only bring it up to make it sound like I'm buying people. A disgusting idea, so paying wages commensurate with the value of the product product must also be disgusting, but it doesn't work.Have you ever actually looked at an invoice? It usually says something like
"Parts"
"Labour"
The labour is the time you've bought off the man to repair your whatever.Just so. Nowhere do you find the term "human being", or "person". You bought their labor, not the person. Thank you - it's a good example...except that "labor" does not have a "u" in it. Dang Brits!
First, their prices are radically different - if it were not so the one wouldn't be "gold plated". Second, the product of the burger maker is not the only thing being purchased, and the gold plated joint adds value to that burger to justify the higher price (or they wouldn't be in business and wouldn't be "gold plated").
So you agree that the reward for labour is purely arbitrary and not in any way related to value added.
Arbitrary? Only to you, who wish to decide the value of products without regard to the market. Why do you make such statements when you fully understand and know that they are not true?
But you've already admited that the reward for work is not related to any profit!
Rather than simply making false claims, can you quote where I said that wages are not related to profits?
You constantly claim that employers can not afford to pay any more whilst defending the employers right to take as much out of the business as they can!
Love socialism - Go where socialism exists , stop wishing for capitalism to morph itself from an earned income basis to a provided income basis !
But an earned income for everybody is a basic socialist creed!
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?
I really don't think "earned" needs definition!
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.
Then why do you continually advocate paying it to someone that hasn't earned it?
No I leave that to you! You are quite happy for some to live off the labours of others.
...and those laboring are living off the abundance provided by others who use effort, intelligence and the ability to handle large amounts of responsibility and $$$$$$. Thank goodness for them.
(Unless they go overboard like Scrooge in the Dickens novel.)Er, how are the ones not labouring providing abundance?
I did not say the wealthy are not laboring! Did I not mention effort and responsibility?
They are laboring too!
Don't believe it? ask any of them!
Ask them how they sleep at night?
But...but...you always demand a "living wage", whether earned or not. Given, of course, that "earned" means payment equal to value of the work performed. Should you define "earned" as any amount more than the value of work performed, well, that's why I said it doesn't need to be earned to a socialist!
I've never demanded a living wage for everybody working or not. I believe that everybody should be given the opportunity to work and if they turn it down they should take care of themselves.
You don't believe in a reward that reflects the value of the work performed, you believe in payment that allows maximum profit for the employer!Why scrooge? Do you then agree with the concept of keeping people unemployed to hold wages and inflation down?
The economic system that our two countries have shared for the thirty or forty years has relied on unemployment to keep down wages and inflation.
You want me to give you a lesson in basic economics at this time of the morning!
well, if not now ... some other time!
Until then ...
Yay Capitalism and Free Market (within appropriate boundaries) Enterprise!
And of course, as always:
Down with Greed.But capitalism, the free market and greed go hand in hand.
You can't throw the baby of freedom out with the bath water of greed.
But, you can provide appropriate boundaries.
The people must demand it, cuz the gov't and Wall Street won't regulate themselves.But shouldn't everybody be free, not just the chosen few?
Here in US, The Constitution guarantees our rights, but the gov't can take them away.
The Fed must be monitored by the people. If things go wrong, its our fault.It's not just the government that takes them away. Capitalism removes a fair few.
No. bad guys in the gov't can take them away. Not a system.
A system is only a system.Bad guys installed in government by capitalists.
Come on now - I've always said people should be paid according to the value of the work performed. It is you that claim they should get that some undefined "living wage" regardless of the value of the work. Why, I can't imagine unless it is a misguided effort to provide everything for everybody; a noble cause but one that is lost before the battle begins and doubly so if people are paid for something they did not earn.
I think ahorseback defined a living wage much better than I could, especially at this time of night!. He didn't think it was a living wage though! Like you a living wage seems to mean unlimited everything.
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.
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 ~Backwards-in-time vs Progressivism.
This seems to be a common theme amongst our liberal friends.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?Do you not know that socialism is an economic system and not a political one.
so that one can be both democratic and socialist?You're saying that socialism is an economic system?
I think it interferes with a political system when it is based on a democratic republic.
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.
What guys, who wants parents? I don't you know what you are asking for and appreciate the ramifications to others of a world according to KH...
< "What guys, who wants parents"> Those who want socialism.
High taxation equates to socialism. Redistribution of wealth.
Progressives want taxes to go to the government to enable it to help the people. Conservatives want the gov't to stay out of the way to allow citizens freedom to do what they do best: Survive by their own efforts, motivations and interests. Some think socialism is merely an anti-poverty society. The establishment of this society is too idealistic and takes money from those who deserve to keep it. When people are allowed to keep what they earn, they will be able to help those in their family and/ or community through contributing directly or through churches and charities.High taxation equates to capitalism. Capitalism equates to redistribution of wealth.
Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. This can only be done by redistributing wealth.To redistribute wealth, one must have it first. How do you "redistribute" what isn't there?
Socialism, on the other hand, will tax the rich (take from them) and redistribute it to the poor. It would seem that you have it backwards.The first part is easy, you take from those who have less than you do and add it to that which you already hold.
The second part attempts, not very successfully, to level the playing field.
Capitalism will tax the poor whilst leaving the wealthy relatively untouched.
Conservatives want taxes to go to wasteful military spending, corporate welfare and subsidies and unwarrented tax relief to the plutocrat, so that they should not be burdened with the costs of Government as of the rest of us.
So it is not a matter of how much money is involved but who is on the receiving end.
The Conservatives have no problem sticking their noses in my boudoir, and our most intimate and private lives.
The Conservatives already have socialism for themselves, they gamble with our money and we bail them out as "too big to fail". How is that for government stepping out of the way?Okay. What is the solution?
I just read this article. What do you think.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir … -democracy
The solution is the prudent control of capitalism and its excesses, that does not imply an acceptance of a socialist economic system where the major means of economic production in a society is controlled by the state. That is not America and those that imply that it is are in error. That means regulation and oversight of a bull that will destroy the china shop if allowed to go unharnessed.
Paternalistic control of people and their livelihood, is imposed without the will of the people and outside the democratic process in not democracy. Scandinavia enjoys a democratic political system with a more socialist economic model. Most all Western societies, Canada included, have a greater socialist economic foundation than does the U.S. I don't hear people there complaining about tyranny and the failure of their governments to represent them in a democratic fashion. Trying to control outcomes must be done at the expense of individual freedom. We resist social engineering because it is unAmerican. But Wilson saw the big overbearing machine coming, overwhelming popular government even that long ago. What he observed is now multiplied many times beyond his conception.
The fact that we have a progressive income tax system is not socialist. The fact that Government needs to regulate certain industries for safety and efficacy does not mean that the Government has taken them over.
My point is the greed that is the prime motivator of capitalism if not properly bottled will destroy our society, the very equivalent of the "Terminator, the Rise of the Machines'
"Tax the rich
feed the poor
'til there are
no rich no more."
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.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.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
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 ~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!!!!
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 ~
And Apple lobby efforts and political contributions are aimed at Democrats, their erstwhile allies.
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.
Over spending/printing money is appeasement to Wall Street!
Faling to regulate the market is appeasement to Wall Street!
(TARP and AIG)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! ~
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- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago
0Sorry, 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."
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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 !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.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.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 ?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%.
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.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.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!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.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.
You contradict yourself there!
The poor do little to help themselves but it's not their fault! See what I mean.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.Who do they get to do things for them then?
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.
Er, that's more or less what I said! You know family members are often poor as well!
No, they are not. And it is silly to depend on THOSE family members!
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.<" Q What do the poor do for themselves?
A They support each other.">
HOW?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.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.
WHAT! low paid zero hour contracts that rely on heavy government subsidies to enable the recipient to live!
This comment does not seem appropriate in the least.
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."
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.
(Of course, pats on the back and words of encouragement will help some, I'll give you that.)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!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?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?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.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!"Not very close. If everyone I know graduated by working their way through, nearly everyone else can.
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.
No, empathy does not put food on the table but it enables you to see why others, not in your position, might have problems doing so.
He has enough empathy to wish them strenth. Not weakness.
He has the empathy to want the best for them. But they must also want it for themselves.Actually, this is quite an offensive post suggesting that the poor are only poor because they are weak!
It is also offensive in suggesting that the poor don't want the best for themselves and their families.
Sure does. But it doesn't give sufficient reason to pay them because they don't want to work - that harms millions while "helping" just one for no more reason than they don't want to work. And, of course, teaching them that someone else will pay their way through life, insuring that the entitlement attitude will continue.
We ARE, of course, speaking not of those that cannot work, but just those that don't want to.Maybe you are but the numbers who can work but won't are few.
I was talking about those who can work, who do work but still find themselves in poverty.
I was also talking about those who desperately want to work but can not get work.
But like authoritarian conservatives types, always moralizing and judgmental as if the outcome of everybody's economic fortune is broken down to a simple formula. All the successful ones are hardworkers and the rest are just lazy? Everything wrapped up in simple hominies or adages. Hard work is related to success but the relationship between that and success are not always conclusive. Trump and Rubio say that they were hard workers. Well falling into a pit of inherited money or sucking off from Federal programs, (respectively) was not so hard. Empathy means in part recognizing the world is" Not According to Garp". Your world is just that, your world, and it is comprised of a great deal more than your fishing hole in Idaho.
