President Warren
What changes, benefits or detriments might she bring forth?
EW would put a “total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands,” and she would "ban fracking everywhere. “
An oil production slowdown in the United States could actually lead to a spike in oil and natural gas prices.
Renewables could be a big winner in a Warren White House as the focus shifts to clean energy. Which would coincide with Tesla, Ford and GM's combined efforts to go EV.
So long as the tax incentives return for those who purchase a new EV and convert to non-ICE vehicles, I have no problem with this. I like the idea of switching the country totally from ICE vehicles, making it all illegal for anything but rare classic cars to be on the roads come 2028.
This would also be a huge boon for the auto industry, to refit the entire nation's fleet of automobiles in a relatively short period of time would keep a dying industry alive (those like Tesla and GM who are ready for it).
------
Healthcare will be a issue that I suspect she will not be able to tackle, the Pharma, Insurance, Medical industry are just too big, too powerful... the only thing the ACA did was make them richer at the expense of working and retired Americans, with the excuse that a small (1 or 2%) of the population that couldn't get insurance before now got it.
We will not see Big Pharma, Insurance, Commercialized Medicine, done away with in America... anything that is passed by Congress will be like the ACA, something that makes things worse for the majority of Americans, not better.
Trump couldn't get them to repeal the ACA despite his "majority".
Congress is too corrupt for any President to overcome to defeat the giants of the medical industry.
----
Wall St. taxation, this is her primary focus, and it always has been, this is where she will use her political capital to make change.
Increasing the taxes on the capital gains rate to match the tax rate on income, and placing a limit on tax-free capital gains earned, a tax increase on the rich overall, I think this will be where she focuses her efforts... not on Healthcare, not on Energy (that will be secondary and easier to accomplish), but on taxation of Wealth.
----
My concern is that she keeps up pressure on China, and does not give in to their efforts to dominate the globe and do in our economy.The other quality that I see in Elizabeth Warren is that she approaches everything she does with diligence, in-depth knowledge, competence, and real courage. Obviously, she will also approach everything from a particular point of view, which I realize not everyone agrees with. But, at least we can be sure she will only support actions that are well thought out and based on real data and knowledge, even if they are also dramatically different from the mainstream. In other words, she will be both competent and innovative. I think some people hoped Trump would be innovative and were sorely disappointed. That is one reason I do not agree with those who say Warren cannot win a general election. People voted for Trump because they wanted to shake up the system. The problem is, in order to effect real change, one must work within the system, not simply take a sledgehammer to it.
I think if anyone has a chance of reigning in corruption, it is Elizabeth Warren.
I think he has fought a good fight against the corruption rampant in D.C.
For those who have open eyes, we have seen a cabal that has been exposed. Comey, Brennan, Strzok, Clinton, and many more have been flushed out of D.C. these people considered themselves above the law, or a law unto themselves, rules didn't apply to them... power hungry, corrupt to the core, willing to send millions to their deaths without the slightest concern.
But I don't think D.C. is close to being cleaned up, those who are traitors to the people of America have lost some of their top leadership, but there are many more where they came from... Biden is one such of them.
Say what you want of Trump, but he is the only President in 30 years that has challenged China's march to global domination.
Trump is the only President in the last 30 years that hasn't found an excuse to start a new war or occupy another country.
Trump is the only President in 25 years that told countries like Canada, Mexico, and Germany that the trade agreements that were hurting our economy were no longer going to work.
Trump has kept the economy chugging along, better than it had been doing in decades. And if that is still the case come November 2020, it will be the defacto reason why he gets re-elected.
You under-estimate the depths of the corruption. You have to attack it openly, for it will certainly attack you.
Russian Conspiracy... contrived to cripple Trump's Administration right out of the gate, and take away as many of his supporters as they could.
Ukraine Quid Pro Quo.... I want to know how looking into Biden's BLATANT corruption and abuse of position became an investigation into Trump?
Oh, that's right, a corrupt Congress and even more corrupt Media (controlled by the worst elements out there). CNN, NYTimes, WPost, are tools of powerful people who have agendas, nothing more than propaganda outlets... anyone who thinks they are bastions of truth and defenders of liberty are kidding themselves.
The same forces arrayed against Trump will work to defeat/deter Warren as well.I'm sorry. I cannot ever view Trump as more honorable than Brennan or Comey. Nor Clinton, for that matter.
As for the rest, I'll just let it be.One doesn't have to see the good in Trump.
One merely has to recognize the corruption of those who desperately tried to remain in power.
I don't care if someone likes or hates Trump, just so long as they recognize the cover ups and criminal acts of Clinton and the rest.
Warren I can support, because she isn't a 'life long' corrupt D.C. hack, like Biden is, like Clinton was.Clinton wasn't a "lifelong DC hack". The Clintons were basically newcomers to DC, proven by the fact that Bill previously had served 6 terms as governor of the State of Arkansas. Republicans just don't like them because Bill left a balanced-budget in his wake every time he served in a capacity where he could do that, and Republicans hate the sound of "balanced budget."
The Clintons were newcomers... back in the early 90s.
More than 20 years later.. that makes them DC hacks.
The type that never leaves until they are forced to leave.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, SoS Clinton.... 2016 D.C. insiders wanted yet another Bush to run against Clinton.
Nothing says 'lifer' like a quarter century of the same two families vying for position and power in D.C.I think Republicans don't like the Clintons simply because they're Democratic. Republicans, it appears, hate anyone and anything that has liberal or democratc to it.
When people hate that much, one has to ask why. It's a mental illness.
Your thoughts about Comey. Brennan, etc. are out of Hannity's and Limbaugh's playbook, Ken. But you'll find out really how wonderful Trump is when the hearings are open to the public in a week or two. Get your new excuses ready......
None. her agenda is insulting to anyone that can add 2 + 2... She is pandering to the simple-minded, the ones with their hand out. Unfortunately, this type can be told just about anything and they believe it. Fortunately, this type is in the minority.
One would think the Dems would realize this promise them anything politicking does not sell well anymore. Actually it is demeaning to most.And Mexico will pay for the wall! And we'll lock her up! And I won't play golf!
And so much winning! You'll be sick of winning!
Those are promises for those with complex thinking skills, though.And I won't make hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers by forcing government employees to stay in my resorts.
"A $1 trillion spending bill Trump signed Friday while in Bedminster includes $61 million to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the costs of protecting Trump and his family when they are at his private properties in New York and Florida. "
"That bill also adds $58 million for additional Secret Service costs such as rent in Trump Tower and housing for agents at Mar-a-Lago."
https://fortune.com/2017/05/08/donald-t … ity-costs/
And that's just the security costs.How about discussing the question? -"What changes, benefits or detriments might she (Warren) bring forth?"
What's your thought on Warren? What changes, benefits or detriments might she (Warren) bring forth?"
Why deflect off subject with old repeats of what you feel Trump has perpetrated?I was responding directly to Panther's comment. That means it wasn't a deflection.
Her comment was in response to your partisan and inflammatory rhetoric, which truly was off topic:
"Unfortunately, this type can be told just about anything and they believe it. Fortunately, this type is in the minority."
Otherwise, feel free to ask me directly about Warren in a civil way and I will reply accordingly.My apologies. the comment was meant for PP. My mistake.
Actually I only commented on the threads question. PP stepped in and it's old news now...
PrettyPanther profile image84PrettyPantherposted 25 hours ago
My first comment - SHARLEE01 WROTE:
None. her agenda is insulting to anyone that can add 2 + 2... She is pandering to the simple-minded, the ones with their hand out. Unfortunately, this type can be told just about anything and they believe it. Fortunately, this type is in the minority.
One would think the Dems would realize this promise them anything politicking does not sell well anymore. Actually it is demeaning to most.
PrettyPanther reply --- And Mexico will pay for the wall! And we'll lock her up! And I won't play golf!
And so much winning! You'll be sick of winning!
Those are promises for those with complex thinking skills, though.
And I'll share my tax returns after I'm elected.
"Complex thinking skills" I will take this opportunity to reorient you to the subject. The question that was asked; I was responding to the subject of the thread ---"What changes, benefits or detriments might she (Warren) bring forth?" Nowhere in my comment was the mention of Trump or any comparison of Warren.
Here are the comment and your reply ----
"SHARLEE01 WROTE:
None. her agenda is insulting to anyone that can add 2 + 2... She is pandering to the simple-minded, the ones with their hand out. Unfortunately, this type can be told just about anything and they believe it. Fortunately, this type is in the minority.
One would think the Dems would realize this promise them anything politicking does not sell well anymore. Actually it is demeaning to most."
