"Tax SLAVES"

1. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   The above term will define us, if Joe Biden becomes the next President of the United States of America.
   
   Is it really as simple as that?
   
   YES
   
   ...yet the Democrats say they are against SLAVERY!
   And are toppling down historical statues of those of the distant past who owned SLAVES!
   
   Surely, in this present time we comprehend they are about to put the yoke of SLAVERY on US, the American people.
   
   It is ironic, is it not?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Kath, your interpretation of the issue is rightly the correct thing. What the Democ are against appears to be what they are for. That is their politics. In reality, they will use that as a vote catching.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes.
         
         (Hint: BLM is funded by DNC.)
         
         
         Its a war on Trump, the destruction around us,
         I believe.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Hows do you know BLM is funded by the DNC?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I meant, in part.

               replyreport
         2. 81

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I am not sure the DNC itself funds BLM... that would be a mismanagement of funds.
            
            As far back as 2016 the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.
            
            That funding was in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.
            
            Those who fund and back Democratic politicians also fund and back BLM, SPLC, and other 'left' leaning entities.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               Sychophantasticposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               George Soros funds BLM in order to bring down the U.S. government.

               replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn, WELCOME BACK to the forums.  You were indeed missed.  We need your presence in these forums.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Thank You, gmwilliams. I'm typing on a 13 inch lap top these days. Not easy.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            My sympathies, Katherine. I had an 11-inch laptop. It was almost impossible to read the screen when I was typing on it. I was glad when the keyboard finally went out. Welcome back.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I just bought it.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  Sychophantasticposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Hope you're not using your camera or Touch ID because those things are tracked by the government and they'll come and kill you if you're not careful.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I though 1984 is gone. But why? Who is China? Uncle Sam? Ha ha ha! Eh eh eh!

                     replyreport
      2. 74

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I agreed. I miss you. We miss you. Welcome back.

         replyreport
   3. 90

      crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Xpwyd … e=emb_logo

      replyreport
   4. 90

      crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It's a little disturbing that with all that's going on, your main concern is your taxes going up.
      
      What's your solution for getting the deficit under control?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Kracanli, I've put the same question to Kathyrn likewise. I think her concern is more public than personal.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            High taxes is the problem for each and every one of us. Unless you are off the grid or homeless.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Depends how much you make. Taxes could be lower if government spending would drop and the government would shrink, but both continue to grow under Democrats and Republicans alike.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Apart from taxes, what should government do to finance its many spendings?

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Implicit in the thought is that those many spendings are desirable and worth the cost to the population.  They aren't; government has taken over far too many of the responsibilities and duties that belong to the people - best thing to do is cut spending, not find ways to take more money from people in order to pay for pork barrel spending.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Some of them are desirable, like fire protection, police protection (despite the current brouhaha over white police arresting black people, and killing a few of them in the process, too). As far as social security and medicare, we older folks have spent a lifetime paying into these funds only to see their money stolen and put into general pork. Now there is where some spending could be cut. Not payments to old folks, but the porky park to please a few constituents, etc.

                        replyreport
                        1. 74

                           Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           MizBejabbe, if some elder folks fund significant sum of money into(I think a project?) other than medicine, fire protection, police(what is the actual project?) pensions? I am a Nigerian. They must fairly benefit. As for the funding of community base projects, that's the stuff of the c6munity and they leaders. If government assistance is need, I think 10% contribution is enough from the government. Why government should sacrifice the people?

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              I understand your concerns since you are not American. Our system of turnback funds in some ways is a socialist system, whether we want to admit it or not. We, as individuals, pay income taxes to the government. We also pay income taxes to the state and to municipalities where we live. I say "socialist system" because a certain amount is redistributed to the states and even to communities to help them pay for projects that their own taxes don't stretch far enough to cover. At one time, the cities received grants called CBDG grants to help with improvement. I think they still exist, but I'm not sure. Many of these were a real boon to the receiving cities, but then, some of them could easily have been listed as "pork projects."
                              
                              https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/com … s_covid-19

                              replyreport
                     2. 74

                        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Wilderness, in what arears should the spendings be cut? How can the cuts be justify?

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           You can start reducing with the US welfare system as a whole.  It can be justified because it causes far more harm than good.
                           
                           Next you can cut all the pork barrel spending; if a locality wants a new museum or other entertainment they can build it themselves.
                           
                           You could continue to the massive bureaucracy required to maintain compliance with the thousands of rules put on business. 
                           
                           All of those are great ideas, but all of them have gone so far overboard that there is plenty to cut.

                           replyreport
      2. 89

         MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Crank, nobody with the obvious exception of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat who balanced the budget, seems to know the answer. Of course, this brought on a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from antitaxers when he balanced the budget he inherited from Reagan.

         replyreport
      3. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         We must be careful who we vote for.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            If you care about taxes, then you would vote for another Bill Clinton.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               You might be right.  Now if we could only find one...

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I hope Mrs. Bill Cliton is listening.

                  replyreport
   5. 79

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Don't use the word slavery in vain.
      You are screaming something, without any explanation. Just a cheap click bate. A oneliner that remains shallow but insinuates a lot.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Peters, I hardly thought of it that way.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            To me it was like saying something like :
            "Tax HOLOCAUST"

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Peters, is there anything like it really?