And unlike the liberal, I don't find the answer to be give everyone whatever they want/need, simply because they don't have it. I understand that that is the "progressive" (what a misnomer!) way, but it is only a short term sop to moral issues; not a long term solution.
You think they should be able to pay tuition; find a job for them. Fix the economy rather than spreading the disease of the entitlement philosophy - a disease which is killing the EU as we speak but we keep spreading and growing.Who ever suggested that we should give everyone whatever they want. None of the progressive liberals that I know feel that way either. (Although in UK terms I tend to avoid progressive liberals like the rest of the right wing)
I say fix the economy, and that includes fixing the fat cats who believe the economy is purely for their benefit.
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!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?
Find more work in his field, of course. Or find new work in another field!
Say he'd been a buggy whip maker? Or say he was older and therefore more expensive than a younger more energetic man?
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.
<" 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.)- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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 !No, when you described your early life you more than adequately described a living wage.
What you describe here is just greed.
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?
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?
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?In the UK certainly the Conservatives ramp up government control at every opportunity.
It gives them much greater control of our money.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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 beAgree with the first part of that.
Disagree with the second.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 !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.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?Fox news says so!
Wow.
The effect of the minimum wage on a big mac
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/0 … e-big-mac/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!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!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?But you didn't take into consideration the reduced costs to business from a slower turnover of staff!
If there are workers wanting to reduce hours to maintain their access to benefits that is the fault of the welfare system and not of the minimum wage. Give people incentives to remain in work rather than giving them incentives to reduce the hours they work.If there is any. To date it is still far too early to know if that will happen or not - it's quite possible that if hours are not cut (and it's expensive to hire two employees instead of one) the people will simply move on to a part time job somewhere else. High turnover, in other words. Nor do I necessarily think that hiring new employees is all that expensive, not for jobs that require little to no training. Finally, on the subject of turnover, why would any employee seek to improve themselves when they get the same wage after being trained? It might help turnover (or might not), but has the opposite effect on the economy and workforce as a whole.
The incentive to remain in work was done through higher wage. A wage that they would rather give up and sit at home while receiving the same total income.
But we can't cut welfare - the CHILDREN WILL STARVE, don't you know? At least that's the liberal outcry whenever it is mentioned. I fully agree that the system is broken - those in real, temporary, need can't get it while those (like the people in the article) that don't need it do, and make a lifestyle out of charity rather than work.
An interesting side note, not the same but on the same line, is that the guy that raised employee wages to $70,000 is also having trouble. Long time valued and skilled employees are leaving. They are disgusted that new workers, less skilled, are being paid the same as they are - another predictable result of raising wages beyond value received. Force employees to raise wages for the less skilled, and the more skilled want more, too, right up the line. Can we say "inflation" - the exact result I predicted would happen when government interferes by setting arbitrary wages and I predict you will see it in Seattle and other cities that have created minimum wage laws far beyond anything reasonable.Not helped by losing a lot of custom because people think he's a socialist!
Perhaps we Brits have a greater work ethic than those in the USA but numerous studies in the UK have shown no rise in unemployment because of the minimum wage.Nor here. Part of the problem with those statistics is that the only new welfare recipients that matters comes from the ranks of those earning minimum wage (either + or -) and it is a small number compared to those that don't.
As far as welfare spending goes, the overall economy is much, much more important than the handful on minimum wage and will override and "hide" the numbers we're talking about. Seattle, for instance, has seen a large decrease in unemployment - just about what the nation as a whole saw. Any change due to minimum wage workers is lost in the much larger figures, and welfare spending in the city is much the same - the numbers we're interested in are lost in the vastly greater package of those not on minimum wage.So really the minimum wage creates no significant problems.
Guess that depends on what you call significant. Loss of income to small business owners doesn't matter, encouragement of a welfare state isn't significant, inflation doesn't matter, etc.
If unemployment has fallen in Seattle how does that represent a loss of income for small businesses or an increase in inflation or even encouragement of the welfare state?
It's kind of hard to earn money from your business when it's been shut down, isn't it?
As far as the rest of it, go back a couple of my posts and you'll find the answer plainly spelled out. Plus your own comment, of course, that prices rose as a result of the increased wage, and without any corresponding improvement in product - that's called "inflation".But you siad that unemployment was falling in Seattle!
I wonder how many businesses in the fox article were closing down because they were badly run and unsound?