Your reply
"And Mexico will pay for the wall! And we'll lock her up! And I won't play golf!
And so much winning! You'll be sick of winning!
Those are promises for those with complex thinking skills, though."
Complex thinking skills should allow one to respond to the subject being asked. Not having to resort to deflecting to the past, regurgitating old unrelated subjects. Trump's wall has been beaten to death and has nothing to do with what Warren or the agenda she is offering. I am not going to list Trump's accomplishments on a thread about Warren.
I am not a recruiter or do I care what anyone else thinks about the president. I feel he is doing a good job solving many problems that have plagued the country for a very long time. All the "he said this, and he said that" means nothing to me. It's all about his job performance.
It appears you have a history of playing the comparison game, deflecting off subject. I am not about to play that game. Move on, that game gets old and I must say boring. How about discussing Warren, the subject?
Work on your own thinking skills... It's very apparent you need to.Since you judged people who support Warren as "simple-minded," and you are Trump defender, I am exercising my simple-mindedness to point out that you, the judger, support a candidate who promised Mexico would pay for a wall, among other equally ludicrous things.
Just wondering why you haven't identified Trump voters as simple-minded?
Oh, never mind. lolI guess you could have surmised I voted for Trump due to his promise to build "the wall". It is clear you take a lot for granted. I voted for Trump due to his agenda to decrease tax, get rid of ISIS, and hopefully to pull out of NAFA and renegotiate a new trade deal with Canada as well as Mexico. And hopefully to get a fairer trade deal with China. Never bought into the Wall BS. However, he has just about full filed my wish list... Oh, he also promised to get people off Welfare, check. I could go on but not about to waste my energy.
I guess you surmise simple-minded Warren supporters vote for her because of her promises, too. If you don't like assumptions being made about you, perhaps you should stop making assumptions about others.
Could you address my comment? Once again you deflect. We were discussing the Wall and the fact you felt I voted for Trump due to his promise to build the wall. I pointed out I did not vote for him for that promise. I have provided you with the reason I voted for Trump, and that he has lept most of the promises he made that gave me the incentive to vote for him.
To address your present comment --- I think my very first post on this thread gives my thoughts very clearly. To repeat ---None. her agenda is insulting to anyone that can add 2 + 2... She is pandering to the simple-minded, the ones with their hand out. Unfortunately, this type can be told just about anything and they believe it. Fortunately, this type is in the minority.
One would think the Dems would realize this promise them anything politicking does not sell well anymore. Actually it is demeaning to most."
Fist, no one has voted for the 2020 election?
Second, yes I feel many simple-minded people would vote for Warren due to her promises. In all reality, she knows her promises are unobtainable. She is pandering to people that are not realistic in regard to the cost of her promises. her promises are unrealistic.
I have made my point you can't concentrate on subject and deflect. You have done just that once again.
Warren is a life-long conservative who was abandoned by the Republican Party and absorbed into the Democrat Party by default. She fundamentally disagrees that the current system is inherently flawed. She talks tough to individual Wall Street executives, but since she lacks understanding of the roots and depths of our problems she has no hope of dealing with let alone defeating them. She's just okay and okay won't beat Trump - let alone the system which produced his ascension to power
She has nothing to offer... Her agenda is one that is highly ridiculous. I personally feel she is ill equipt to be president. Warren openly panders with promises she herself realizes she could never achieve. It makes one wonder? Why the Dems can't come up with a candidate that offers a good attractive agenda? Go figure...
Did she say Mexico will pay for the wall like another candidate promised in his agenda?
None. Elizabeth Warren is a politician who has proven herself to be a successful chameleon, changing stated views to garner votes. If she wins the primary she'll have to morph into another complete stance to woo the 45% of democrats who say they aren't liberal.
Just another politician whoring themselves for votes with the ultimate goal to gain power, not serve the people.I don't know what Warren will bring.
At the beginning of Bernie's first campaign, I loved the things she said.
Then she didn't endorse him. And didn't endorse him. And when Hillary won the DNC, she endorsed Hillary.
I had seen videos of her condemning Hillary for hypocrisy before, and I was stunned.
I have never trusted her since.
I keep hearing now that she changes with the wind, and just says/does what will benefit her career. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know.
I do know that I thought that Obama would do more, and to my mind, he was a miserable failure at putting forward progressive changes.Tess, I wish that Warren had attempted her run for office in 2016. I was begging her to run.
I supported Sanders, because Clinton was trying to straddle two sides of the party, two distinct factions and she convinced neither, that is why she could lose to so great a bafoon as Trump. You can't appeal to both the party establishment and address growing populist movement from the left at the same time. Sanders was clear and distinct as to which side he was on. Warren's loyalty to Clinton kept her from directly challenging her. Supporting Trump was out of the question, so I supported Clinton as the least problematic choice.
Warren has had a track record as a crusader for working and middle class people that goes beyond mere rhetoric and sound bites. She has been after Wall Street and the big money changers throughout career as is true with Bernie Sanders.
There was sea change in the Democratic Party between 2012 and 2016, the center left heralded by Bill Clinton and followed by Barack Obama.
Obama could not do more as the obstinacy of his opponents made it impossible to get much of his substantive ideas into law. The lesson learned is that in these times the GOP has to be soundly defeated in both houses of Congress as well as the Executive branch before any progress can be made. Bill Clinton was a brilliant politician, with more experience, better than Obama and he came along at a time when the ideological opposition between our two political parties was simply not as great.I never liked either Clinton. I find them both corrupt.
Lots of stuff.
But they are in the past.
I have been a progressive for 54 years. Not going to change now.
Before Obama got the nomination, I had a conversation with a very liberal friend (a male) who was for Obama. Our conversation went like this: "So you're not supporting Obama, aren't you being a racist?"
Me: "Hey, you're not supporting Hillary, aren't you being a misogynist?"
Him: "Touche!"
I did tell him the reason I didn't support Obama was that I found him to be too indecisive, a characteristic that I saw in him while he was president.I did have my doubts before he was elected president. I thought he was a mite too conservative. I was also shocked when he appointed conservatives to economic positions.
I didn't like Hillary, though. Still don't.
For me, it's more about progressive politics than identify politics.Why does a person such as yourself have such an obsession with the United States? You don't like our economic system, you say it is an unsafe, unfair place. So why do you obsess about us? Are the politics in South Africa not enough to hold your attention? Is that it?
Why does it bother you that she follows U.S. politics and shares her knowledge and opinions?
Who said I'm bothered by it? I just want to understand the obsession.
Lol, it is my opinion that you are bothered by it, just as it is your opinion that she is "obsessed."
She posts on the political forums far less frequently than many others here, so I guess you consider those more frequent posters to be extra "obsessed"?Are you a paid representative or are you just doing this pro bono? Just wondering.
Well, Tess is one of the few truly articulate liberals on HP. I've seen how she handles people who disagree with her. She doesn't need any help from anyone defending herself on any topic. What you call a hostile tone, I call the beginning of a spirited debate with one of the few worthy adversaries around here.
"She' is not a liberal, and 'she' takes offence at being called a liberal. 'She' is a progressive, and 'she' has been a progressive since 1966 which she signed up for her first political membership of a political party (The Progressives) in South Africa.
Progressive politices were very popular in the USA at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century. You can google that.
Progressive politics are not so much about 'freedom' as they are about practical solutions at leveling the playing fields so that all people can have equal opportunity. Progressives support justice and equality for all.
But thanks for the support.
I didn't say you had a hostile tone. I said you were bothered by her "obsession."
I'm not defending her; I am questioning your assessment.
Republicans have to find a negative reason for anyone not agreeing with them. It can't be that there is a fault in their reasoning or their perspective. It has to be something innately wrong with their character.
No worries.
I think Panther was just picking up on a hostile tone.
Understand the difference between being able to converse to people of any country about their internal politics and 'obsession.'
I also support Jeremy Corbyn and I think Brexit will destroy the UK.
I think Angela Merkel took a wrong turning. Do you know who that is?
What do you think about Nigerian property prices? Do you even know?
How about Australia moving increasingly to the right?
What do you think of India's farmer's comming suicide?
It's important to know what is happening in the world around you. If people on hubpages spoke about other politics in the UK, I would pass opinions on that, too.
With regard to Cyril Ramaphosa, I don't see any posts about him. In my opinion, though, he won't be able transform the South African economy. He's got the wrong end of the stick. The real issue is underpaying workers. South Africa has the greatest gap between the top guys and the bottom guys.
Forcing people to pay for an education when they can't afford bread is not particularly going to get an economy going. He should have a look at what Estonia did.
