|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"When you're rich, you want a Republican in office." This is likely true. "When you want to be rich, you want a Republican in office." Sadly this may be true too. Personally, I long for the day when true Libertarians are running things. For Democrats and Republicans both have failed us miserably.
Cheers,
Mazra
As it stands, I'm not entirely sure I disagree with that sentiment.
When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office.When you have a Soul you want anything other than a republican in office.
W E Ray if you would be so good as to give me back my soul, perhaps I might vote something other than republican in the upcoming election.
When you have a Soul you want anything other than a republican in office.
When you care about making THINK they will be taken care of, you want a democrat in office. If you want people to ACTUALLY be better off then you want anyone other than a democrat in office.
Let's not fling poo, people.
Let's not fling poo, people.
How else can I get this darn fire out?
<un zip>
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.
The truth is the media is biased. Period. FOX is right wing, MSNBC is left wing. It's just the way it is.
If you want to be educated about politics you have to either 1) listen to both sides of the arguement with an open mind (which usually means listening to multiple news stations and reading lots of articles from CNN...a hastle), or 2) you realize that everyone has an opinion that to them seems valid, and respect that.
No. I'm sorry, but just no.
MSNBC is a news organization whose opinion shows skew toward the Democratic. (Liberal my ass. There's no such thing as liberal news on television, unless you have satellite and get Democracy Now.) This is more pronounced since they fired Pat Buchanan, but that guy was quickly devolving into racist old codger territory, and no serious organization would want him.
FOX is a 24-hour propaganda machine that not only just reports on stories that support their side of the agenda, but make things up whole cloth. It is NOT a fair comparison.
Just because there are two sides does not mean both are equally valid. If you say the earth revolves around the sun and I say the sun revolves around the earth, it doesn't mean they most likely revolve around one another. It means one person has made their decision according to facts and one has not.
"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." Winston Churchhill
|
No one trusts the media at large anymore. They hold less sway than ever. And those that still do somewhat, according to ratings, are watching Fox News.
The truth is the media is biased. Period. FOX is right wing, MSNBC is left wing. It's just the way it is.
If you want to be educated about politics you have to either 1) listen to both sides of the arguement with an open mind (which usually means listening to multiple news stations and reading lots of articles from CNN...a hastle), or 2) you realize that everyone has an opinion that to them seems valid, and respect that.
No. I'm sorry, but just no.
MSNBC is a news organization whose opinion shows skew toward the Democratic. (Liberal my ass. There's no such thing as liberal news on television, unless you have satellite and get Democracy Now.) This is more pronounced since they fired Pat Buchanan, but that guy was quickly devolving into racist old codger territory, and no serious organization would want him.
FOX is a 24-hour propaganda machine that not only just reports on stories that support their side of the agenda, but make things up whole cloth. It is NOT a fair comparison.
Just because there are two sides does not mean both are equally valid. If you say the earth revolves around the sun and I say the sun revolves around the earth, it doesn't mean they most likely revolve around one another. It means one person has made their decision according to facts and one has not.
It might be your own bias if you think some of these "news" groups are less bias. Both sides have propaganda machines, people to the left just think it is only fox because the rest of the propaganda they agree with.....
"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." Winston Churchhill
Hey look, a quote from more than half a century ago, from a guy from a different country where Liberal and Conservative have very different meanings.
The rich like republicans that say "you can have your money"
The poor like democrats that say "you can have HIS money"
Rich republicans say "the government is stealing from you!" while stealing from everyone making under a quarter a million a year.
If taxation is theft, paying someone less than the value of their labor is slavery. Or at least sharecropping.
|
|
The rich like republicans that say "you can have your money"
The poor like democrats that say "you can have HIS money"Rich republicans say "the government is stealing from you!" while stealing from everyone making under a quarter a million a year.
If taxation is theft, paying someone less than the value of their labor is slavery. Or at least sharecropping.
Wich is why i favor a flat tax with no deductions or exceptions.
Who decides value of labor? The Gov kinda screwed the pooch with minimum wages, set a low bar they will drop to it instead of offering what people will take when they have options. Rise the bar and they know they can rise prices to keep up with it.
|
|
The rich like republicans that say "you can have your money"
The poor like democrats that say "you can have HIS money"Actually, Romney's tax plan will save him a bundle and raise middle class taxes by cutting deductions. That's if he actually makes it balance like he claims it will.
Obama, with both the better version in the stimulus package and the replacement based on payroll taxes, cut taxes for working people.
So really it could be the other way around.
Yet he fully believes in robbing my meager paycheck and handing out entitlements
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rich like republicans that say "you can have your money"
The poor like democrats that say "you can have HIS money"Rich republicans say "the government is stealing from you!" while stealing from everyone making under a quarter a million a year.