A small increase in price along side improved turnover does not make for inflation, but the whole capitalist system depends on inflation. Controlled inflation I'll admit but inflation never the less.As you don't seem to want to scroll back:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132223#post2755159
Don't know - do you? Or are you just throwing out the possibility as "proof" that raising wages too high will kill a business?
If inflation isn't a price increase without a corresponding product improvement, how would you define it?I'm not sure why you are referring me back to the OP, we've moved on from that!
How is a small rise in wages "too high"?
Product improvement or increased turnover, the out come is pretty much the same and will not necessarily cause inflation.Had you clicked the link you'd have found it doesn't go to the OP: it goes to the post I made giving an answer to your question.
Whatever it takes to remove the incentive to stay in business. As most businesses operate on a 4 or 5% profit margin, you can make your own judgement about a 4% rise in costs.
You're right - if the increased wage is accompanied by a corresponding rise in productivity by that employee there will be no inflation. Is it possible that you think that will happen? That employees will suddenly think "Hey! I got a raise! I need to work harder to justify it!" and increase their output by the same amount? Or will they say "Hey! I got a raise! I don't need to work so many hours now - I can cut my production!"?
Hint: we already see the second thought in operation.No, try the link yourself, it returns you to the OP. I know, I tried it.
Do you really believe that most businesses run on a 4% profit margin?
We only have evidence from those who are opposed to the minimum wage that people choose to work shorter hours if they are paid more.
You explain how none are hard working people that only want to support themselves!
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 .One example proves that everybody is on the take.
I don't think so.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 ?
Well as I said to Wilderness earlier on, we must have a much stronger work ethic in the UK.
I know very few people who would rather live on benefits than work.
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?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.
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 ?John, It doesn't make any difference if its inherited or not , Why does wealth re- distribution play into the whole "he's rich and I'm not" debate ? Whether one earns their riches or those riches are inherited makes no difference as the rich -more than likely - spread their wealth around , if for no other reason than that they travel and spend far more than you or I !.
But you said that the rich earn their own money!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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!
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 ~There is nothing socialist about unemployment benefits. They are pure capitalism.
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 ~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.
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.htmlI'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 ~No, not too comforting at all, not when there are huge amounts of money changing hands. ( It smells like the love of it, ... hahaha!
"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 ~"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.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 ~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.
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 percentTrump 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 ~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.President Roosevelt declared that the United States was bankrupt in 1933.
Nothing has changed except the national debt has increased.
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.
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.
Lets get this stuff fact checked to see if it works in the real world beyond "Trump Towers"
what are the "ramifications to others of a world according to KH…" according to C2?
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?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....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?No names but I do have a political party
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/07/gop-vow … afeguards/
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 ~
- promisemposted 9 years ago0
Having known some very wealthy people, I can say with confidence that they earned some but not all of their money honestly.
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>
<"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?That system is socialism but that system is not easily administrated as Woodrow Wilson pointed out.
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
Why is it any harder to administrate than any other system?
Well, look at how it must be administered.
Have you even thought about that?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!
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.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?Why do you suppose they named their baby, George?
And what is the relevance of that comment?
Mine countered your claim that a socialist government would be a high taxing one.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.
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.They are smaller countries with no states. They have no rap stars. They are even-keel and boring.
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.
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.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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 !
...and what would prevent this?
John seems to think socialism would!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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 !Capitalism = Free market = Percolating economy
"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?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."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!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.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.
AND????
what?
we VOTED to pay those taxes unequal or whatever!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.
NO. I don't believe so. Socialism is state controlled and state mandated.
But I know we have definitely become a social democracy, against the better rumblings of the founders.
As you know, I shoot for the ideal.
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.Commercial Break: this made me cry while I laughed too hard.
~ 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.- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
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 .........
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?
See!
History does repeat its self.
How scientific can it be?
Its just that we agree to agree?
Turn up the heat!But this one isn't. I got to hand it to 'Ole Georgey Porgey he was quick on his feet.
Related Discussions
- 271
Socialism and Communism?
by Sophia Angelique 13 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity, etc.Socialism is part of democracy and Canada, the US, the UK, all countries in...
- 41
Improvements for America
by Grace Marguerite Williams 12 years ago
America is a great nation. However, the unemployment situation is awry and it is not going change anytime soon as more and more jobs are being outsourced to oversea businesses. Our educational system is nothing to broadcast about, our children often do not have prerequisite...
- 184
Americana Socialism
by Jes Mathias 12 years ago
Rarely do I get involved with Politics -especially American. However, recently, I came across several photos depicted the US President with the likeness of one A. Hitler. I really do not see the comparison. Good and close friends of mine fled völkisch nationalism and can tell you first hand,...