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, it's the use of BIG words. Like Slaves, Slavery, Holocaust, Genocide, Hitler, etc. When they are used too often they becomee meaningless. That's why you have to use these words properly.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Peters, okay, let's see a proper use of the word from you. And thanks.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        If you understand what I mean then I don't have to teach you.

                        replyreport
2. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   "Economist Robert Browne stated the ultimate goal of reparations should be to "restore the black community to the economic position it would have if it had not been subjected to slavery and discrimination". He estimates a fair reparation value anywhere between $14 to $14.7 trillion, or roughly $2.1 (equivalent to $153,000 in 2019) for every black American living today.
   
   Other estimates range from $14 to $14.29 and $17.1 trillion."
   
   Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, (two potential running mates of Biden,) both declared in April 2019 that they support reparations.
   
   Wikipedia, Reparations.
   
   
   Where would those trillions of dollars come from, one would have to ask.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      And who all would get reparations? What percentage of African DNA does one have to have to be considered black? What about people who have passed for white for years and then a DNA test reveals that they are part black? Oh, yes, and what about the black person who is actually of Australian aborigine ancestry rather than African. They are Black, too. Questions similar to these were asked when there was a lot of talk about paying reparations to Native Americans, so I think it is only appropriate to ask it now. I think I am going to sit back and see what kind of candidate the Libertarian Party can offer. Right now I don't like the proposed platforms of either major party.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Monkeys are easier to be enticed with bananas. It even remind me of a film titled: The Lone Ranger. A kid did it with peanuts. At the end of the day, all are lossers!

      replyreport
   3. 88

      Sychophantasticposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The government is planning to empty the bank accounts of all white people.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Sychophantastica, some blacks were were fair skin whites DNA apart, right? Who were the gainers!?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Miebakagh, I don't understand your statement. Sychophantastica, some blacks were were fair skin whites DNA apart, right?     Would you please reword or explain it?
            Do you mean that some blacks have fair skin? If so, I agree with you. I have a black friend who told me that I am darker than some of her black friends. My DNA test came out 100% European. It didn't even pick up my Native American genes.(Choctaw, I think, however, I suspect that the Eastern Native American tribes were originally from Europe, not Asia). I think I asked what percentage of black would a person have to be to qualify as black? Would they go by genetics or skin color or culture? I heard a "reparations expert" say that culture would play a large role. That raises two more questions, if a white person were raised by a black family in the black culture, or if a black person were raised by a white family in white culture, would either qualify?
            If the black-skinned person qualified and the white-skinned person did not, then the statement about culture would be untrue.
            I grew up with a woman who (with her husband) adopted a baby that was believed to be white. Six months later it was obvious the baby was black, and the agency offered to take her back. The couple said "absolutely not! We love her, and we don't care." This child grew up to become a successful professional and everybody who knew her loved and respected her.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Ummm...you know that ALL of us have "black" genes; that the species ALL came out of Africa.  We are ALL black, then, if being black simply means have black genes.
               
               Or, if it means a certain color of skin, a colorimeter could be used to determine the darkness...if only we were smart enough to find a number that represents being "black".
               
               Of course, those children that meet the criteria, but born to white parents, are in trouble as are those in the opposite camp.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, I laugh, but laughter aside, if you get into DNA tests, they have a whole number of different haplogroups that they track from the heart of Africa. They use these to determine where we came from, where we went, and where we landed.  Some haplogroup or haplogroups are considered "subsaharan African", northern African, Southern European, northern European, Asian, etc. plus some are unassigned because geneticists can't tell what they are. I had my DNA tested through 23andMe, and they said I was 100% Northern European. They went so far as to say that I was in a relatively new European group H16, "relatively new" being approximately 6,000 years old. My point is that geneticists stopped counting people's genes as being African after their lines left Africa and they started mutating into other colors (races).
                  It did irk me that they found nothing of my maternal great grandmother's Native American genes. But she was from one of the Eastern tribes, which people are beginning to believe came from Europe, not Asia. Now, it's your turn to laugh because they found Neanderthal traits in my ancestry. Funny they can find that, but no Choctaw.
                  But the whole thing is so complicated that I don't even try to understand it. That is why I ask what is considered black? I have a cousin who is like a 1% subsaharan African through her father's family. Is she enough black to count? I doubt it, but it seems like if you have two siblings, one shows African genes and the other does not, wouldn't it be discrimination against  one to deny reparations when the other gets a share?

                  replyreport
            2. 74

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               MizBejab, i am sorry I omitted a comma(semi-colon) to separate the clause. Thanks for bringing up that. But you have rightly pick up what I mean and preach on it. Let me illustrated. Could you agreed that Barrack Obama was black, fair skin or white just by using your sight? That is what I also mean by DNA apart. More so, thanks for the preach. You have reveal in it that BLM. Equally, White Lives Matter(WLM). So, were blue and red lives. Thanks.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for clarifying your previous statement. To look at light-skinned Mr. Obama, I would say that he would qualify as black. However, to further my point, his mother was white, so wasn't he raised mainly in white culture? I believe it was written at one time that he went to Africa to seek out his African father and become acquainted with him, so one would be hard-pressed as to whether he was black enough for reparations unless you went by DNA. Thanks for furthering my point.

                  replyreport
3. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   WHO WE ARE
   The Democratic National Committee is committed to taking back the White House in 2020 and electing Democrats at every level — from the school board to the Oval Office. But we can only do that together.
   
   https://democrats.org/who-we-are/USA
   
   BLACK LIVES MATTER. Across the battlegrounds, Democrats are standing with the movement for racial justice, opposing police brutality, and calling out Donald Trump’s horrendous record.
   