If taxation is theft, paying someone less than the value of their labor is slavery. Or at least sharecropping.
Wich is why i favor a flat tax with no deductions or exceptions.
Who decides value of labor? The Gov kinda screwed the pooch with minimum wages, set a low bar they will drop to it instead of offering what people will take when they have options. Rise the bar and they know they can rise prices to keep up with it.
A flat tax is an incredibly regressive tax.
Taking 25% of a million dollars still leaves the filthy rich with a disgusting wad of cash to throw around, and about 25 times what it takes to live.Taking 25% of someone who is making less than 100k/year means you're taking that money directly out of the economy.
Which is why I've said okay, flat tax of 30%, with a standard deduction of twice the poverty line. That way the people who actually spend their money on consumer goods have the money they need. But only if we can also agree that flat tax should be applied to capital gains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet he fully believes in robbing my meager paycheck and handing out entitlements
The vast VAST VAST majority of those "entitlements", i.e. medicare and social security, are just that: things people are ENTITLED to. Ya know, cuz they paid in for 50 years of their life and stuff.
Assuming you live to see 60, you'll get yours. So stop whining.
|
|
The rich like republicans that say "you can have your money"
The poor like democrats that say "you can have HIS money"Rich republicans say "the government is stealing from you!" while stealing from everyone making under a quarter a million a year.
If taxation is theft, paying someone less than the value of their labor is slavery. Or at least sharecropping.
Wich is why i favor a flat tax with no deductions or exceptions.
Who decides value of labor? The Gov kinda screwed the pooch with minimum wages, set a low bar they will drop to it instead of offering what people will take when they have options. Rise the bar and they know they can rise prices to keep up with it.
A flat tax is an incredibly regressive tax.
Taking 25% of a million dollars still leaves the filthy rich with a disgusting wad of cash to throw around, and about 25 times what it takes to live.Taking 25% of someone who is making less than 100k/year means you're taking that money directly out of the economy.
Which is why I've said okay, flat tax of 30%, with a standard deduction of twice the poverty line. That way the people who actually spend their money on consumer goods have the money they need. But only if we can also agree that flat tax should be applied to capital gains.
I still think if you cut out all of the bull and got a flat rate from all people the percent needed would be tiny
Hey, f&*$ you, Missouri is awesome.
I don't know if this is meant ironically, but regardless you might want to refrain from straightforward cursing other posters out. That way lies censorship.
Also, no it isn't :P
I still think if you cut out all of the bull and got a flat rate from all people the percent needed would be tiny
However, that belief is not founded in fact.
Oh, unless you actually tear the government down to the size Grover Norquist wants. Which I suspect you do. Which would be utterly disastrous and would lead to the new Gilded Age.
I still think if you cut out all of the bull and got a flat rate from all people the percent needed would be tinyHowever, that belief is not founded in fact.
Oh, unless you actually tear the government down to the size Grover Norquist wants. Which I suspect you do. Which would be utterly disastrous and would lead to the new Gilded Age.
This is a serious question (for once, from me): You don't think we've already reached a wealth disparity level that deserves the name New Gilded Age?
This is why obamacare scares me. Go ahead and disagree with me all you'd like. It's your right to express your opinion, just as it is mine. Note: for some reason when I try to post this website it adds an extra space on the word "where," so delete the space when you take a look and it should send you to the right site.
http://www.dentistryiq.com/news/2012/07/24/how-obamacare-harms-the-poor-whe re-to-begin.html
I also found this conversation, from the point of dental students, online. I did not contribute to it, and it presents arguments (in blog form, so yes, there are intelligent and stupid comments in abundance) from both side. I especially found the summary about 1/2 the way down useful in deciphering the legalese that is the CPPACA. And I also like the rant by Member 459982 about 3/4 of the way down. Very true from a dental student's point of view.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=927504
In regards to my comments about being forced to do-more-and-fast-or-go-bankrupt, this was written a few days ago from the point of view of a dentist. One thing to note, the writer makes the assumption that a dentist's overhead is around $100/hour. I just talked to a dentist two weeks ago who said that, for his practice, he had to make $250/hour to cover his overhead. The implications, after reading this article, are not fun to think about.
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/jul/31/gl_mac_lee_080112_183730/
There. I've had my say.
|
|
Yet he fully believes in robbing my meager paycheck and handing out entitlementsThe vast VAST VAST majority of those "entitlements", i.e. medicare and social security, are just that: things people are ENTITLED to. Ya know, cuz they paid in for 50 years of their life and stuff.
Assuming you live to see 60, you'll get yours. So stop whining.
Yeah, except many don't put in jack and take for most of their lives. I got one welfare rat the other day had the nerve to say "i worked for three years, i earned this" For the rest of his life?
65 now, might be higher IF there is anything left. Filth take far more than they pay in. i do not expect a cent to be left.
