Tax the rich and the middle class all you want.
Right, Democrats?
The liberal utopia, where no person can have anything everyone else does not have.
And the conservative trickle down myth where the lie continues to yield untold riches for the top 1%. Is there nothing in between?
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.
I don't know a single liberal who expouses this notion. Where are these liberals who believe this?
Yes, exactly. Or anyone else who isn't a right-wing extremist and Fox fanatic.
*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 >>>> }
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*
As opposed to the Libertarian utopia of dog eat dog, chaos and anarchy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is true. But, this election cycle is different from any I've ever witnessed. I've never seen two candidates so unworthy.
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".
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
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.
Bill Clinton is a Rockefeller, and the secretive Bilderberg group is behind electing Crooked Hillary Clinton, too.
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.
Disagree. While Trump MIGHT try to act on his talk, he will find that almost no one in congress will support any of his plans. He will be reduced to making his own law (shades of Obama) and then having it shot down in the courts (Obama all over again).
Clinton, on the other hand, has massive Democratic support behind her to help in her shenanigans.
Your posts are consistently critical of Democrats. Do you have any good to say about any Democrat? Just curious.
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.
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.
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.
Right about now shouldnt you remind everyone that you are a republican?
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?
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.
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
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.
Also, do you at least agree that no one should earn their wealth immorally or illegally?
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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
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.
"Corporatism is not stopped by moral rules which apply only to some, while ethics pertains to ALL."
So, you might think …
Following and enforcing LAWS LAWS LAWS! Is there a problem with this idea???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … itrust_law
We brought in Feberal tax in as a temporary tax for world war two. The the Military complex and the Goverment keep the tax and got other creative ideas to control our live. If we just bring US war budget from 50℅ of worlds war to 5℅ of the world's war budget about normal or on average with other countries. That would be the world cure for Poverty world wide, in which is the greatest killer on earth. The Centro banks need the Military to robbed and kill people into Poverty and control us by economy slavery.
Just have Government handle small stuff. Have libertarian volunteering handle state and local government like hospital pention and social security.
Or
Let Centro banking, pollution, policing policies, and military have their way with you and have marshal law, and robbed you of everything. Then have civil and world war 3.
My bet US will choose their slave master and puppeted until the wars become the worst ever. Then will change with a revolution by way of very bad abuse.
1. "Bring US war budget from 50℅ of the world's war budget to 5℅."
No money for National Defense?
2. "Have Government handle the small stuff."
No National Defense?
3. "Have libertarian volunteering handle state and local government."
Who would volunteer, in all actuality????????? and who would let them?????
4. "The Centro banks need the Military (?) to rob and kill people into Poverty and control us by economy slavery."
James Madison was leery of "Centro" banks. Break 'em up and get rid of the Federal Reserve.
No National Banks except in emergency? which might be all the time in today's world. who knows….
Also Madison advocated against the implementation of paper money. Imagine carrying around / dealing with specie only!
… maybe you did not understand me. I said laws are a good thing.
Too many laws anyways and Centro banks and military don't really use them, they make up their own.
US is only 5℅ of the world's population and if the Military budget was 5% they would be a national defence Per capita. Any budget much more is a offence war budget of theif and murder.
I have seen volunteerism groups work in action around the world. People are generally good and will work volunteerally like ants for the greater good. Right now, you and me are volunteering and sharing information for the greater good. Only rule, be honest and don't harm.
It's always way cool when people make up numbers and declare that it's enough for national defense. And doubly so when it's because "that's what everyone else spends".
What if two countries attack at once?
What if our friend is attacked at the same time we are?
What if it happens when the attack is somewhere we have no forces because we fired 90% of them?
What if we need force at multiple places on the globe but can only supply one location?
What happens when we are putting up ancient equipment against modern forces?
5% of the budget is going to cover these scenarios? Don't be silly - what you really mean is don't worry about defense because you won't be attacked...a very obvious fallacy.