   Today: Tom Perez: I spent years working to reform police forces. Trump wants to roll it all back. “I may not work at the Justice Department anymore, but I didn’t spend most of my career fighting police brutality only to see a demagogue cheer it on from the White House. America is hurting. Our African American communities are hurting. And we will not heal through silence, scare tactics or the status quo. We will heal through activism and action, through justice and progress.
   https://democrats.org/2020-2/

   replyreport
4. 89

   MizBejabbersposted 3 years ago

   Neither party has a practical approach to government spending and how much money is needed to pay for it. It seems that there is a vicious cycle of cutting taxes and running up debt by the Republicans. Their followers love the tax cuts and most don't stop to consider that this leads to an unbalanced budget. Then when the country is in deep trouble, the Democrats get voted in. They can't deal with the problem without raising taxes to pay the country's way out of the mess. Taxpayers then get mad at the Democrats. Republicans propose a flat-rate tax, which sounds fair but really isn't. A 10% tax on a millionaire is just a drop in the bucket, but to a family of four who brings in $25,000 a year, it can be devastating. So what is the answer? Tax-slashing Republicans and Democrat taxes can't seem to please anybody, let alone everybody.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Ding-dong. Dind-dong. Ding-dong.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Thank You, Mr. M. 
         You were right to call attention to this post. We need to get to the bottom of this issue. Republicans and democrats need to help us keep our taxes low.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you, Kathryn. One factor that might help the solution is to cut out pork for both parties, but even that presents a problem. Nobody seems to be able to separate what pork is because people's needs are different depending on the area. What is pork in one area may be a necessity in another. For example, paying for a park in an asphalt jungle may look like pork to someone in a rural natural state where their children can play freely in the woods.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               One of the problems, as I see it, is that paying for such things as your park are now expected of the federal government rather than the people that will actually use and benefit from it.
               
               This is not, IMO, the function of the federal government.  At most it should be a function of the state, but never the fed's.  It has become normal to depend on people of other states, that will never see any benefit, to pay for the niceties we want but don't want to pay for.  And that is a mistake that has given rise to our enormous tax burden, for it becomes just "free" money without any cost.  Unfortunately it is not "free" at all, for the end result is that we are paying for our perks and luxuries because it is being done all over the country.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yikes!

                  replyreport
         2. 74

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            KathrynHill, but how? Thanks.

            replyreport
5. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

   Crankalcious? My thoughts exactly.

   replyreport
6. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   repeating in big and separated words:
   
   
                       T A X.  S L A V E S.

   replyreport
7. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Why is Liberty so important? Because in Liberty we are free to guide our own free wills. We thrive in independence. Through  self-reliance, making our own decisions and living the way WE want to live, we attain robust health in body and mind. Without having this sense of independence and freedom, humans are miserable. We are loving when we are free, and hateful and crazy when we are not.
   
   In Liberty we are willing to help our fellows and neighbors when they need assistance due to a natural sense of compassion which exists within us. But when one is restricted by society / government, love becomes blocked and anger resides, instead.
   In short, Liberty = Joy.
   
   Biden, Harris, Bernie, Sanders, Pelosi and Schumer will take away our liberty by turning us into tax slaves.
   
   In My Opinion

   replyreport
   1. 89

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn, I don't think you can put Biden in the same pot with Bernie Sanders. And Pelosi and Schumer aren't running for office. Up to that point, I can agree with your little soliloquy on liberty. I think one of the problems with this country is that it has become too big. When neighbors don't speak to each other, much less become acquainted with each other, I think the love of which you speak doesn't exist between them.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         What do you mean, "too big?"

         replyreport
         1. 89

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly what I said. Too much population spread out over too many square miles. Even the first 13 colonies were still tribal. Our nuclear society required people to move hundreds even a couple of thousands of miles from family and the homes in which they grew up. Some people grew up in a nomadic life because of their parent's or parents' careers. I know people who don't relate to a hometown or even a home state. One such person is a cousin of mine. I don't agree that our diversity is our strength because it does not promote "love thy neighbor". And by diversity, I'm not referring to race, but communities.
            
            Question, and I don't mean this in an antagonistic manner, so please don't take it that way. Did you grow up in a small town or a big city?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               smallish

               replyreport
8. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   High taxes equals less freedom. Low taxes equals more freedom.
   
   Stop the hate. Appreciate what Trump has done for us and is willing to do for us for four more years.
   
   ... or sink into high-tax land. A mire, a stinking gloomy mire of burdensome taxation.

   replyreport