It's true.
>Jenna Jameson Has Endorsed Mitt Romney<
I've also notices that many not so rich (poor) religious right-wingers want
a Republican in office.So, it can't just be about money. But it is.
Ahahaha!
Well, she's generally right -- the whole "less taxes! small government!" platform does have a strong appeal for anyone with a high income. I can't help thinking that Jenna's endorsement may be insincere; that maybe this is her way of saying "Hey, this is why [most] rich people vote republican, even if they never say so in public. (So don't vote Romney!)"
Then again, maybe she's just refreshingly honest.
|
|
Yeah, except many don't put in jack and take for most of their lives. I got one welfare rat the other day had the nerve to say "i worked for three years, i earned this" For the rest of his life?Arguing is really easy when you can just make things up to back up any claim you care to make.
The system takes and gives. if we are getting many more takers and taking more than we can get the givers to give we have issues.
Think of why communism fails hard. to each according to need they love, to give according to ability means work they don't want to do. Same with social programs, if so many are quick to take they need to take from someone.....| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Communism didn't fail because too many people were taking and not enough were giving.
That is a kindergarten understanding of the fall of the Soviet Union which gives the Stalinist bureaucracy way too much credit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, except many don't put in jack and take for most of their lives. I got one welfare rat the other day had the nerve to say "i worked for three years, i earned this" For the rest of his life?Arguing is really easy when you can just make things up to back up any claim you care to make.The system takes and gives. if we are getting many more takers and taking more than we can get the givers to give we have issues.
Think of why communism fails hard. to each according to need they love, to give according to ability means work they don't want to do. Same with social programs, if so many are quick to take they need to take from someone.....
Were this true, we would expect nations with far more generous social programs than our own (which is most developed nations, by the way) to have collapsed under their own weight into massive unemployment and resultant social dislocations. Yet we do not observe this.
The proposition, therefore, is falsified.
This is a serious question (for once, from me): You don't think we've already reached a wealth disparity level that deserves the name New Gilded Age?
No, because this time around the rich aren't even bothering to raise works and public monuments.. in other words they're not bothering to gild anything.
|
|
Remember in Andrew R's world most people are on SS Disability (usually fraudulently) and only a few work to support them. :)
Can you give us some numbers for how many are working and paying into SS vs how many are on it without paying more than a couple years?
Also, according the CBO estimates only minor adjustments are needed to keep SS solvent indefinitely. Getting the economy going would actually do a lot of it. More importantly lowering income inequality would help a lot too. A lower percentage of total income is subject to payroll taxes now than 30-40 years ago, because a higher percentage of income is going to the topmost brackets.
No, SS disability fraud is a small part of it, welfare is the bigger issue. Look, if you guys want to punish the payers and reward the people that want a free ride have fun. Im done talking to people like you about this
Yeah, except many don't put in jack and take for most of their lives. I got one welfare rat the other day had the nerve to say "i worked for three years, i earned this" For the rest of his life?Arguing is really easy when you can just make things up to back up any claim you care to make.The system takes and gives. if we are getting many more takers and taking more than we can get the givers to give we have issues.
Think of why communism fails hard. to each according to need they love, to give according to ability means work they don't want to do. Same with social programs, if so many are quick to take they need to take from someone.....Were this true, we would expect nations with far more generous social programs than our own (which is most developed nations, by the way) to have collapsed under their own weight into massive unemployment and resultant social dislocations. Yet we do not observe this.
The proposition, therefore, is falsified.
Greece?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greece?Yeah, except many don't put in jack and take for most of their lives. I got one welfare rat the other day had the nerve to say "i worked for three years, i earned this" For the rest of his life?Arguing is really easy when you can just make things up to back up any claim you care to make.The system takes and gives. if we are getting many more takers and taking more than we can get the givers to give we have issues.
Think of why communism fails hard. to each according to need they love, to give according to ability means work they don't want to do. Same with social programs, if so many are quick to take they need to take from someone.....Were this true, we would expect nations with far more generous social programs than our own (which is most developed nations, by the way) to have collapsed under their own weight into massive unemployment and resultant social dislocations. Yet we do not observe this.
The proposition, therefore, is falsified.
Sorry, no. Greece is what you get when countries that should not even be thinking about a monetary union rush into one against the advice of everybody who knows what they're talking about and the central bank refuses to act as central bank. And, of course, you pursue economic unification without political unification.
Notice the lack of economic crises involving the notoriously generous Nordic countries. If Andrew's thesis were true, the most generous nations on earth should be the ones most screwed up. Yet they're the least.
I suppose. They also have a healthy mix of capitalism.
I suppose. They also have a healthy mix of capitalism.
Aside from Doodlebug, I don't think anybody here is suggesting we transition everything over to a command economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