Not silly', America has been violent since 500 years ago when Columbus in the beginning of Christians, pirate, gold rush and slavery. Villains have been America great heros.
America has just about invaded a country per year for the last 7 years. China with second largest military budget has not invaded a country Vietnam. 1979.
Who is invading who?
America is the only big bully in big wars today.
They are no match against China/Russia together.
Would have a very tough time winning a war against a coalition of Russia and China. Alone, at least.
Which is the reason we should fire 90% or our military. Got it.
Good answer. Except that it didn't answer a single one of the questions.
" I have seen volunteerism groups work in action around the world. People are *generally good (*not good enough) and will work voluntarily like ants for the greater good."
Only rules:
1. "Be honest." It is a human tendency to lie if its in one's own interest and can get away with it. Not all have a conscience.
2. "Don't harm." People harm, sometimes when they don't even mean to. We all have those psychological glitches stemming from childhood or who knows what …
We actually have a pretty good system if we can just stay within the perimeters set forth in the Constitution.
Stop with the getting away with over zealous self-interest. Try a little patriotism.
Hold accountable those who, through blind ambition, lie, cheat and steal.
And prevent it from happening in the first place.
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.
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
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.
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
"Who is this society that will determine "need" if it isn't me?"
I don't know how much more clear you can be about the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many.
It has nothing to do with my perspective or agreeing with me. You label yourself without my help.
The needs of the many are determined by the many in the form of voters and institutions representing the many. That's how a society works! How can that not be more obvious?
If it is voters, and institutions that support voters, that determine the "needs,' isn't that me? I am a voter. My candidate says "needs' = "X," your candidate says "needs" equal "X+10." So we have an election to see what the "needs" will be. I think that was my original point.
I can appreciate your exasperation concerning my failure to understand that your determination of "the needs of the many" is the correct one. I too feel as if I am knocking my head against a brick wall in discussions about such issues.
ps. You are going to have to help me with this label thing... what label have I applied to myself? Selfish and self-important? Uncaring for my fellow man? Or just Conservative? Since we are pretty much in agreement on how "needs" should be determined, those were the first labels to come to mind based on your assertion that I think my needs are more important than the needs of the many.
GA
Yes, you are one member of a society that collectively determines the needs of that society.
I interpret your comments to mean that no one but an individual can determine the needs of the self and society. Is that what you mean by "Who is this society that will determine "need" if it isn't me?"
Maybe we are simply misunderstanding each other. Do you mean "me" or "you" exclusively or as a participant in a broader group?
To clear up any confusion, do you believe your needs are more important than the needs of the many?
Maybe I should have used define instead of label. You (generically) label or define yourself as the the sole determinant of your needs and society needs.
Define or label ... same thing. I did mean "me" specifically when referencing what I think "needs" should be, both self and society's, but that is only my opinion. (although I am quite sure of the self part and less sure of the society's part). I do understand that it is the collection of "me" voters that make the final determination of "needs."
You are a "me" too. Your definition of "needs" seems different than mine. You claim your determination of society's "needs' is right and mine is selfish and wrong. Nothing hard to understand there. You don't appear to think of your definition of "needs" as your opinion - you think of it as universal truth that you just have to convince the rest of "us" to accept.
GA
You completely misunderstand my point. I have an opinion about society's needs, but it is the groups and institutions that run society that determine the needs of society. You and I play relatively minor roles in that process.
You firmly stated that you alone are the determinant of society's needs. I don't see how that makes my original comment inaccurate: "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."
You also keep putting words in my mouth. I did not say that my determination of society's needs is righ and yours is selfish and wrong. I did not call you "Selfish and self-important? Uncaring for my fellow man? Or just Conservative?"
Peace be with you.
promisem, I can see the confusion relative to whether I meant "me" personally or generically. Especially when I meant it both ways. And speaking of putting word's in one's mouth, you got that 'sole determinant' thing wrong. I thought I was pretty clear that it was the collection of "me(s)" that made the societal determination. While still maintaining that it is "me" that can best determine my own individual needs, not a group or collection.