Any other comments about my interest in American politics?
Probably.
I don't know.
I've had years of being 'attacked' by conservatives.
I think the thing that truly disturbes me about them is their absolute conviction that they are the lords of the universe and everybody else must come second to them."I think the thing that truly disturbes me about them is their absolute conviction that they are the lords of the universe and everybody else must come second to them."
LOL Much like the "progressive" or "liberal" conviction that they are the lords and own everything that others worked to build, right?The idea that you built it and they didn't is a piece of propaganda. It simply isn't true. Most liberals have jobs and they vote to help the disadvantaged. I find something truly sick and inhumane in the conservative mindset
Fair enough: I find something truly sick and inhumane with the "progressive" that wants to take what I have built, often with my own two hands, and give it to someone else that refuses to support themselves. The "Progressive" mindset that considers that everything in the world belongs to them to do with as they wish is a very real problem in this world.
Again. Propaganda. And you believe it
Progressives do not want to take what you built with your own two hands and give it to someone else.
You aren't rich, and you certainly aren't close to paying an increased tax.
In fact, under progressivism,you will probably pay less tax - if any tax at all.
There are probably 400 people in the world who will be stripped of their wealth, and as only 26 or 27 of them own half the wealth of the world, I think it's fair to say that those 400 people own about 80% of the world's wealth.
Why don't you Google that?
So your few pennies are quite safe, and it says something about your level of ignorance that you even think you have something worth taking away.
You would be in a lot better position as a result of progressivism.
When you fully understand just how those people amassed that kind of money, you will understand that they did it at the expense of humanity.
Maybe it is time you started broadening your education and stopletting the 50 year old propaganda bullarkey of the USA influence you?
Shame on you.
Sorry - the blisters on my hands and my aching back say different. So do the scars here and there from on-the-job accidents, or the now healed broken ribs. The now expired (I'm now retired, living off of what I built) card indicating four years of trade school (that I paid for) and the room full of personal tools purchased solely for use on the job - all are a very good indication that I did indeed work, and work hard at considerable personal expense and sacrifice, to build what I have. It does not belong to you or anyone else, including the "progressives" that would take it to give away to someone else.
To call it "propaganda" is spin of the worst sort and hasn't a shred of reality in it. It may be the "progressive" way, but there is no connection to the reality of life. The ethics of playing Robin Hood, forcibly taking from one to give to another, is beyond my comprehension - it can only come from an innate conclusion that the progressive liberal owns the world and is in charge of determining who gets what. Although might makes right in this case, and they sometimes have the might to do just that, the ethics of the matter seem beyond their comprehension. They are not the Lords of the world.Unless you are a multi billionaire, the few pennies you have are of no consequence
If you had any sort of wealth worth speaking about, you would not be on hunpages. You would be gallavanting around the world with the likes of Jeff Bezoz and Micheal Dell.
I doubt you have any idea of what real wealth looks like. For a start you wouldn't have blistered hands from having it built yourself.
Hell my sister is probably in a better position than you are. She just paid a couple of million cash for anew house to be built.
You have too little to count.
You are being used by billionaires to ensure that you are others continue to live in poverty. That way they can continue underpaying people like you so that you have to build your home with your bare hands.
They have you hook, line, and sinker.
Why don't you actually read books like 'Capital in the 21st Century?'
You have no idea what wealth looks like.
I can give you a 100% guarantee that from where I stand you aren't worth taxing. You need at least $25 million tobe worth looking at
So stop with the bullarkey that progressives want to take away your hard-earned money. They don't
They want to tax people like the Walton's 90%. After all. Walmart seriously underpays it's workers and even advises it's workers how to claim foodstamps so that the Walton family can go on buying up gold plated yachts
If we had progressivism, you wouldn't have had bruised hands. And you certainly wouldn't have been brainwashed to believe the lies you have.Ah! Them I am nothing and not worth looking at.
You might want to take a good hard look at where the billions the US treasury takes in in income taxes comes from. It isn't the rich - it's the vast middle class. People like me, that are paying over $200 per month just for the "privilege" of owning a home in a medium size town. Plus, of course, income taxes, sales taxes, water taxes, vehicle taxes/fees, RV taxes, park fees (sticker on the car to enter a state park)...the list is endless and the total comes to half the income for most people in this country.
No, Tess, it isn't the rich supporting this country - it is the workers in the middle class doing so, although I certainly do acknowledge that they would take 90% of what the wealthy have built if they could get it, too.
(I do have to wonder, though, what proof you have that Walmart "seriously underpays" it's workers. Do you have access to their P&L statements and have you done the work to figure out how much profit they make and where it goes? Or are you just climbing on the bandwagon and making claims you cannot begin to support? Who or what made you the judge of what the labor from every employee is valued at anyway?)
Wow. I am not obsessed. I also pass commentary on British politics, etc. I am interested in political systems.
I also lived in the USA for 11 years, plus my daughter has been there now for 16 years.
For the record, newspapers all over the world write about American politics - as they write about the politics of other countries.
Do you read international media?
I do.
Let me give you some links.
Here's the German Der Spiegl on Donald Trump.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo … 90654.html
Here's the British Guardian on Donald Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv … m-morrison
Here's the Middle East's Al-Jazeera on Donald Trump.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/ … 34347.html
Here's France 24 on Donald Trump
https://www.france24.com/en/20191031-tr … nt-inquiry
Here's a South African news source on Trump
https://www.news24.com/World/News/trump … y-20191031
While I realize that some Americans are only concerned with their own country, the rest of us are widely educated and we take it as a point of pride that we know what is happening in the rest of the world. We read news sources from all over the world.
This is not 'an obsesssion.' It is the sign of a well informed, well educated human being.See, I knew you didn't need anyone to come to your defense. You are quite capable of handling any criticism on your own. Thanks for showing your skill with the English language. Most American liberals are not this detailed.
I will confess, I don't care what any other country thinks about President Donald Trump. I care about the United States and the Ukraine. As far as I'm concerned, I don't concern myself with the politics of other countries as it really isn't my business. ALL of them have their own struggles and problems. It is for them to figure out.
I don't worry about things like Brexit as I can't vote or influence it in any way. I just have to accept what happens. It is an issue for the English. I would never voice an opinion on it. I have no idea why the British would even care what I think about it.People in other countries don't individually care about what individuals think. They do care about the political policies of other countries because we live in a global village and, like it or not, we affect one another.
The more powerful a country is, the more it affects the well being of individuals in other countries.
Let me give you an example of that.
The American IRS doesn't want Americans living and earning in South Africa to get any money that it doesn't know about. So it has 'influenced' the South African government to put certain financial rules of exchange into place. It also doesn't want Americans to send money to South Africa in case of money laundering.
These financial 'rules' impact negatively on people like me.
When I receive foreign exchange, it takes me up to two hours standing in a bank having to prove why and from whom I'm receiving money. I have to provide the lease of where I am staying or proof of property ownership. It is a nightmare.
I also can't just receive money from paypal. Nope. I have to go through one central bank, sign into that bank, then answer why I am receiving that money, and then answer a whole lot of things, and then it transfer me through to paypal where the money is transferred to that particular bank, and then I have to ask that particular bank to transfer it into my own bank.
Oh, yes, and each of these people take a slice of the cookie.
So, thank you, but America has a way of interfering in other countries that annoys the hell out of the people from other countries. So we have a vested interested in who becomes president of the USA.
We prefer you to mind your own business, but you don't. You interfere consistenly in the affairs of other countries.
It's also important for us to know that Japan is slaughering whales again, because that impacts the eco-system in the ocean, and the ocean is fundamental to life on earth, so by Japan doing that, it affects all of us.
It's important for us to know why there are wars in the Middle East or in South America because the refugees come to live in our countries, so we want to know why. It affects us.
We cannot make informed decisions if we don't know the root causes of what is happening. So we keep informed of what is happening in other countries.
No man is an island.Well, I don't know how to respond. Yeah, you're right about what you mentioned. I think I'm like a lot of people who are self-employed. I have to work such long hours each day, I don't have the time to worry about it.
So, now that you know about things going on in other countries, what do you do about it? What can anyone but those in those countries such as Japan do about it? There are organizations around the world who fight the Japanese whale fishing boats. I've seen videos of civilian boats throwing stuff at them, ramming them and more.
I don't know your writing history, but if you aren't doing far more than Hubpages, you have the writing talent to go far beyond it.You just made me laugh!
Yup. I've been told I'm a brilliant writer since I was 13 or 14. I was published by the time I was 11.
I'm also on the autistic spectrum, and while living in America, I turned down an opportunity working for a million dollar salary at an ad agency, declined an invitation by some Hollywood producers to go on a Screenwriter's course at their expense.
They liked my short stories.
I also turned down numerous other things.
Why?
Because by that time I had faced so much sexual harassment that I thought these people were simply offering me these things because of my looks.
That was 15 years ago - or thereabouts.
I now realize there were ways I could have handled it, but things only began to fall into place when I was 62 (I'm now 68). I finally realized at the age of 62 that people were self-interested.
Thus the vagaries of Aspergers.
In any event, I just got 98% on the Fiverr grammar test. Then declined to do the other tests because I was too scared of failing. My Good Reads aggregate score is 4.3 despite some idiot (a past flat mate who hates my guts for being an INTJ) giving me one star without reading a single thing I wrote.
And, yes, of course, my reviews have always been good.
But I have no capacity whatsoever to negotiate with other people. I also don't understand what it is they want from me.
I have truly tried to write for other people, but they confuse me. They tell me they want one thing, and then when I give it to them, they want to correct it. And I know that what they're asking me to do is bad grammar or not factual, etc.
And, of course, people want me to work for them gratis.
I've got a few books that sell regularly every month. I earn from Patron - a few bucks per month - people who are convinced for some reason that I'm a good writer and will eventually achieve something.
I've now just started working on a screenplay. Perhaps that will work out.
You never know.
Anyway, thanks.
With regard to the activist organisations, they can't do much without the clout of countries and the general population behind them. Same thing with climate change and a thousand other issues we face on this planet.
As you mentioned, because you're very busy, you don't read that much. I read for about four or five hours every day. But I also know that when I have to do things, I find it exhausting, and then I can't read, so I fully understand where you are coming from.
Thank you for your understanding.
Yes, of course, it's the middle class. That's what the status quo do. That's why we need progressive candidates - not liberals and republicans.
Progressives aren't intending to tax the middle classes - just the super, super rich.
You're not rich if you have a million in the bank.
Yes, of course, the workers are supporting this country, and they're being stolen from, taken from, demolished, etc.
Your mistake is in thinking that conservatives are going to fix that. Conservatives are only interested in protecting the wealth of the super rich.
Progressives want to tax the right people and let the majority - 85% live well.
You've got the wrong end of the stick.
If you're asking me about Walmart, then you're reading the wrong news sources. The people at the top get paid well. The people at the bottom starve."Progressives aren't intending to tax the middle classes - just the super, super rich."
If that were true they would have to cancel many, if not most, of their grandiose spending plans. If you not tax the super rich but simply confiscate ALL their wealth it wouldn't run this country for a single year - next year there is no income at all.
So the statement is false on the face of it, for without the income from the middle class the progressive will fail almost immediately.
"The people at the top get paid well. The people at the bottom starve."
Meaning you haven't the faintest and have done zero research into the actual numbers. But a tip: in the US no one starves. That's just another gross exaggeration to make an emotionally appealing point, but a point without connection to reality.I don't know how you draw the conclusions you do.
Are you suggesting that everybody is going to stop working and stop producing if the super rich are taxed 90% - as they were in the 50s and 60s?
The economy was remarkably boyant then - despite the rich being taxed that much. Why do you think that taxing the super rich will kill the economy?
As a result of taxing the rich that much, there were a lot of services. The middles classes were well paid, etc.
I don't think you have any idea of just how rich the super rich are. When six people own half the wealth of the world, you cannot begin to conceive how rich these people are.
The combined wealth of the top 400 Americans is $2.9 trillion. They are all billionnaires. Indeed, there are 621 billionaires in America. A trillion is one million multiplied by another million.
$1,000,000,000,000,000,000.
So 400 people have nearly $3,000,000,000,000,000,000 between them.
And you think that it's not okay to tax them 90%? They used to be taxed 90%. (91%, in fact). The country operated just fine.
Please note that these are only the billionnaires - not the millionaires.
Added to these numbers, there are 18,600,000 millionaires in the USA.
Let's say they are taxed 50%. I think $500,000 to live off each year is more than sufficient.
Please tell me that isn't enough tax to run the country. And, yes, I have done the figures - so have many other people.
Understand one thing - as you have pointed out - the wealth is generated by the workers, i.e. the people who do the physically work - not the people who own the companies. People are still going to grow food, build homes, program computers. They don't need the top tier to do that.
We just need some reorganisation here.
And, of course, the super rich are giving you and others every other reason why it won't work - they would, wouldn't they? But it worked in the 50s and it woriked in the 60s, and it worked in other countries, and at other times.
If you honestly think that there aren't people starving in America, then you don't read very well, or very widely.
QUOTE: n 2017, 40 million people struggled with hunger in the United States.
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11 … -hunger-us
There are 196 countries in the world. South Africa, the country I am currently staying in is the most unequal country in the world. America is 13th from the bottom.
And it has to do with the inequality. You have no conception of the wealth of those who rule you.
When they convince you that some progressives are going to take your wealth, they're using your ignorance to get you to protect theirs. They have no interest in you whatsoever.
Stop being used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/p … h-tax.htmlActually it is almost
$3,000,000,000,000
Not $3,000,000,000,000,000,000
You have a few to many zeros for TrillionI checked it out before I wrote this. Yes, it's $2.9 trillion. Call me a liar for a .1%.
A trillion is a million multiplied by a million, so you add 9 noughts on to a million.I wasn't calling you a liar or saying anything about your point...
But, 1 Trillion is written:
1,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000
You add 12 zeros behind the identifying whole number for Trillion (or double the zeros of the number you are multiplying by itself Million x Million). In the case of your $2.9 Trillion...it would be written: $2,900,000,000,000
The number you wrote, is Billion x Billion
As so often happens, your "facts" are far from factual. For instance, the top tax rate used to be 90%...but no one paid it. A very simple point, but one that is central to your idea that it WAS paid, and in a vibrant economy.
Likewise, the combined wealth of the top 400 people is 2.9 trillion...in a country with a proposed budget next year of nearly 5 trillion. You barely have enough to run the country for 6 months by confiscating the total wealth of the richest 400 people in the country. Assuming, of course, that the proposal is actually enough to do the job, and it hasn't been for years.
"Added to these numbers, there are 18,600,000 millionaires in the USA.
Let's say they are taxed 50%. I think $500,000 to live off each year is more than sufficient."
Are you trying to claim that someone that has saved, scrimped and managed to save a million dollars receives an income of a million each year? Or that if they spend half their total wealth and you take the rest, you can repeat the process next year? Again, your "facts" aren't facts at all. But in addition to that, those millions are not yours and you do not own them. Other people do, and you have zero ethical right to simple take, by force, what others own. Not even if you think that can do with less, and not even if you think they have too much.
"Understand one thing - as you have pointed out - the wealth is generated by the workers, i.e. the people who do the physically work - not the people who own the companies."
Really? Cars will still be made without a factory to make them in? Without steel to form? Without use of power, water and other materials? Farmers will make grow just as much food without diesel fuel, new tractors and fertilizer? Where do you think these things all come from? It certainly isn't the worker making cars or the farmer growing grain. It comes from someone that has the wherewithal to finance such operations and they darn sure deserve a return on the use of their wealth.
On top of that, the hordes of white collar workers, not producing a car or house or refrigerator will certainly take offense at the insinuation that they aren't generating wealth.
"If you honestly think that there aren't people starving in America, then you don't read very well, or very widely."
From Mirriam Webster:
Definition of starve
intransitive verb
1a: to perish from lack of food
People do not die from starvation in this country. That they "struggle with hunger" is even rare, at least if the safety nets are used properly (a parent trading food stamps for drugs is not using it properly).
"You have no conception of the wealth of those who rule you."
Perhaps I don't. But for absolute sure you don't, for there are no people in the world with the unlimited funds you attribute to them. And I do know the difference between $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) and $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. You have overstated it by a factor of one million.Your comments are so stupid that I don't even know how to answer them. How do you think you're running the country now?
It's been run on taxes.
If you think that the piddly little taxes that the majority pay is greater than the tax that billionnaires will pay, all I can say is that you need to go back to high school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … -50-years/
Anyway, have it your own way. I don't care.
Let's just say Eighty percent of Millennials are socialsits, and that's the economy that you're going to be getting. The baby boomers are simply going to be outvoted.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/468 … ailed-them
https://nbc24.com/news/local/millennial … lism-label
But don't worry, you'll still keep the house you built with your own two hands, and you might even realize that you've been wrong all these years.