In this, and past comments of this discussion, my use of; you, I, and me, can be boiled down to generic inclusions. Nothing personal intended or taken.
If you say "I" think my needs are more important than the needs of the many, isn't that the same as saying "I" am selfish and feel self-important?
Unlike you, I think you and I, in the form of our votes, are very important to the process. It is we who determine the make-up of the group that will decide what society's "needs" are.
My assertion that "you" think your determination of society's needs is the right one was also both specific and generic. Consider your opinion of a Conservative's idea of what society's needs are vs. a Liberal's. Don't you promote your idea of society's needs to be better, (ie. "right"), than that of a Conservative?
The valid justification that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, (few), can be viewed as legitimate or illegitimate ... it all depends on the determination of "needs." Yours or mine. Ours or theirs.
GA
For the record, my comment "Your point is clearly that you are more important than the community" was not meant about you personally because I don't know you.
It was meant in the same generic way that you used the word "you" in your previous post. I apologize if that sentence implied that I meant you personally.
I'm curious to know how the rich benefit you as an individual and America as a country.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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:
Boy, aren't you on a roll, this morning...
I just have to get these posters put in virtual bronze frames
My sentiments exactly
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.
Why people want to vote between a lesser evil, is beyond me.
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.
That is modern democracy. Very, very sad.
"... 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!
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.
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.
To paraphrase Dennis Prager, it is more important to liberals that everyone be equally poor than anyone to be prosperous.
" 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?
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?
I have not met a single liberal in my entire life who thinks that way.
The old rob Peter to pay Paul. Have we learned nothing?
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?
Your talking sense, there is no desire for that around here. Lol
" 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?
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
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.
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.
>>> 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...
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
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?
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.
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)?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
A suggestion, if a company can prove their product is completely Healthy for everyone, allow them the sky as the limit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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 !
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
.
Not in this country. It begins with taking money from those that have it, at gunpoint if necessary, to give to someone else.
Actually, "We the PEOPLE" have Un-Claimed TRILLIONs in Wealth which needs to be "RECOUPED & Transfered" for the BENEFIT of ALL Americans ~
How Many BILLIONs would the GREED Driven Walton Family have if they had only 10 employees? Correct ANSWER? ZERO ~
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.
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.
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.
More Human Than Human
The fact is that a great majority simply don't care. As long as it ain't happening to you then it ain't your problem. You don't seem to have an issue with big government using your tax dollars to buy bullets and bombs to kill people. Oh, I'm sorry, I mean to defend your freedom. But you can't tolerate big government helping to prevent young children, and an entire city from being exposed to lead. And I have no doubt that you sleep very well at night, which is most remarkable. This is why I know that I am more human than human. I know this because it appears that you think like the majority of humans.If this were not true, Flint Michigan would have never suffered this tragedy.
I presume you have moved to Flint, donated all that you own and are scraping the pipes now.
Or not - hypocrisy is a great tool when used to take from others what they have earned because you know better than they how it should be spent. Somehow the noble idea of charity has become a demand that others pay the cost of the charity you want to see. 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.
Yes, I have done my share, and I continue to do so. But I whistle while I work. It is not in my character to boast of my generosity. But I will say that I write, and ghost-write articles, as well as propaganda for various progressive groups. Much of what I do is pro-bono, but I occasionally get paid. I don't live in a trailer park either. I am within walking distance of the beach, and I often correspond online with a laptop, sitting beneath a very large umbrella. Otherwise the screen is difficult to see. The ocean is a great inspiration. The smell of the ocean often reminds of the scent of a woman, and the entire experience of writing in such an environment can be quite inebriating.
I'm sure you do (your share to help the poor people of Flint that didn't maintain their equipment), at least as sure as I am of your massive IQ and sexiness.
But I DO wonder about the boasting, given that you boast about everything else, true or not.
You know, that is really unfair to suggest that all those little kids , the elderly, and all of the people struggling to survive and make a living are responsible for their own misery.