People like you only learn the hard way.And people like you don't learn at all, for they refuse to look at facts rather than pie-in-the-sky ideas that don't work.
You might, for instance, run the math on what "piddly little taxes" from 150 million people pay compared to the total that the handful of billionaires pay. 150 million taxpayers is a lot of people, and a few billionaires are not going to total up nearly as much. It is simple, third grade, arithmetic.
I do apologize, though, for not including a link, for I had intended to. Here it is: https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/ … t-tax-rate
It states that the taxes paid by the top 20% (not the uber-rich that is all you want to tax) have gone from about 50% or the total to around 70%. Please notice that the top quintile includes income from only $92,000...you can hardly tax them a half million per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in … ted_States
It also ends with the comment, referring to the quaint notion that anyone paid 90% of their income in taxes, that "Regardless of what you think the tax rate should be, it doesn’t help anyone to pull up bogus, out-of-context statistics to make your case."
Yes, millennials were socialists. "Were" being the operative word - as they find that it is they being robbed of what they have worked for they are leaving that philosophy behind very quickly.
But I'm not so sure that I can keep my home - too many people like you that feel it belongs to them even though they did nothing whatsoever to build it.
Finally, if you want to discuss "stupid comments" you can start with your link purportedly showing that the top quintile pays the majority of taxes...a link that doesn't mention taxes anywhere in it.Wilderness, I don't like discussing anything with conservatives. They don't see the big pictures, can't work with the details.
Science has shown that the brains of conservatives are incapable of complex thought. And so they are.
Where did I say that the top quintile pays the majority of taxes? They evade taxes. And the link wasn't about that.
I'm truly sorry you think anyone is interested in your home. You're not rich. I think you're suffering from paranoia.
Nobody is interested in your home.
They want:
Universal health care
Solid education without loans a lifetime of loans to pay for it.
Gun control
etc.
None of this has anything to do with taking your home.
You really do suffer from paranoia if you think anyone is interested in what you have. You wouldn't be on hubpages if you had any sort of decent money."Science has shown that the brains of conservatives are incapable of complex thought."
LOL Tess, you have more BS in your posts than anyone on these forums! And more willingness to descend into nothing but insults without truth, too.
"Nobody is interested in your home."
LOL And when I quit paying the taxes on it they will say nothing and leave me in peace to live there. You claim to have lived in the US - you have to know better.
"They want:
Universal health care
Solid education without loans a lifetime of loans to pay for it.
Gun control"
And in the US, most education is paid for by property taxes. Meaning tax onhomes, including mine. Again, having lived here you have to know better - why do you say these things?
As far as the rest, yes, people want these things and much more. And liberals like you will buy them, not with your earnings but with someone else's. Someone like me that has a small nest egg to make my elder years comfortable and enjoyable, but that you want in order to serve your own interests and goals.
I don't have "decent" money - my total net worth is probably under a quarter million. Do you? If you actually have earned a decent living and wealth then you know better than to think no one is interested in it.
But how is it that you haven't replied to any of the points made? Are you trying to use insults to distract from them? Do you just wish they would go away and allow you to continue with untruths and so ignore them? Did you not understand the arithmetic explaining why your grandiose plan to steal from a small handful of people to meet your goals won't work?You know, I've lived in many countries, and I've traveled to a great many more.
During my years under apartheid, the white Afrikaaners were convinced the black people would take their homes if they ever came to power.
Well, 20 years on, and all the white people still have all the wealth. Nobody took away their homes or their cars or their jewelry.
I've watched bullarkey stories in Scotland (where I have voted), England (where I have voted), South Africa (where I have voted). Unfortunately, I would not give up my German citizenship to take American citizenship, but when I went to renew my Green Card, they wanted to know why I didn't want citizenship. (Two thirds of immigrants don't take up citizenship.)
I've heard every type of prejudice in my life, I think. This one hates Jews, and that one hates liberals, and that one thinks people with dark skins are 'of the devil.' And so it goes. To loosely translate from my original home langugue. "One must watch out for 'the red danger' and 'the black danger' because they'll take everything we have. I've heard it all the time.
I can't change your beliefs, Wilderness. You've been brainwashed by your society. You've never worked in another country (outside the American military if you joined them at any point). You know very little about anything - in my opinion. I grew up with the nonsense you believe in. I eventually got an education - by traveling and living in many countries (plus of course, the degree).
Me?
The way I figure it, the only people who are winning in this lot are the people who have more money than god, and they keep on taking it, and people are getting poorer and poorer.
And then they blame all the poor people around them for not working, for taking their jobs, for all sorts of stuff.
Meanwhile it's the rich that are screwing you all.
And all the time the planet is burning. Our eco-systems are dying. Our sea is dying.
Einstein said it. I believe it.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."None of which has anything at all to do with the notion that taxing the uber rich at 90% of their income will support the country. Is there some reason you've left the topic in favor of explaining how knowledgeable you are and how evil anyone that has managed to save some money is?
But I'm curious - how do you justify, morally or ethically, forcibly taking what others own in order to fund your grand plans? Have you convinced yourself that it belongs to you because your heart is good? Do you not care about the morally of theft? Do you deny the concept of ownership of anything at all? Do you just set aside the morality questions as they are uncomfortable and deny you the right to take from others? Do you believe "might makes right" and think you and your friends have the might so therefore have the right to do as you wish? Is it a case of the ends justify the means and you believe your goal (and methodology) are good so anything you do is morally "right"?
How do you justify, to yourself, taking what belongs to others for your own purposes?
Einstein is right, although I would add the human propensity to rationalize what they want to be true.
Here, another link for you: https://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/ … ers-060717
"And, the data show, the 235,413 taxpayers who reported earning seven digits or more in 2009 took in a total of $726.9 billion"
A few things about this:
If you tax these people at 90%, the ones making about a million dollars (the majority) only have $100,000 left.
The total federal income taxes taken in, based on a 90% tax rate, is $654 Billion. About 13% of the 5T the country needs to run.
You've made no provisions, at 90% tax rate, for any other government taxes, fees, etc. Those on the bottom end will be bankrupt trying to pay their state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and all the other various governmental taxes and fees.
Still think you can operate the country on the taxes of anyone earning a million dollars or more?Deleted
Or else you don't understand what a marginal tax rate is yourself. Hint: a marginal rate, whatever it is and whatever it applies to, is NOT the the percentage of income that a person pays in taxes. Not even the bottom rate, for it does not apply to all income, just a portion of it.
Oh, I know that. I just couldn't be bothered to educate you. You don't have a high level of education. I can't change that.
I cannot teach you something different to what you've been hearing for your entire life and believe.
It's much like trying to teach an ardent believer that there is no god. It's impossible.
So I've just given up.
The one thing I am researching (for you) is the differences between capitalism and trade (I haven't forgotten). I'm going to write an article on it.Well, it's true that I have not been indoctrinated into the liberal concept that everything is up for grabs if one only has the power to grab it. My education was in the sciences, where I learned to reason, and to come to conclusions logically and objectively. You seem to have skipped those classes, for nothing you provide follows a reasonable train of thought but instead uses only your distress at people being poor to form conclusions. Your link proving that the uber rich pay the taxes, for instance...but does not even adress taxes, only wealth.
You don't like hearing that the rich can't pay the costs of government, so slide off into insulting conservatives, claiming they can't reason.
Followed by a tirade about how unpaid taxes will never result in the confiscation of a home - false as it happens every day.
Then more baseless insults about my not having any money, and how your sister is rich. As if it has anything at all to do with confiscating the wealth of the rich.
This was followed by a dissertation of how great you are, having lived everywhere in the world, and how people don't become citizens after they immigrate. Very important in a discussion of taxing the rich.
Then we see that people are getting poorer and poorer...as they spend more and more and lifestyle goes up all the time. Proof that we can tax the rich to run the country, somehow.
Have to throw in that the earth is burning as the finishing nail to prove we can tax the rich for whatever we want or need.
And you call yourself educated! You can't do simple arithmetic, you can't follow a train of thought, you can't reason without being totally subjective when forming conclusions and your primary form of debate is the insult, devoid of any truth or reality, of anyone not agreeing with your emotion but factless statements.
But I won't tell you that your brain is not capable of complex thought, I won't tell you that you don't matter if you're not rich, I won't tell you that your comments are stupid and I won't tell you that you're uneducated. Instead I will say that if you can learn to set aside your prejudices and emotions, if you actually look for facts rather than for what you want to believe, you might be able to understand how the world turns and come up with ideas on how to make it better. Becoming a part of the world's biggest organized theft ring isn't going to do it, and neither is insulting anyone that does try to understand.Finally . . . I was bustin' a gut staying away from my keyboard.
GALOL Don't do that! I'd hate to feel responsible for the resulting mess on the carpet. Or have your wife tracking me down with fire in her eye.
Well that is just it, we are living in a time, in a society, in a culture that punishes those that can " set aside your prejudices and emotions, if you actually look for facts rather than for what you want to believe"
Why are we seeing our current state of social insanity run amuck throughout everything from Hollywood movies to politics in Congress, from efforts to amend the Constitution for gender identity rights, to leading presidential candidates running on open borders and healthcare for all?
Hard times breed hard men and strong societies. Easy times breed soft men and weak societies. It really is that simple. I'm sure you know the saying:
Hard times create strong men
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men
Weak men create hard times
America is on the decline, this is as obvious as China's growing global domination is to those who want to see it, the coming downfall of the petro-dollar and America as global leader is coinciding nicely with our social fracturing and relative ambivalence towards reality in general.I like your saying - I hadn't seen it. At least it projects a cyclical activity rather than a decline until the barbarians take over,as Heinlein does - I've posted it before but here it is again:
"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
We are at a point where our vaunted leaders have convinced a large portion of the people that voting for them will produce the "bread and circuses" at someone else's expense, and we are declining as a result. We are becoming weak, depending on others for our needs, and it will eventually lead to hard times. Or the barbarians entering...This is far more accurate... and true to American and EU situations.
In addition to all the self-loathing (IE -Andrew Cuomo saying America "was never great") and morally bankrupt opinions and beliefs being pushed as 'progressive' these days. There are the outside forces influencing and directing toward a downfall.
Our society is not isolated from outside influences, China has had a plan to supplant America as the global leader and it is nearing the fruition of those plans. They have been directly influencing our politics for decades.
The UN has agendas of its own, not the least of which is doing away with national borders, diminishing the power of nations states and their sovereignty, and the dissolution of the 'American Experiment' of liberty, freedom for all its citizens.
What we are in the midst of now is nothing less than a religious war, using the dictionary definition of religion broadly as “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” a "Holy War of the Worldviews”.
The hard left holds America to be Evil while the "globalist” elites hold America to be an atavistic, irrelevant artifact.
Trump, his supporters, and the right, take an unflinching stand that America is special and that the Nation State or a 'Great America' is far better than the Globalist's agenda of it just being ordinary and on par with everyone else.
‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.… It will become all one thing or all the other.'
It is the outside forces that I believe make this a losing battle for Trump and the Conservatives. China has grown to big, the UN/IMF/WTO/WB to powerful, and the American people to fractured to avoid the downfall.Both of you, Wilderness seem so remarkably cut from the same cloth.
"All may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction."
Wilderness,
What is your suggestion for self correction? Is it as you mentioned once before that only white male property owners over 30 should vote, or some such rot? This "fear" has been waved around by reactionaries from the founding of the republic. Your precious Capitalism has remained undisturbed for over two centuries, so what is your "beef"?
"It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens."
So, I presume that only reactionaries, conservatives, etc, know how to exercise restraint?
Being against "one man, one vote" is fundamentally saying that you are against the very cornerstone of a democratic society, is that right?
What I consider in the interests of all and what you consider in the interests of all are two different things. But that is the rub, isn't it? Your assessment is obviously, just that, your assessment.
We are declining because of th greed and selfishness of the few over the many with these very same people having tentacles in Washington politics and policy making. THAT is my assessment. The same sort of greedy circumstances that existed just over a century ago, here. Teddy Roosevelt had to bring th toe "trusts" to heal. These kinds of people NEVER change.
It is your turn for the woodshed, Ken
So, china has a plan to acquire hegemony over the US, so did the former Soviet Union. Is it not natural to go for the grand prize? Ignoring domestic problems and concerns is not going to change Chinese goals and objectives.
We don't all see America in a jingoistic manner, but a real assessment that it is just one nation among many. What allows you to make the assumption otherwise? China believes in itself, but so does Uganda and Canada. We all live here and of course we are biased in favor of America, but to think that the view regarding the US is held universally is fantasy. We are not special just because you say so.
There is a substantial INSIDE effort that will help make this a losing battle for Trump and the conservatives.
Who are you to decide that China is growing to big? Only America can strive for global domination? What can you do about it? I am for maintaining the sanctity of America's boundaries, so I am not a globalist. But you have to remember that if every nation acted unilaterally on its ownself interest, what would the world look like? I don't like bullies regardless of where I may find them, even at home."What is your suggestion for self correction?"
Truly, I don't have one. Maybe only taxpayers can vote. Or only veterans - people that have put the country ahead of their very lives. I don't know and don't like anything but a vote to every adult...which IS doing exactly what Heinlein predicted, for we ARE voting for "bread and circuses", and always at someone else's expense. I've complained about it before, but my state expanded Medicaid to help our poor, and the major selling point was that we would receive more taxes...stemming from money provided by people in other states. The expectation is that it will cost the state nothing, while it's coffers fill with money collected from others in other states. Greed, as noted in the answer about greed.
"So, I presume that only reactionaries, conservatives, etc, know how to exercise restraint?"
LOL Well, I haven't seen a slowing of the growth of the welfare state - rather it is accelerating every year. That is NOT what I would call restraint.
"We are declining because of th greed and selfishness of the few over the many with these very same people having tentacles in Washington politics and policy making."
It isn't mine. We are declining because of the greed and selfishness of the large majority of voting citizens. Everyone demands more than they have, but without putting in the effort to get it. No one cares that someone is footing the bill - as long as it isn't me then it's great! That's called "greed" in my book.
But in addition to these things, I find that the liberal methodology of playing Robin Hood is detrimental in the long haul as it destroys incentive and the willingness to work/produce. Liberals don't want to discuss this, but I find it very true and very damaging.I am listening to you, Wilderness
"Truly, I don't have one. Maybe only taxpayers can vote. Or only veterans - people that have put the country ahead of their very lives. I don't know and don't like anything but a vote to every adult...which IS doing exactly what Heinlein predicted, for we ARE voting for "bread and circuses", and always at someone else's expense. I've complained about it before, but my state expanded Medicaid to help our poor, and the major selling point was that we would receive more taxes...stemming from money provided by people in other states. The expectation is that it will cost the state nothing, while it's coffers fill with money collected from others in other states. Greed, as noted in the answer about greed."
What you forget is that voting is a RIGHT that accompanies citizenship, not just a privilege.
Let me ask you something, if the tax code were revised so that everyone regardless of income had to pay income tax, would you then accept the right of everybody over 18, a citizen ( not incarcerated) to vote? How does that provide any remedy to your Bread and Circuses argument? I just suspect that you don't like the idea that poor people can vote, period.
We all pay taxes in reality, just going to the corner drug store and buying something. Your GOP cronies are in charge now, what are they doing to resolve the "welfare crisis"?
I cannot speak about the circumstances in Idaho, I just know that we all going to pay for rising medical costs one way or the other. Who pays for all those that have a mishap or falls ill if they are currently uninsured? Which coffer do we tap for that?
As for the Robin Hood anology, of course, I don't buy it. Liberals have a different boundary as to where the line is to be drawn regarding who receives public assistance and why. Most are willing to work and produce if for no other reason than sheer survival. It is counterproductive to remove people from the dole without viable alternatives, since after all, Calvin Coolidge is no longer president. Sensible transitions from welfare to work makes sense, we can do better because we have to.
How much of the tax burden do the corporate wealthy evade, off shore, etc. they write the tax codes and laws to benefit themselves as so many of our legislators have the integrity of mafia dons, letting the will of the oligarchs rule the day, forgetting who actually put them in office just like the fearless leader?
Your point of view is appreciated and noted, but mine is far different.Its a good point.
One of the reasons why we have a "welfare state" is so that the "masses" are taken care of.
But I think we have hit a level in our society, where the advantage of being a member of the "working class" no longer outweighs being a member of the "welfare class", at least, it has hit the point where oftentimes people are better off not working, and staying on benefits, than joining the workforce.
We seem to be at a crossroads, and with evermore "free stuff" being proposed, it will soon be a detriment to work, at least "above the table", and for many it already is.
Once we cross a certain threshold, where more is being taken in taxes than is kept. Once it is the norm that people use the system to support themselves, rather than being self sustaining through their own labors, there will be no incentive to work.
I believe we are very close to that now, already the social supports that we do have are unsustainable, adding to them (and adding more people onto them) will only hasten the economic collapse of the Nation, forcing a very painful change in our society and economic dynamics.
This current system exists to benefit the "wealthy", they want stability not chaos, they want the "masses" under control and not a threat.
This has worked well so long as the Middle Class was a larger portion than the "welfare class" of society. That changed briefly in 2015, for the first time those being supported by "welfare" exceeded those who were in the "working class".
It has taken an economic resurgence, the lowest unemployment rates in history, and rising wages for the first time in 30 years, to reverse this trend... but it is only a brief turn-around... these exceptionally good economic times cannot be sustained, and then we risk permanently becoming a "welfare state".
Something America has never been, and something America cannot afford to sustain.
What happens when we have faced global economic turmoil and hardships in the past? Millions will lose everything and become destitute, world war may break out and see the ruination of nations across the globe. Whatever is to come, you can be sure the "wealthy" will be safe from it."Its a good point."
Thanks
Your point of the advantages of remaining on welfare rather than working are well received. I recognize the danger, but wages have not kept up with rising costs of living. I see the so-called service economy as an inherent failure. I have always said that wise investment in people to prepare people for the high tech jobs of the future is the only way within a democracy that we can take on all comers across the globe.
For example, why not designate women on the welfare programs to work in child care so that more women are free to work or go to school? I don't write off people as incorrigible just because they are welfare, all though they may be a few that are. All able body persons should work to sustain themselves as a principle. If we move more of the money into job training or education, it has to be an improvement offering this choice as opposed to being cut off. Getting off the dole and keeping them off could have ripple effect ramifications for entire communities.
The ability to keep the masses "under control" may no longer be a given if the perception and reality of wealth inequity and a no win situation continues. The stuff that can upheaval entire societies and the pitchforks and tar and feathers await the wealthy, so they cannot remain unaffected in perpetuity. So, it is in their interests to at least support the idea of social mobility. Ultimately the system that has made so many fabulously wealthy hinges on the cooperation of the masses.
For that reason the corporate wealthy are going to listen to the masses who are demanding more and take it seriously before they themselves have their apple carts disturbed in a serious way.I believe you are mistaken in that we don't already have half the people living off of the other half.
"An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of … 2016-02-24
But when we subtract the "benefits" being received from taxes paid we will find a great many more not paying any net federal income taxes. The working family that gets a refund of more than they paid, via the EIC. Or gets section 8 housing or food stamps that is more than their tax bill.
If we talk net federal taxes paid, after deducting federal assistance, I think we'll find the number well above 50% that do participate, at the federal level, in supplying the needs of the country.
That was 2015, but I don't see that things have improved all that much - certainly not enough to cancel the huge budget of aid to working families.
"Let me ask you something, if the tax code were revised so that everyone regardless of income had to pay income tax, would you then accept the right of everybody over 18, a citizen ( not incarcerated) to vote? How does that provide any remedy to your Bread and Circuses argument? I just suspect that you don't like the idea that poor people can vote, period."
First, I didn't say I liked the idea; I specifically said I didn't. But to answer your question, when people are voting to increase their own taxes to benefit someone else it is a far different thing than voting to force someone else to pay for you want but can't pay for. It might (might!) help slow the bread and circuses. Probably not, with all that "free" federal money available, paid by residents across the country from where it will be spent and enjoyed, but it might help a little.
"Who pays for all those that have a mishap or falls ill if they are currently uninsured? Which coffer do we tap for that?"
The same one we tapped before ObamaCare. Liberals like to pretend that before that fiasco people were dying in the streets by the thousands, but it isn't true - they went to the emergency room and forced someone else to pay for their care.
"Liberals have a different boundary as to where the line is to be drawn regarding who receives public assistance and why."
On this we agree; liberals have far different boundaries. Which is why the "poverty line" keeps increasing all the time - those so-called "boundaries" amount only to whatever they can squeeze out of the populace.
"How much of the tax burden do the corporate wealthy evade, off shore, etc."
I have no idea, but I DO understand that it is exactly what one can reasonably expect when we try to grab too much. The liberal mindset is that that wealth actually belongs to them so they can't seem to understand that stealing it at will (legally, of course, as they have the might to make it legal) will inevitably lead to the true owners protecting their assets. Why that is so difficult to grasp is something I don't quite understand, but it does seem to be hard for some.
Holy cow Cred, do you really disagree with the "bread and circuses" premise? Do you not see that as the current reality?
Taking candidate Warren as an example, and just as an example, not an intentional ding on her; $a $52 Trillion dollar Medicare for all plan. And progressive folks are loving it. But . . .
Taking all the wealth from those filthy rich 1%ers still won't cover the costs. Yet, that warm body popular vote will vote her, and her plan, in as if it were a realistic proposal.
Whether you take Ken's little ditty, (which I like), or Wilderness' Heinlein quote, (which I was familiar with and agree with), the result is the same. The plebs have realized that pure democracy lets them get what they want regardless of national consequences.
That is your popular vote at work. Is that really the way you want America to go for your grandkids?
GARobert Reich expresses my sentiments on this matter, GA. Correcting the problems that he alludes to is what it is that I would like to bequeath to my grandkids.
https://www.salon.com/2019/11/04/robert … e_partner/
Were the plebs responsible for social security or Medicare? The Right is always dragging out these talking points, much like minimum wage laws will put people out of work and they have been saying that since 1935. Yeah, right.....
The rich will pay more, not as if they are paying at the rates middle class and working class people pay, now If they want to whine, I say, ok, shove off.
Well, I and much of the Left don't buy it. I am confident in Warren and in the direction she is moving. I am not content to just move deck chairs around on the Titanic. Either we seriously work toward repair or we scuttle it.
The majority is in charge, and the concept of "dire consequences" when citizens speak their mind is just more rightwing harping. And as you know, they have zero credibility with me.Contrarily, I don't usually agree with Mr. Reich, but article wasn't so bad.
GA"The rich will pay more, not as if they are paying at the rates middle class and working class people pay, now If they want to whine, I say, ok, shove off."
"The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of … 2016-02-24
This common whine, that the rich pay a lower percentage of their income (as if that means they aren't paying a thousands times as much money) doesn't seem to be true. It may be a popular method of raising the ire of people, but it is a lie.
Robert Reich is a great favourite of mine. On some rare occasions I've thought differently, but for the most part, he knows exactly what the issues are.
Tell me, Wilderness, do you have no understanding of misfortune through no fault of your own?
I personally think you haven't suffered enough.
Intense suffering makes one humble. It makes one realize that sometimes you can try your utmost, that you can do whatever it takes, that you can be the most brilliant, the most talented human being, but if misfortune hits, you will lose all your money, your possessions, etc.
If tomorrow the dollar loses its value, and if, simultaneously a fire hits your house, etc. you will be stuck on your own. Let's say at the same time a rabid dog bites you, just whose fault is that?
Are you honestly so wrapped up in your ego (and that is what it is) that you honestly believe that half a population is at fault because they are lazy, stupid, etc?
Does it not occur to you that when that many people are stuck in poverty that it's the system NOT the people?
Are you so ignorant and so stupid that you can't figure that out?
This does NOT happen in Europe. That's because the government educates its people well, provides excellent and affordable health care, and they still manage to have 6 to 8 weeks PAID leave per year - which is by law.
Their taxes are NOT much higher than the USA. Of course, they don't spend 60% of their tax on the military.
Has it ever occurred to you that it's the people who support "Make America great again' that are at fault?
Your country will never be 'great again,' because the rest of us don't admire your kind of 'strength.' We hold in contempt your lack of compassion and understanding. We hold in contempt that you make sick people die because you won't give them free medical.
I am living in the third world, and I still get free medical. These are basics.
The liberals and progressive are in tune with the rest of the world. The conservatives are NOT.Spoken like someone who has never lost everything, and then worked their way back to having a decent life.
Speaking from experience of having an accomplished life, losing everything, all possessions and all money, and then working my way back, to having a 'middle class' existence again... only to see everything gained lost in the 2008 crash, and have to work my way back again, I can have sympathy for someone else's misfortune, but it is not my responsibility to make up for their misfortune, their ignorance, their arrogance, or their back luck.
Liberty and Freedom to make your own destiny, to make your own fortune... no guarantees, no bailouts. That's what America is about. If you want Communism go to China. If you want Socialism go to Europe. If you want Freedom to achieve as your ability and efforts allow, then America is the place for you.
Fine, stay where you are at. America doesn't need you, and doesn't care what you think about how our Freedom and Liberty works.You're definitely not speaking for all Americans, Ken. Even if you want to..
No, I'm just speaking for the ones that REALLY understand the meaning and value of Liberty and Freedom.
No, you're simply speaking for yourself, Ken. You cannot know what others have been through during their lifetimes.
Again, you don't have liberty and freedom.
It's not possible to have freedom when one is in danger of being shot because one has a black skin or because one is a school going student. That is not liberty. There can be no real freedom without safety.
Nor can there be freedom or liberty without the financial means to support one without stress. When half the American population is living under stress and is obese (Diabetes Type II) as a result of that stress, plus sufffering from depression, this is not a free country.
It is a dog-eat-dog society, and the most vicious, cruel dogs win.
It's nothing to be proud of."There can be no real freedom without safety."
Good thing the generous people of the US provide military security for those people that are too cheap to provide for their own safety, isn't it?
You don't have freedom and liberty.
You have half your people living in poverty and the highest number of incarcerations per capita in the world. You have more baby deaths than any other first world country, and your people die younger.
Start checking your facts.Perhaps you should check your own facts for a change. The bottom quintile of people in the US consumes (spends) more than the average in most other industrialized nations. Nations like Canada, Australia, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Iceland or the UK. (South Africa isn't even on the chart.)
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 … r-nations/
"Are you honestly so wrapped up in your ego (and that is what it is) that you honestly believe that half a population is at fault because they are lazy, stupid, etc?"
This is an interesting question, for we are at the point where about half the US population is depending on the other half for some or all of their needs and it illustrates, I believe, a basic difference in attitude.
No, I don't believe that half our population has suffered some catastrophe that has deprived them of everything, or of the ability to survive. You are essentially claiming that, as we look around us at our neighbors and friends, we must decide that every other one is incapable, either mentally or physically, of supporting themselves; an attitude that I find deplorable and unconscionable. Are you really so egotistical, or stupid, as to believe that you are so much better than one out of every two people around you? Do you really have so little faith in your fellow man?
Making foolish claims such as Europeans don't pay more taxes than US citizens do does not help your case, for it isn't even close to being true. Plus, of course, when you state that they are depending on the US for a big part of their needs (security) because they refuse to spend on military doesn't help either.
Your opinion of our 'strength', or your contempt at the perceived lack of compassion and understanding will not cause the US to fail to 'be great again'; that kind of muddy, illogical "reasoning" is, or should be, beneath you as you claim to be an educated person. Not even the lie that we make sick people die because we don't give them "free" (meaning paid for by someone else) medical; that, too, is beneath you.
You may believe that the liberal mindset that is destroying what makes the human species superior is "in tune" with the world, but it is far from it. As you destroy incentive, the desire to improve and even the willingness to put forth effort to live it is "in tune" only with your compassion and that without regard for any future beyond a few days or weeks. The long term prognosis for creating a world of humans content to sit on their behinds (remember that 8 weeks of being paid while returning nothing to society?) while a handful do the work to support everyone is not good. It is NOT how the species has been able to feed a population of billions, it is NOT how we left the planet, it is NOT how we have gained an understanding of the universe instead of making up answers.
I hear, and understand, that you are proud to get your medical care (and everything else for all I know) off the efforts of others, but I do not find that that great pride is conducive to the long term growth and survival of humanity. Or to the growth of individuals either, for pride in taking from others what they have created/built rather than doing for yourself is a false pride that can only lead to degeneracy. It is the mark of children, children living off the efforts of their parents; children that never grow up to enter the state of adulthood, providing for themselves and their children in turn.
Wilderness. My brother in law lost his multi-millionaire status three times, and each time he rebuilt it.
I know lots of people like that.
You are not unique
Until 10 days before he passed, he did not believe he was going to die. He had won so many times that it didn't occur to him he could lose.
And I know many people like that as well.
We face extinction as a species, but I bet you don't believe that either.
Your values are based on ignorance.We both know people that have successfully built a life, whether for a single time or after multiple efforts. Not sure of your point there.
Yes, one day the human race will be extinct. Perhaps in a few centuries, perhaps only when the universe dies. Again, not sure of the point you're trying to make.
And your values, such as they are, are built on greed for what you don't have and a disdain for anyone more capable than you are.
Your problem is that you seem to think the only measure of 'success' is how much money one has. You seem incredibly proud of this, and you think that anyone else who has not done that is not worth anything. In fact, you even seem to think that if they meet some sort of misfortune which they cannot overcome that they must just die.
I have no greed. I come from a very wealthy family. I grew up with three full time servants, one chauffer, privately educated, etc. I dated lords (aristocracy), millionnaires, and once went to movies with a princess. I am at ease in the company of wealth. I also do not view it with the same adoration that you do.
For me, character, compassion, a broad understanding of the sciences is far more admirable than money. I admire systems people, but I doubt you even know what that is. I admire people with doctorates in the sciences. I admire people who look young and are very fit - despite being in their dotage.
I am very capable. I just don't happen to think that a capability for making lots of money while trampling on the backs of others is particularly admirable - and you seem to think so.
I have been capable of living an ethical life my entire life.
In my time I have been capable of doing a college math paper in half the time that others could, and still getting a 100% for it.
In my time, I have been capable of being dated every night by a different man for 18 months solid. All of them business owners.
In my time, I have been capable of looking 20 years younger than I am (still do).
In my time, I have been capable of being the top performing person in the company I worked for - repeatedly. As a headhunter, I placed numerous CEOs, executive engineers, etc.
In my time, I have been capable of living in many countries - legally. And that is not an easy thing to do.
In my time, I have been capable of rearing a phenomenal child against all odds.
In my time, I have learnt compassion for others, become highly educated, learnt a language or two, defeated people in court, taken on many challenges and won.
And I did all of this on my own, despite being on the austistic spectrum, coming from a heavily abused environment, etc. That takes character.
In my time, I have done many, many things - just not the type of things that you put value on. You seem to think that the only thing that matters is money. You measure yourself by this money. You measure yourself and others by money.
I also looked at your profile. You're obviously a tradesman. Not difficult to learn.
How very sad.LOLOLOLOL The last line made doubled me over. I very highly doubt that you could EVER learn the trade I did: you don't have the background, you don't have the work ethic and you don't have the education. Only an ego larger than the earth itself.
It's pretty neat that you had rich friends, dated 9855 different men in a year and a half, and did it all on your own...while using someone else's wealth to provide your health care needs. How any educated person with even a quarter of your accomplishments could ever consistently judge other people so wrongly is fascinating.
Although...is this another effort like the last time you were here, when you intentionally insulted and hurt people until you were banned? Is all this just another interesting test for you, where you see how far you can push someone before they break?
(You of all people can't break me - I find your tirades and ego trips comical, not hurtful.)So in other words, you're an elitist. You come from a pampered, privileged background and don't know the meaning of hard labor, or needing to earn your next meal, or live paycheck to paycheck.
Yes, your beliefs and opinions jive well with those who are in D.C. detached from the average American that gets up every day and works hard. You look down your nose at the 'working class', while having all the sympathy in the world for those who don't, but still expect something as if they have a right to it.
Related Discussions
- 37
That's My Lady: Draft Elizabeth Warren for President!
by Credence2 7 years ago
From an article taken from Salon Magazine, focus on the 8 minute video from the Senate chambers as Senator Warren spars with the Bankster President of Primerica Bank, during a committee hearing. On Tuesday, Senate Republicans invited Primerica President Peter Schneider to testify against proposed...
- 60
Hillary Clinton announced that she will be running for President in 2016. Do you
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
Hillary Clinton announced that she will be running for President in 2016. Do you intend to votefor Ms. Clinton to be president? Why? Why not?
- 136
Senator Warren releases sketchy DNA test
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Senator Elizabeth Warren released the results of a DNA test which is said to confirm her earlier claims of Native American ancestry. The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor (not a geneticist) a biologist and statistician. He...
- 114
Things heat up between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Thoughts?
by Stevennix2001 3 years ago
During the democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders was accused of allegedly saying, to Elizabeth Warren personally in 2018, that he thought a woman could never be president. I personally think he was being set up with that loaded question to be honest, as I feel like that question alone tells me...
- 41
Elizabeth Warren for President? (She's Hot!)
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
"...In Democratic circles, disappointment in the promise of the Obama presidency and unease over a possible restoration of the Clintons have made the senator, who was sworn in just 10 months ago, the object of huge interest and the avatar of a newly assertive, fervently populist left eager for...
- 18
Who would you pick for president?
by Dennis L. Page 8 years ago
Who would you pick for president?I believe the United States is suffering from Bush and Clinton fatigue. We keep searching for ideal candidates, but are inundated with many of the same faces we've seen before. Therefore, if you had the ability, who would be your pick for president? Is there anyone...