For the life of me, I can't understand why some of you here insist on telling me what I am "not". That's like someone telling Donald Trump he's not a billionnaire. Do you honestly think it would hurt his feelings? And how do you think Eric Clapton would feel if you told him he was a crappy guitar player? Do you suppose he would hang his head and cry?
Apparently it is true that misery loves company. It seems nobody wants to hear about how great someone's life is when their life isn't so great. But life hasn't always been great for me. I have had many ups and downs. I was almost homeless at one point, and during that time I had to pull out 3 of my teeth using a roll of white string. Days and weeks prior to each extraction, I had to flush my mouth with rubbing alcohol to kill the pain. Except for the last extraction, the first two extractions took several days to complete. Because of the pain, I had to gradually loosen each tooth . If not for my sexiness and good luck with women, I suspect I would have thrown in the towel years ago.
But of course it's quite fair that you get to demand what others have, to use for your purposes and projects. Got it.
Yes. Federal government should use tax dollars to defend the nation.
No. Federal government should not be called upon to handle state issues.
Edit:
Unless the govenors are this corrupt?
"When the governor appointed an emergency financial manager (in 2011), that person came here ... to simply do one thing and one thing only, and that's cut the budget, at any cost," said Michigan Congressman Dan Kildee.
Kildee said the water crisis is indicative of an attitude about industrial towns such as Flint that have seen hard times in the past 30 years. They're often just forgotten, he said.
"Later it became publicly known that FEDERAL LAW had not been followed. A 2011 study on the Flint River found it would have to be treated with an anti-corrosive agent for it to be considered as a safe source for drinking water.
Adding that agent would have cost about $100 a day, and experts say 90% of the problems with Flint's water would have been avoided."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/to … -michigan/
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-decl … -industry/
"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!"
hmmmmm……
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?
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!
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.......
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.
Mortally and legal well, there goes most of Corporatism.
If 99℅ of us rush them, we can take them.
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/
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.
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!
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 .
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
"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
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
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
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.
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?)
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?
"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.
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.
… looks like it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … snyder-in/
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?)
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.
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.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!
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.
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!
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.
GA
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.
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!
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.
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.
how can we stop an abuse of free (self-guided) will?
I ask!
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.
Yes, this would be the patriotic thing to do… but I know you pretty much hate American patriotism.
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.
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?
They can print money, yes power is the word.
Absolutely power corrupts.
Oh my' oh my ears Kathryn!!!
Sorry, but I'm yelling at all those greedy bastarts! Including those that over-work the presses.
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 )
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
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
Envy is greed's lazy, shiftless brother in law.
I know men in wheelchairs that became financially successful. Who wants their cut?
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.
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.
?
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.
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.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
Are poor chidren in America society destined to remain poor as their parents & grandparents, even becoming part of a designed, PERMANENT, impoverished underclass? Do you believe that such children PRESENTLY will NEVER advance educationally & socioeconomically because of...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Poor people have become the most entitled people in America. They believe that others should provide them with a comfortable lifestyle. They also assert that housing, education, & health services are a right. It used to be that poor people were humble. They knew...
by H C Palting 6 years ago
Why are the wealthy often hated AND envied?
by Thomas Byers 11 years ago
How can any American support the Republican Party???They are out of touch with reality and really don't care about the middle class and poor. We can only hope that the Hispanic people will vote for the Democrats and keep a Republican President out of office any time in the near future. Have you...
by Credence2 8 years ago
Politics are exciting to watch, it always fascinated me as to who the voter selects for their candidate and why. There has been a trend over the last 5 or 6 years of populist movements either to right in the case of the GOP or to left, in the case of the Democrats that defy the wisdom of their...
by Credence2 9 years ago
To the hard core GOP type conservative/rightwinger: you're ridiculous, yes ridiculous in a Col. Klink, Stalag 13 kind of way.The GOP, hoping to get the youth vote, are attempting to pit the Baby Boomer Generation against those younger people that came afterwardsThis comes from an article in the...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |