Yes thats what im talking about mom and the father dont get married have several kids and sit at home and live off the tax payers. I know first hand a young girl that as soon as she turned 18 got pregnat so she wouldnt have to work
Raising a child is a full time job, so even if she was doing that because she was lazy, im sure she soon found her folley. Married or not, you still have to list the income of anyone residing at your residence, the governemnt isnt going to hand out checks to pay for the rent of someone else. If you have jobless people at your residence, they will not put you on the system, untill they investigate it, in some cases they will put you on a temporary system untill the investigation is complete, this lasts a very short period of time, and you cannot be renewed untill you can bring proof of eligible status.
I dont know where you live but that is a luagh. the guy that lives across the street from my mom bought a trailer with land. his daughter then went through HUD and rented the trailer from her Dad. But she never even lived in the trailer but still live at home. Dad got 10 years of rent toward his purchase compliments of the taxpayers. And no the girl i was speaking of has no intentions of ever working, just having more kids.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is what you call a criminal. People rob banks all the time, its not the governments fault that someone choses to break the law. If they are caught, justice will be inforced.. If they get away with it, its the same as a bank robber getting away with his loot. Its the same as a corrupt politician using the tax payers money to work on his house. I have at one time been in need of government support, and I had to fill out all the paperwork, and go through the whole process. Everything you sign, has a felon warning on it.
They do pretty much just hand out checks. You wouldnt believe how much some people lie and get away with as far as welfare. They dont really investigate it like you think they do.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is completely inaccurate. Many wealthy people inherited millions of dollars, have never worked, and never will work, if you took their money away they would be hopeless. Some people that earned their way to the top did so on risks, and this time around may not make it back.. Yes some others that have a system in tact would regain their position.. but all of this is missing the point entirly. The point is not to give out the money everywhere.. the point is to stabilize the economy, keep the money moving. The point is not one time hand me outs, and quick tax gimmicks, the point is a steady and durable system, not like the one we have now that has failed.
They do pretty much just hand out checks. You wouldnt believe how much some people lie and get away with as far as welfare. They dont really investigate it like you think they do.
Really they dont? hmm I must have stepped into a parallel universe where they do when I applied for assistance. Why do you think whenever you apply for a job, the government interviews you on food stamps and assisted living? You cant gain a leagal job in this country without the government investigating you, and you cant apply for assistance without a full background check of your living conditions. Some people may find ways around the system, but they are lying, and stealing as any other common criminal, the government is not allowing this to happen, any more then it allows politicians to steal tax dollars, but sometimes it happens.. sometimes it goes un noticed, and sometimes people go to jail. A crime is a crime, if someone murders your brother with a screw driver, do you blame the government that they dont develope a safer standard in hand tools? thats ridiculous.
You dont cut a plan that helps people in need because a few peole are breaking the law, you punish the people breaking the law, as with any other situation where people are taking advantage. If you twos concerns are really that people are stealing from the system, then raise your voice to politicians to do a better job of fighting the injustices, dont raise your voice to end a system helping the needy. The corrupt people will just move on to other injustices, all you will have accomplished is taking from the needy. The lazy will jsut find another way to suckle.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is completely inaccurate. Many wealthy people inherited millions of dollars, have never worked, and never will work, if you took their money away they would be hopeless. Some people that earned their way to the top did so on risks, and this time around may not make it back.. Yes some others that have a system in tact would regain their position.. but all of this is missing the point entirly. The point is not to give out the money everywhere.. the point is to stabilize the economy, keep the money moving. The point is not one time hand me outs, and quick tax gimmicks, the point is a steady and durable system, not like the one we have now that has failed.
Define "many"...
Dragon - I hope you don't take this as an insult, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how wealth and money operate. The richest people in the world are almost ALL entrepeneurs. They invent something (good or service) that people want, and then later come to depend on as part of their daily lives. With estate taxes historically around 50 - 60 % wealth doesn't get handed down as readily as you seem to believe. The government has definitely been taking more than its fair share of the proceeds.
As for oil companies manufacturing their profit margin...don't be ridiculous. If they could bilk us for a 50% margin, they would be happy to do so. Any business attempts to maximize their profit margin...otherwise you don't make any money.
You say companies alter their profit margins, but then can't make the connection that a truly greedy oil company would fabricate a profit of $0 to keep all the money and avoid being a target.
You can come up with a fantastical Scenario A where the rich guy ruins everything, but fail to realize that he is paying everyone else for his clothes/food/house/car, and when his business does well that means hiring more people and paying them more. This shows you don't understand the flow of wealth.
You have grand ideas like the solar tower, but then never come up with the sources to support it. This shows you just don't have an understanding of technology, or are just making it up on the spot.
Maybe you are just bitter because you don't have money, maybe you don't want to work/invest to get more, or just haven't taken the time to become educated. Either way you are stuck where you are until you realize the opportunities to share in the wealth instead of just removing it. If you aren't greedy, then share in the wealth and then give it to others. Do the redistribution yourself, instead of expecting the politicians (millionaires) to do it.
Thats pretty close to what my final post was going to be. If you just take the stance that rich people are just evil and don't work, you will never realize that only 2% of the wealth of today's millionaires comes from inheritance ( http://theheritageinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/06/surpri... ).
You say companies alter their profit margins, but then can't make the connection that a truly greedy oil company would fabricate a profit of $0 to keep all the money and avoid being a target.
You can come up with a fantastical Scenario A where the rich guy ruins everything, but fail to realize that he is paying everyone else for his clothes/food/house/car, and when his business does well that means hiring more people and paying them more. This shows you don't understand the flow of wealth.
You have grand ideas like the solar tower, but then never come up with the sources to support it. This shows you just don't have an understanding of technology, or are just making it up on the spot.
Maybe you are just bitter because you don't have money, maybe you don't want to work/invest to get more, or just haven't taken the time to become educated. Either way you are stuck where you are until you realize the opportunities to share in the wealth instead of just removing it. If you aren't greedy, then share in the wealth and then give it to others. Do the redistribution yourself, instead of expecting the politicians (millionaires) to do it.
OK bunny, I appreciate the personal attacks really, but they are unfounded. And where I ever thought or said rich people were evil and they dont work, please point that out. I said rich people may feel its their right to keep all the money they have amassed, I may have said some corporations are greedy, in which they are.. but evil? Not hardly. I said many rich people simply inherited their money. This is also true, alot of those people still work to keep their inherited companies going, but some dont some are just lazy and dont work, but I dont think that of the majority of wealthy people.
"You say companies alter their profit margins, but then can't make the connection that a truly greedy oil company would fabricate a profit of $0 to keep all the money and avoid being a target."
Haha ha yea im sure reporting a profit of 0$ would have been a great way to avoid being a target in the crazy oil market.. if the government had investigations theyed be the first ones to be looked into.. their not stupid.
"You can come up with a fantastical Scenario A where the rich guy ruins everything, but fail to realize that he is paying everyone else for his clothes/food/house/car, and when his business does well that means hiring more people and paying them more. This shows you don't understand the flow of wealth."
Fantastic Scenario? If thats what you want to call the current state of the economy. Its not too hard to see what has happened, thats why the majority voted in Obama, you can only imagine if Obama was white he would have reigned in 70% of the vote. As I have already pointed out, it doesnt matter if a billiaire buys some clothes and food, even if its upscale clothes and food, it doesnt compare to millions of people buying clothes and food. 1% of the population controls the majority of the wealth in this country. If 1 person buys 100$ jeans, and 99 people buy 20$ jeans, the 99 people are spending a crapload more money in the economy. I dont understand the flow of wealth.. its pretty basic. Look at our contries history, the numbers speak for themselves. The mid 1900s alot of social services were introduced to the country, the gap between rich and poor began to close, we built a solid middle class. 8 Years of tax breaks to the upper class, and the numbers are showing a divide again, an elimination of the middle class. I dont even have to understand it, its just whats happening.
"You have grand ideas like the solar tower, but then never come up with the sources to support it. This shows you just don't have an understanding of technology, or are just making it up on the spot"
I dont have an understanding of technology? Um really no I dont have that kind of emense understanding of technology that took millions of dollars to unravel with top scientists, and I doubt anyone else that wasnt a part of the project really understands 100%. The source I read from I assume was from early in the project, and it may have been misleading, but it was an AP news article, it wasnt direct data from the source. The solar tower is still a great idea, and if we had invested billions of dollars on those and other alternitive energies instead of wasting it on a war, we would be doing alot better for ourselves. The Solar tower is a grand idea with the sources you guys have given me, its still an amazing investment.
"Maybe you are just bitter because you don't have money, maybe you don't want to work/invest to get more, or just haven't taken the time to become educated. Either way you are stuck where you are until you realize the opportunities to share in the wealth instead of just removing it. If you aren't greedy, then share in the wealth and then give it to others. Do the redistribution yourself, instead of expecting the politicians (millionaires) to do it."
Belive me, im more then glad to share what little I have, but some people no matter how much they have will never want to share, and though it may be their right to do so right now, if laws change, it will no longer be their right. If the country is being damaged such as it is, the leaders will fix it. Thanks for implying im bitter ha, but I dont need much more then what I already have, what I dont have, ill be able to get eventually, Im happy with what I have, and I work plenty. Im plenty educated on the subject, and im sure the politicians in washington are more educated than anyone here. What is the argument in washington tho? The argument in washington isnt weather or not the rich have damaged the economy, both parties see and agree on that. The argument is wether or not they should step in and take matters into their own hands. The republicans arguement, is no, its a free market and no one should step in, even if its commiting suicide. Again im not investing, there is no way i wanna see my money go into the pocket of a CEO who walks away from his company and lays off thousands.
Im sorry if I expect the politicians to do something.. well I guess thats why we elect them.. to do something.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is completely inaccurate. Many wealthy people inherited millions of dollars, have never worked, and never will work, if you took their money away they would be hopeless. Some people that earned their way to the top did so on risks, and this time around may not make it back.. Yes some others that have a system in tact would regain their position.. but all of this is missing the point entirly. The point is not to give out the money everywhere.. the point is to stabilize the economy, keep the money moving. The point is not one time hand me outs, and quick tax gimmicks, the point is a steady and durable system, not like the one we have now that has failed.
Define "many"...
Dragon - I hope you don't take this as an insult, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how wealth and money operate. The richest people in the world are almost ALL entrepeneurs. They invent something (good or service) that people want, and then later come to depend on as part of their daily lives. With estate taxes historically around 50 - 60 % wealth doesn't get handed down as readily as you seem to believe. The government has definitely been taking more than its fair share of the proceeds.
As for oil companies manufacturing their profit margin...don't be ridiculous. If they could bilk us for a 50% margin, they would be happy to do so. Any business attempts to maximize their profit margin...otherwise you don't make any money.
The governemnt has been taking more than their fair share of the proceeds, so that means the money doesnt get handed down? What do you think the governemnt does with money? DO you think uncle sam and china go buy some beers and throw pennies into the wishing well? The government is a system of the people for the people and by the people. The governemnt builds schools, researches energy, pays the fire department, builds rodes, creats jobs, puts out food stamps etc. I never though or wanted the governemnt to take billions of dollars from the rich, and start handing out checks to everyone.. that would be stupid. Tax cuts for the middle class and poor would be nice however.. but putting money in to social services, so lower income families have money to spend on other things and move the economy is what makes sense.
Im not saying their decreasing their actaul intake of money, im saying their playing with numbers to look as if their profit margin is lower then it is, and even if they werent, it doesnt matter they are still taking in billions.
Dragon - The government taking ANY of the proceeds of my death is too much. And yes, if they take my kids or grandkids inheritance then obviously it doesn't get handed down. The federal government doesn't build schools, pay fire departments, build roads (other than interstate). Local governments do that, and they already tax me through property taxes and sales taxes to pay for it.
Also, it is a tremendous fallacy to believe that politicians are in any way better educated than some of us here. Their general lack of understanding of science and technology is horrific, and leads to all sorts of misguided programs and subsidies. Also, their inability to see 3rd order effects (let alone 2nd order effects) of their actions, is pathetic and short sighted. These are non-partisan statements. With very few exceptions everybody in Washington fits that mold.
Reading your reply to Bunny, it is very clear that you put way more faith in our elected officials than is justified.
Also, I find it ironic that you bash the trickle-down concept but still think the government somehow magically creates jobs. When they're not actually civil servant positions (which we certainly DO NOT need more of) they "make" those jobs by shifting tax burdens between industries and effectively subsidizing sectors where they want to see growth. That shift can be in the form of grants or special tax benefits. If that's not an idea driven by "trickle-down", then I don't know what is.
Dragon - The government taking ANY of the proceeds of my death is too much. And yes, if they take my kids or grandkids inheritance then obviously it doesn't get handed down. The federal government doesn't build schools, pay fire departments, build roads (other than interstate). Local governments do that, and they already tax me through property taxes and sales taxes to pay for it.
Also, it is a tremendous fallacy to believe that politicians are in any way better educated than some of us here. Their general lack of understanding of science and technology is horrific, and leads to all sorts of misguided programs and subsidies. Also, their inability to see 3rd order effects (let alone 2nd order effects) of their actions, is pathetic and short sighted. These are non-partisan statements. With very few exceptions everybody in Washington fits that mold.
Reading your reply to Bunny, it is very clear that you put way more faith in our elected officials than is justified.
Also, I find it ironic that you bash the trickle-down concept but still think the government somehow magically creates jobs. When they're not actually civil servant positions (which we certainly DO NOT need more of) they "make" those jobs by shifting tax burdens between industries and effectively subsidizing sectors where they want to see growth. That shift can be in the form of grants or special tax benefits. If that's not an idea driven by "trickle-down", then I don't know what is.
Pretty much every financial transaction, no matter what it may be for is taxed. It has been that way for a long long time. If you wanna knit pick at certain taxes, because you think they are immoral, then there is no point in having taxes at all, and without taxes there is no governemnt at all. I could say I dont want them to tax my lottery winning because the money goes to public schools which teach nationalism. Nobody likes taxes, but you cant have a governemnt without them, so when choosing life insurance simply factor in all the costs, its that easy.
Local governments get funding and grants from the federal govenment all the time. Do you think the average local governemnt can sustain itself soley internally?
The comment I made about politicians being better educated then most of us here, was in reply to a comment made about the economy, not about technology.
I put faith in the people mostly, not in the officials. I have faith in the people to chose the right officials for the job tho.
There are many ways to move money and repair the economy. Relying on a way that has been failing us for nearly a decade is not too savvy, the people have seen that and made their decision clear.
Dragon - MOST life insurance limits are way below the threshhold to incur inheritance taxes. But just because some person is handing down a lot of money does not make it fundamentally OK to tax their heirs for it.
We have crossed a threshhold in this country where the vast majority of people do not pay their fair share of taxes to cover the programs and services that they use. This presents a situation in which the majority feel OK about overtaxing the minority, since the majority isn't footing the bill. Clearly you have bought into the notion that this is somehow alright. I don't understand how ANYBODY can think this way in good conscience.
Unlike you, I have absolutely no faith in the masses to choose the right officials, given the fact that they aren't paying for the programs they're voting for, anyway. Again, I wish to state clearly that the VAST majority of public officials obviously know less about nearly anything than some of us here, or the economy wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Like I said before, they are short sighted and do not understand high order effects of their actions (be they tax subsidies, increases, whatever, that they use to push their agenda).
Luke: ."Be on your guard against covetousness in any shape or form. For a man's real life in no way depends upon the number of his possessions... A rich man's farmland produced heavy crops. So he said to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have no room to store this harvest of mine?' Then he said, 'I know what I'll do. I'll pull down my barns and build bigger ones where I can store all my grain and my goods and I can say to my soul, Soul, you have plenty of good things stored up there for years to come. Relax! Eat, drink, and have a good time!' But God said to him, 'You fool, this very night you will be asked for YOUR SOUL!...' That is what happens to the man who hoards things for himself and is not rich in the eyes of God."
Yes I do belive its ok to tax people with higher income, especially those making phenominal incomes such as above 250k. With a good conscience.. why yes of course. I cant see how someone making over 250k can complaign their taxes will go up. Give me a break. Your arguement is, its not fair to tax the rich people more, but lower income people should be taxed more then they already are, because they arent paying their fair share? I think the sherrif of nohtingham would agree with you there, and similar scenerio has unfolded. You want the kings brother (uncle sam) to tax lower incomes more to pull their weight, even though the masses of jobs availible to them is working the farm for pennies (working at restuarants and retial stores for minimum wage). They cant afford to buy food let alone higher taxes. So what has happened. Well youve already seen it in action.. the economy has spiraled out of control, the people have revolted against the mainstream and chosen an unlikely hero. Trickle down economics have been tried, giving breaks to the wealthy and major corporations have all been done... was it our salvation? No.. its the reason were in the mess were in right now. It is the cause not the cure. Thats why the people voted the way they did.. the number one issue on the polls was our economy. The people saw Mccain voting with Bush 90% of the time, they saw the same economic plan being presented by Mccain as was Bush. Mccain said he was going with trickle down economics, and the people said no way, youve run our economy into the ground, no more!
The wealthy depend on the middle class. Their corporations, ideas, and products are nothing without the middle class and lower class to consume them. If anyone can sit there and say.. hey im making billions a year.. money in the bank, give me more tax breaks. Look at that slob working 60 hours at mccdonalds... he thinks hes getting food stamps to feed his kids? Tax him! make him pull his weight! Thats just terrible, someone needs to check their concience there. Also check your bible. The new testimate is written all about how the rich oppress the poor with their controll of money. The meek shall inherit the earth. Possesion, gains, these are all things of sin, and warned by the profits of the new testimate. How can you have the mentality of "its mine mine mine, you cant have it, it has my name on it I earned it.. its mine and no one elses" when jesus delibertly taught thinking this was was sin. Now im not a christian, but have read, and studdied the bible, and it is apparent the whole christian message, the whole new testimate message, is a life of poverty is a path of rightiouness, claiming possesion is sin. Thats not the code i go by, thats the code of the bible, but basic morals, and compassion for your fellow man, a good conscience as you put it, is the reason I belive what I belive.
If you belive in cold eye for an eye justice, whats mine is mine, you do your own thing and ill do my own thing, then maybe you would find the torah comforting. But in the good book, jesus brought the new word of god.
"Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" The disciples were amazed at His words. Then Jesus said, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God!"
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor: Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
"All the believers joined together and shared everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship according to individual need."
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had... There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
"The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
"Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you."
dragonlunch it's pretty clear you're a socialist which is all fine and dandy I just don't think you'll find many people that share that view point (mainly because it has failed countless times ... good in theory ... terrible in practice as there is little or no motivation to actually do work or work harder as in the end everyone gets the same) ... same thing applies to society ... anytime someone works harder and is punished (in this case taxed more) for it ... what's the incentive for that person to work harder??? sheer goodwill??? perhaps, but I think you'll find mostly a lot of unreported income and a less motivated work force ... and businesses potentially moving overseas ... businesses tend to move where money is to be made (why do you think so many people have moved jobs overseas ... it's cheaper ... either by government taxes or workforce) ... the whole let's start new energy campaign and not use any old resources is going to result in U.S. manufacturers having a hard time to compete as these "new technologies" will be less efficient and cost more as the technology is not there yet ... causing the company that HAS to use them in the U.S. to be less efficient on a globalized field ... resulting in the company either moving overseas so that they can produce goods cheaper ... or eventually losing out market in the global marketplace to another company in another country that does not have these restrictions imposed
More often then not, the hardest workers make less money then people with simple jobs. Capitolism has crashed and crashed again.. how are we doing any better then hitlers socialist regime.. they seemed to be doing awesome aside from hitlers instanity and racism. Socialism brought germany out of a WW1 depression.
you are mistaken there ... it was not socialism that brought germany out of a WW1 Depression ... it was WAR ... and where did Hitler get his money for this ... oh he just STOLE it all from the Jewish people and well he attacked others for it ... he built a war machine ... so no it wasn't socialism it was racism ... and capitalism has not failed ... take a look at China ... China is probably the most capitalistic nation on the face of the earth now
I know I know ... China is a Socialist Country ... that's changing folks if you haven't been noticing ...... BTW when you can't get enough to eat that's when you know Socialism is hard at work ... when there is an abundance = capitalism
Germanys economy was booming in 1933, they didnt enter war untill 1938. Im not a socialist, but I do belive alot of socialist ideas are great. We currently have many socialist programs. I belive in democracy, but I dont think we should give up public schooling.
China is a communist state, communism is closely tied to socialism. Thats was indeed a good example.
Capitolism doesnt mean your belly is full. A large portion of third world contries are democratic capitolistic states, where thousands starve everyday. My grand father almost starved to death in this country, the shinning star of capitolism
Dragon - if those high paying jobs are so easy, why don't you get one? Oh wait...because they're (a) not that easy, and (b) require highly specialized skill sets and education that most people don't possess.
Please don't quote scripture to me when you've made your views on the Bible previously known and clearly lack a full understanding of context. Just because someone is rich in the material sense, does not preclude them from being rich in the spiritual sense. God has blessed the rich with riches so that they can know the joy of charity and sharing. You seem to have disregarded everything I've said about charitable giving. It is up to the person to decide, not the government. If someone forcibly takes it from you, then you are not giving it charitably.
Yes, I agree with ant, that it is completely clear that you are a socialist, though you deny this because you believe democracy and socialism are somehow incompatible. Socialism is an ECONOMIC construct, democracy is a GOVERNMENTAL construct. It just so happens that most of the other socialist countries were dictatorships. Modern europe is almost entirely socialist, and they have democracy.
Also, your way of thinking is screwed up. Just because I point out that a vast majority of people don't pay their fair share, you automatically assume that we should tax them MORE. How moronic. We need to strip away a tremendous amount of government spending, so that we can ALL be taxed LESS. The machine has gotten too bloated...that is the nature of building socialist programs. It disgusts me that you think a tiny percentage of Americans should be willing to pay for socialist garbage for everybody else. What happened to self reliance and dignity?
I'm a little late to the discussion, but check this out: www.change.gov
Its an outline for Obama's policies. Pretty revolutionary when you think about a president-elect putting his agenda up for everyone to see, read and critique. I'm quite sure this hasn't happened before.
Few observations:
1. Indiana voted majority for Obama. This is a state whose history is steeped in racism and KKK activity. Not even 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, not even 50 years after lynchings and cross-burnings were tolerated, condoned and not prosecuted does this state choose a black man for the highest office. Its amazing.
2. Obama hasn't even taken office yet and the day after he gets elected chooses a chief of staff and announces his transition team. This man is on top of things. He is smart and ready for the job. I don't remember what its like to have a competent leader in the White House.
3. If you look at Obama's speech in Grant Park in Chicago and compare it with previous presidential acceptance parties, then you must notice a huge difference between the stuffy, elegant ballrooms of the privileged and the open air, every man gathering of supporters. People lined the streets all over the world in joy. Can you remember the last time that has happened?
4. If McCain would have run his campaign with the same honesty he displayed when he gave his concession speech, then he would have given Obama more of a run for his money. I applaud John McCain for that speech he gave; it showed him as an honest, patriotic man. Where was that during his campaign?
Something has begun. Its growing throughout the country and the world. Tolerance, compassion and accountability in the White House? Its a reflection of the will of people. For Obama supporters, its time to keep the movement going. For those who don't yet believe in this man, please afford him the grace and help change the world with us.
4. If McCain would have run his campaign with the same honesty he displayed when he gave his concession speech, then he would have given Obama more of a run for his money. I applaud John McCain for that speech he gave; it showed him as an honest, patriotic man. Where was that during his campaign?
MLN
Vito this I agree with completely very well said sir.
However what thoughts do you have on Obama saying he's not sure if he is the Barrack Obama that has been created over the past two years that everyone has made him out to be. IE... that over the past two years Barrack Obama is more like a thing and not a person that everyone who voted for him has put all these hopes/dreams/ideas into a change machine and it's more than him as a single man. It seems to me that he is still trying to keep up with this thought and it was shown true when he was the first elected official to such a high office that shooed his family off stage and did the acceptance speech alone with just him and an empty stage so that he had 100% of the attention. I guess only time will tell?
2. Obama hasn't even taken office yet and the day after he gets elected chooses a chief of staff and announces his transition team. This man is on top of things. He is smart and ready for the job. I don't remember what its like to have a competent leader in the White House.
In 2000 Bush announced his Chief of Staff on Nov 26, 2 weeks before the election was finalized by the Supreme Court. Clinton was mid Dec, Reagan was Nov 14. The transition team is always known months before the election, because that gets support from top people. I would bet he already has his inauguration speech written too. You see change because you want to see it.
Originally posted by: mario's left nut
3. If you look at Obama's speech in Grant Park in Chicago and compare it with previous presidential acceptance parties, then you must notice a huge difference between the stuffy, elegant ballrooms of the privileged and the open air, every man gathering of supporters.
Like in 2000 when Bush did his speech in the open air in front of the Reagan building? Or Clinton in front of crowds outside in Little Rock in 1992? Had it been horrendous weather I guarantee there were at least 2 alternate indoor locations prepared with that much security. Again something that you wouldn't otherwise care about, because it has happened many times before and nobody noticed.
Originally posted by: mario's left nut
Something has begun. Its growing throughout the country and the world. Tolerance, compassion and accountability in the White House? Its a reflection of the will of people. For Obama supporters, its time to keep the movement going. For those who don't yet believe in this man, please afford him the grace and help change the world with us.
Interestingly it was the black and hispanic Obama supporters coming out to vote that made the gay marriage ban in Calif pass. Had they not voted, Obama would have still easily won but the ban would have failed. So much for tolerance and compassion. One oppressed group comes out to oppress another!
Dragon - if those high paying jobs are so easy, why don't you get one? Oh wait...because they're (a) not that easy, and (b) require highly specialized skill sets and education that most people don't possess.
Please don't quote scripture to me when you've made your views on the Bible previously known and clearly lack a full understanding of context. Just because someone is rich in the material sense, does not preclude them from being rich in the spiritual sense. God has blessed the rich with riches so that they can know the joy of charity and sharing. You seem to have disregarded everything I've said about charitable giving. It is up to the person to decide, not the government. If someone forcibly takes it from you, then you are not giving it charitably.
Yes, I agree with ant, that it is completely clear that you are a socialist, though you deny this because you believe democracy and socialism are somehow incompatible. Socialism is an ECONOMIC construct, democracy is a GOVERNMENTAL construct. It just so happens that most of the other socialist countries were dictatorships. Modern europe is almost entirely socialist, and they have democracy.
Also, your way of thinking is screwed up. Just because I point out that a vast majority of people don't pay their fair share, you automatically assume that we should tax them MORE. How moronic. We need to strip away a tremendous amount of government spending, so that we can ALL be taxed LESS. The machine has gotten too bloated...that is the nature of building socialist programs. It disgusts me that you think a tiny percentage of Americans should be willing to pay for socialist garbage for everybody else. What happened to self reliance and dignity?
I never said high paying jobs were easy to obtain, I simply said in many cases they were easier to preform.
Aparently according to scripture, you shouldnt complaign if your money is taken. According to scripture, you should never have enough wealth to hoard and amass it. God has blessed the rich? That statement in itself is almost sinfull. You dont have to be rich to give charitably. According to you god gives free will, so why would he need to bless you with useless things. In the whole tone of the bible, god blesses the needy, he doesnt make people millionairs. Jesus word is not for the rich to give a little bit of their money to charity. Jesus's word is to give up everything. Its very clear in the bible, no matter how anyone tries to reframe it so they can not feel bad about the conflict between their religion and their desire for money.. Jesus wants you to give up everything and take only what you need.. That is what he and his disciples said.
I certainly dont think democracy and socialism are imcompatible.. I think its pretty clear the point im trying to make is that they are compatible, and it can work rather nicely. I also belive you can have a capitolist economic system, with many elements of socialism. We are already proof of that, I just think its a good idea, where as you think its a bad idea, and we should get rid of the socialist ideas. Wasnt all the points I was making about universal health care pretty much pointing at europe and saying hey this is what I think is a good idea! Where would you get the notion that I dont think democracy and socialism can work together?
If your saying someone isnt paying their fair share.. then the logical answer is.. that you want them to pay their fair share. I suppose thats moronic of me. I dont know what your definition of fair share is either. 1% of the population controlls the majority of the wealth in this country. So the other 99% is expected to be able to afford to pay the same? Taxs are there to pay for the needs of the people, the vast majority of the people are low income or middle income. The tax system is going to favor the majority. Its not only common sense, but its democracy. Our system is bloated and cannot afford the basic humanitarian needs of the people? We are the richest nation in the world. Far poorer countries can afford it. To say were bloated and cant afford it is just excuses. How can anyone argue to give breaks to the super wealthy, and give less breaks to the starving.. It doesnt make any kind of logical sense and its immoral.
I think it's interesting the Obama/Biden ticket advocate for the middle/low class but the Obamas donated about 1 percent of their annual earnings to charity 2000 through 2004 and 4.7% in 2005, and 6.1% in 2006 which coincidentally went up as him running for office drew closer. All are rather small amounts for by any standards, a rich guy and self proclaimed advocate for the poor/needy. The Bidens donated 0.2% of their income over the last DECADE. How noble of them to force others to give up their money? It's easy to take others money to do "good work" but interestingly telling how it hasn't been convenient to set the good example from their own checkbook
Dragon - I don't believe we will ever be able to reconcile our differences on this issue. You lack the ability to distinguish to fundamental injustice of taking what is not yours simply because somebody has something that you do not.
Dragon - I don't believe we will ever be able to reconcile our differences on this issue. You lack the ability to distinguish to fundamental injustice of taking what is not yours simply because somebody has something that you do not.
agreed ... it would be like saying dragon lunch we as a country like your Nintendo NES collection ... but we feel it best that others be able to have it too ... so we as a nation will be confiscating 30% of it to redistribute as we feel fit and will give you nothing for it .... By the way as we do this, you should be HAPPY that we are going to just toss the stuff in a truck and ride down the road and throw a game out at a bunch of random people ... maybe one of them can make money off of it ... which will help redistribute the wealth ... YOUR GOVERNMENT THANKS YOU FOR BEING PATRIOTIC ... give us more money please
Comments
single mother then yes you can collect welfare
Yes thats what im talking about mom and the father dont get married have several kids and sit at home and live off the tax payers. I know first hand a young girl that as soon as she turned 18 got pregnat so she wouldnt have to work
Raising a child is a full time job, so even if she was doing that because she was lazy, im sure she soon found her folley. Married or not, you still have to list the income of anyone residing at your residence, the governemnt isnt going to hand out checks to pay for the rent of someone else. If you have jobless people at your residence, they will not put you on the system, untill they investigate it, in some cases they will put you on a temporary system untill the investigation is complete, this lasts a very short period of time, and you cannot be renewed untill you can bring proof of eligible status.
I dont know where you live but that is a luagh. the guy that lives across the street from my mom bought a trailer with land. his daughter then went through HUD and rented the trailer from her Dad. But she never even lived in the trailer but still live at home. Dad got 10 years of rent toward his purchase compliments of the taxpayers. And no the girl i was speaking of has no intentions of ever working, just having more kids.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is completely inaccurate. Many wealthy people inherited millions of dollars, have never worked, and never will work, if you took their money away they would be hopeless. Some people that earned their way to the top did so on risks, and this time around may not make it back.. Yes some others that have a system in tact would regain their position.. but all of this is missing the point entirly. The point is not to give out the money everywhere.. the point is to stabilize the economy, keep the money moving. The point is not one time hand me outs, and quick tax gimmicks, the point is a steady and durable system, not like the one we have now that has failed.
They do pretty much just hand out checks. You wouldnt believe how much some people lie and get away with as far as welfare. They dont really investigate it like you think they do.
Really they dont? hmm I must have stepped into a parallel universe where they do when I applied for assistance. Why do you think whenever you apply for a job, the government interviews you on food stamps and assisted living? You cant gain a leagal job in this country without the government investigating you, and you cant apply for assistance without a full background check of your living conditions. Some people may find ways around the system, but they are lying, and stealing as any other common criminal, the government is not allowing this to happen, any more then it allows politicians to steal tax dollars, but sometimes it happens.. sometimes it goes un noticed, and sometimes people go to jail. A crime is a crime, if someone murders your brother with a screw driver, do you blame the government that they dont develope a safer standard in hand tools? thats ridiculous.
You dont cut a plan that helps people in need because a few peole are breaking the law, you punish the people breaking the law, as with any other situation where people are taking advantage. If you twos concerns are really that people are stealing from the system, then raise your voice to politicians to do a better job of fighting the injustices, dont raise your voice to end a system helping the needy. The corrupt people will just move on to other injustices, all you will have accomplished is taking from the needy. The lazy will jsut find another way to suckle.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is completely inaccurate. Many wealthy people inherited millions of dollars, have never worked, and never will work, if you took their money away they would be hopeless. Some people that earned their way to the top did so on risks, and this time around may not make it back.. Yes some others that have a system in tact would regain their position.. but all of this is missing the point entirly. The point is not to give out the money everywhere.. the point is to stabilize the economy, keep the money moving. The point is not one time hand me outs, and quick tax gimmicks, the point is a steady and durable system, not like the one we have now that has failed.
Define "many"...
Dragon - I hope you don't take this as an insult, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how wealth and money operate. The richest people in the world are almost ALL entrepeneurs. They invent something (good or service) that people want, and then later come to depend on as part of their daily lives. With estate taxes historically around 50 - 60 % wealth doesn't get handed down as readily as you seem to believe. The government has definitely been taking more than its fair share of the proceeds.
As for oil companies manufacturing their profit margin...don't be ridiculous. If they could bilk us for a 50% margin, they would be happy to do so. Any business attempts to maximize their profit margin...otherwise you don't make any money.
You say companies alter their profit margins, but then can't make the connection that a truly greedy oil company would fabricate a profit of $0 to keep all the money and avoid being a target.
You can come up with a fantastical Scenario A where the rich guy ruins everything, but fail to realize that he is paying everyone else for his clothes/food/house/car, and when his business does well that means hiring more people and paying them more. This shows you don't understand the flow of wealth.
You have grand ideas like the solar tower, but then never come up with the sources to support it. This shows you just don't have an understanding of technology, or are just making it up on the spot.
Maybe you are just bitter because you don't have money, maybe you don't want to work/invest to get more, or just haven't taken the time to become educated. Either way you are stuck where you are until you realize the opportunities to share in the wealth instead of just removing it. If you aren't greedy, then share in the wealth and then give it to others. Do the redistribution yourself, instead of expecting the politicians (millionaires) to do it.
Thats pretty close to what my final post was going to be. If you just take the stance that rich people are just evil and don't work, you will never realize that only 2% of the wealth of today's millionaires comes from inheritance ( http://theheritageinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/06/surpri... ).
You say companies alter their profit margins, but then can't make the connection that a truly greedy oil company would fabricate a profit of $0 to keep all the money and avoid being a target.
You can come up with a fantastical Scenario A where the rich guy ruins everything, but fail to realize that he is paying everyone else for his clothes/food/house/car, and when his business does well that means hiring more people and paying them more. This shows you don't understand the flow of wealth.
You have grand ideas like the solar tower, but then never come up with the sources to support it. This shows you just don't have an understanding of technology, or are just making it up on the spot.
Maybe you are just bitter because you don't have money, maybe you don't want to work/invest to get more, or just haven't taken the time to become educated. Either way you are stuck where you are until you realize the opportunities to share in the wealth instead of just removing it. If you aren't greedy, then share in the wealth and then give it to others. Do the redistribution yourself, instead of expecting the politicians (millionaires) to do it.
OK bunny, I appreciate the personal attacks really, but they are unfounded. And where I ever thought or said rich people were evil and they dont work, please point that out. I said rich people may feel its their right to keep all the money they have amassed, I may have said some corporations are greedy, in which they are.. but evil? Not hardly. I said many rich people simply inherited their money. This is also true, alot of those people still work to keep their inherited companies going, but some dont some are just lazy and dont work, but I dont think that of the majority of wealthy people.
"You say companies alter their profit margins, but then can't make the connection that a truly greedy oil company would fabricate a profit of $0 to keep all the money and avoid being a target."
Haha ha yea im sure reporting a profit of 0$ would have been a great way to avoid being a target in the crazy oil market.. if the government had investigations theyed be the first ones to be looked into.. their not stupid.
"You can come up with a fantastical Scenario A where the rich guy ruins everything, but fail to realize that he is paying everyone else for his clothes/food/house/car, and when his business does well that means hiring more people and paying them more. This shows you don't understand the flow of wealth."
Fantastic Scenario? If thats what you want to call the current state of the economy. Its not too hard to see what has happened, thats why the majority voted in Obama, you can only imagine if Obama was white he would have reigned in 70% of the vote. As I have already pointed out, it doesnt matter if a billiaire buys some clothes and food, even if its upscale clothes and food, it doesnt compare to millions of people buying clothes and food. 1% of the population controls the majority of the wealth in this country. If 1 person buys 100$ jeans, and 99 people buy 20$ jeans, the 99 people are spending a crapload more money in the economy. I dont understand the flow of wealth.. its pretty basic. Look at our contries history, the numbers speak for themselves. The mid 1900s alot of social services were introduced to the country, the gap between rich and poor began to close, we built a solid middle class. 8 Years of tax breaks to the upper class, and the numbers are showing a divide again, an elimination of the middle class. I dont even have to understand it, its just whats happening.
"You have grand ideas like the solar tower, but then never come up with the sources to support it. This shows you just don't have an understanding of technology, or are just making it up on the spot"
I dont have an understanding of technology? Um really no I dont have that kind of emense understanding of technology that took millions of dollars to unravel with top scientists, and I doubt anyone else that wasnt a part of the project really understands 100%. The source I read from I assume was from early in the project, and it may have been misleading, but it was an AP news article, it wasnt direct data from the source. The solar tower is still a great idea, and if we had invested billions of dollars on those and other alternitive energies instead of wasting it on a war, we would be doing alot better for ourselves. The Solar tower is a grand idea with the sources you guys have given me, its still an amazing investment.
"Maybe you are just bitter because you don't have money, maybe you don't want to work/invest to get more, or just haven't taken the time to become educated. Either way you are stuck where you are until you realize the opportunities to share in the wealth instead of just removing it. If you aren't greedy, then share in the wealth and then give it to others. Do the redistribution yourself, instead of expecting the politicians (millionaires) to do it."
Belive me, im more then glad to share what little I have, but some people no matter how much they have will never want to share, and though it may be their right to do so right now, if laws change, it will no longer be their right. If the country is being damaged such as it is, the leaders will fix it. Thanks for implying im bitter ha, but I dont need much more then what I already have, what I dont have, ill be able to get eventually, Im happy with what I have, and I work plenty. Im plenty educated on the subject, and im sure the politicians in washington are more educated than anyone here. What is the argument in washington tho? The argument in washington isnt weather or not the rich have damaged the economy, both parties see and agree on that. The argument is wether or not they should step in and take matters into their own hands. The republicans arguement, is no, its a free market and no one should step in, even if its commiting suicide. Again im not investing, there is no way i wanna see my money go into the pocket of a CEO who walks away from his company and lays off thousands.
Im sorry if I expect the politicians to do something.. well I guess thats why we elect them.. to do something.
I mean it basically boils down to the point that if you took all the money in the US and split it equally between everyone within a year the people who have all the money now would end up with all the wealth again.
That is completely inaccurate. Many wealthy people inherited millions of dollars, have never worked, and never will work, if you took their money away they would be hopeless. Some people that earned their way to the top did so on risks, and this time around may not make it back.. Yes some others that have a system in tact would regain their position.. but all of this is missing the point entirly. The point is not to give out the money everywhere.. the point is to stabilize the economy, keep the money moving. The point is not one time hand me outs, and quick tax gimmicks, the point is a steady and durable system, not like the one we have now that has failed.
Define "many"...
Dragon - I hope you don't take this as an insult, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how wealth and money operate. The richest people in the world are almost ALL entrepeneurs. They invent something (good or service) that people want, and then later come to depend on as part of their daily lives. With estate taxes historically around 50 - 60 % wealth doesn't get handed down as readily as you seem to believe. The government has definitely been taking more than its fair share of the proceeds.
As for oil companies manufacturing their profit margin...don't be ridiculous. If they could bilk us for a 50% margin, they would be happy to do so. Any business attempts to maximize their profit margin...otherwise you don't make any money.
The governemnt has been taking more than their fair share of the proceeds, so that means the money doesnt get handed down? What do you think the governemnt does with money? DO you think uncle sam and china go buy some beers and throw pennies into the wishing well? The government is a system of the people for the people and by the people. The governemnt builds schools, researches energy, pays the fire department, builds rodes, creats jobs, puts out food stamps etc. I never though or wanted the governemnt to take billions of dollars from the rich, and start handing out checks to everyone.. that would be stupid. Tax cuts for the middle class and poor would be nice however.. but putting money in to social services, so lower income families have money to spend on other things and move the economy is what makes sense.
Im not saying their decreasing their actaul intake of money, im saying their playing with numbers to look as if their profit margin is lower then it is, and even if they werent, it doesnt matter they are still taking in billions.
Also, it is a tremendous fallacy to believe that politicians are in any way better educated than some of us here. Their general lack of understanding of science and technology is horrific, and leads to all sorts of misguided programs and subsidies. Also, their inability to see 3rd order effects (let alone 2nd order effects) of their actions, is pathetic and short sighted. These are non-partisan statements. With very few exceptions everybody in Washington fits that mold.
Reading your reply to Bunny, it is very clear that you put way more faith in our elected officials than is justified.
Also, I find it ironic that you bash the trickle-down concept but still think the government somehow magically creates jobs. When they're not actually civil servant positions (which we certainly DO NOT need more of) they "make" those jobs by shifting tax burdens between industries and effectively subsidizing sectors where they want to see growth. That shift can be in the form of grants or special tax benefits. If that's not an idea driven by "trickle-down", then I don't know what is.
Dragon - The government taking ANY of the proceeds of my death is too much.
Reading your reply to Bunny, it is very clear that you put way more faith in our elected officials than is justified.
AMEN!
Dragon - The government taking ANY of the proceeds of my death is too much. And yes, if they take my kids or grandkids inheritance then obviously it doesn't get handed down. The federal government doesn't build schools, pay fire departments, build roads (other than interstate). Local governments do that, and they already tax me through property taxes and sales taxes to pay for it.
Also, it is a tremendous fallacy to believe that politicians are in any way better educated than some of us here. Their general lack of understanding of science and technology is horrific, and leads to all sorts of misguided programs and subsidies. Also, their inability to see 3rd order effects (let alone 2nd order effects) of their actions, is pathetic and short sighted. These are non-partisan statements. With very few exceptions everybody in Washington fits that mold.
Reading your reply to Bunny, it is very clear that you put way more faith in our elected officials than is justified.
Also, I find it ironic that you bash the trickle-down concept but still think the government somehow magically creates jobs. When they're not actually civil servant positions (which we certainly DO NOT need more of) they "make" those jobs by shifting tax burdens between industries and effectively subsidizing sectors where they want to see growth. That shift can be in the form of grants or special tax benefits. If that's not an idea driven by "trickle-down", then I don't know what is.
Pretty much every financial transaction, no matter what it may be for is taxed. It has been that way for a long long time. If you wanna knit pick at certain taxes, because you think they are immoral, then there is no point in having taxes at all, and without taxes there is no governemnt at all. I could say I dont want them to tax my lottery winning because the money goes to public schools which teach nationalism. Nobody likes taxes, but you cant have a governemnt without them, so when choosing life insurance simply factor in all the costs, its that easy.
Local governments get funding and grants from the federal govenment all the time. Do you think the average local governemnt can sustain itself soley internally?
The comment I made about politicians being better educated then most of us here, was in reply to a comment made about the economy, not about technology.
I put faith in the people mostly, not in the officials. I have faith in the people to chose the right officials for the job tho.
There are many ways to move money and repair the economy. Relying on a way that has been failing us for nearly a decade is not too savvy, the people have seen that and made their decision clear.
We have crossed a threshhold in this country where the vast majority of people do not pay their fair share of taxes to cover the programs and services that they use. This presents a situation in which the majority feel OK about overtaxing the minority, since the majority isn't footing the bill. Clearly you have bought into the notion that this is somehow alright. I don't understand how ANYBODY can think this way in good conscience.
Unlike you, I have absolutely no faith in the masses to choose the right officials, given the fact that they aren't paying for the programs they're voting for, anyway. Again, I wish to state clearly that the VAST majority of public officials obviously know less about nearly anything than some of us here, or the economy wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Like I said before, they are short sighted and do not understand high order effects of their actions (be they tax subsidies, increases, whatever, that they use to push their agenda).
Yes I do belive its ok to tax people with higher income, especially those making phenominal incomes such as above 250k. With a good conscience.. why yes of course. I cant see how someone making over 250k can complaign their taxes will go up. Give me a break. Your arguement is, its not fair to tax the rich people more, but lower income people should be taxed more then they already are, because they arent paying their fair share? I think the sherrif of nohtingham would agree with you there, and similar scenerio has unfolded. You want the kings brother (uncle sam) to tax lower incomes more to pull their weight, even though the masses of jobs availible to them is working the farm for pennies (working at restuarants and retial stores for minimum wage). They cant afford to buy food let alone higher taxes. So what has happened. Well youve already seen it in action.. the economy has spiraled out of control, the people have revolted against the mainstream and chosen an unlikely hero. Trickle down economics have been tried, giving breaks to the wealthy and major corporations have all been done... was it our salvation? No.. its the reason were in the mess were in right now. It is the cause not the cure. Thats why the people voted the way they did.. the number one issue on the polls was our economy. The people saw Mccain voting with Bush 90% of the time, they saw the same economic plan being presented by Mccain as was Bush. Mccain said he was going with trickle down economics, and the people said no way, youve run our economy into the ground, no more!
The wealthy depend on the middle class. Their corporations, ideas, and products are nothing without the middle class and lower class to consume them. If anyone can sit there and say.. hey im making billions a year.. money in the bank, give me more tax breaks. Look at that slob working 60 hours at mccdonalds... he thinks hes getting food stamps to feed his kids? Tax him! make him pull his weight! Thats just terrible, someone needs to check their concience there. Also check your bible. The new testimate is written all about how the rich oppress the poor with their controll of money. The meek shall inherit the earth. Possesion, gains, these are all things of sin, and warned by the profits of the new testimate. How can you have the mentality of "its mine mine mine, you cant have it, it has my name on it I earned it.. its mine and no one elses" when jesus delibertly taught thinking this was was sin. Now im not a christian, but have read, and studdied the bible, and it is apparent the whole christian message, the whole new testimate message, is a life of poverty is a path of rightiouness, claiming possesion is sin. Thats not the code i go by, thats the code of the bible, but basic morals, and compassion for your fellow man, a good conscience as you put it, is the reason I belive what I belive.
If you belive in cold eye for an eye justice, whats mine is mine, you do your own thing and ill do my own thing, then maybe you would find the torah comforting. But in the good book, jesus brought the new word of god.
"Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" The disciples were amazed at His words. Then Jesus said, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God!"
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor: Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
"All the believers joined together and shared everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship according to individual need."
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had... There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
"The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
"Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you."
China is a communist state, communism is closely tied to socialism. Thats was indeed a good example.
Capitolism doesnt mean your belly is full. A large portion of third world contries are democratic capitolistic states, where thousands starve everyday. My grand father almost starved to death in this country, the shinning star of capitolism
Please don't quote scripture to me when you've made your views on the Bible previously known and clearly lack a full understanding of context. Just because someone is rich in the material sense, does not preclude them from being rich in the spiritual sense. God has blessed the rich with riches so that they can know the joy of charity and sharing. You seem to have disregarded everything I've said about charitable giving. It is up to the person to decide, not the government. If someone forcibly takes it from you, then you are not giving it charitably.
Yes, I agree with ant, that it is completely clear that you are a socialist, though you deny this because you believe democracy and socialism are somehow incompatible. Socialism is an ECONOMIC construct, democracy is a GOVERNMENTAL construct. It just so happens that most of the other socialist countries were dictatorships. Modern europe is almost entirely socialist, and they have democracy.
Also, your way of thinking is screwed up. Just because I point out that a vast majority of people don't pay their fair share, you automatically assume that we should tax them MORE. How moronic. We need to strip away a tremendous amount of government spending, so that we can ALL be taxed LESS. The machine has gotten too bloated...that is the nature of building socialist programs. It disgusts me that you think a tiny percentage of Americans should be willing to pay for socialist garbage for everybody else. What happened to self reliance and dignity?
Its an outline for Obama's policies. Pretty revolutionary when you think about a president-elect putting his agenda up for everyone to see, read and critique. I'm quite sure this hasn't happened before.
Few observations:
1. Indiana voted majority for Obama. This is a state whose history is steeped in racism and KKK activity. Not even 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, not even 50 years after lynchings and cross-burnings were tolerated, condoned and not prosecuted does this state choose a black man for the highest office. Its amazing.
2. Obama hasn't even taken office yet and the day after he gets elected chooses a chief of staff and announces his transition team. This man is on top of things. He is smart and ready for the job. I don't remember what its like to have a competent leader in the White House.
3. If you look at Obama's speech in Grant Park in Chicago and compare it with previous presidential acceptance parties, then you must notice a huge difference between the stuffy, elegant ballrooms of the privileged and the open air, every man gathering of supporters. People lined the streets all over the world in joy. Can you remember the last time that has happened?
4. If McCain would have run his campaign with the same honesty he displayed when he gave his concession speech, then he would have given Obama more of a run for his money. I applaud John McCain for that speech he gave; it showed him as an honest, patriotic man. Where was that during his campaign?
Something has begun. Its growing throughout the country and the world. Tolerance, compassion and accountability in the White House? Its a reflection of the will of people. For Obama supporters, its time to keep the movement going. For those who don't yet believe in this man, please afford him the grace and help change the world with us.
MLN
God has blessed the rich with riches so that they can know the joy of charity and sharing.
Commie!!!!
4. If McCain would have run his campaign with the same honesty he displayed when he gave his concession speech, then he would have given Obama more of a run for his money. I applaud John McCain for that speech he gave; it showed him as an honest, patriotic man. Where was that during his campaign?
MLN
Vito this I agree with completely very well said sir.
However what thoughts do you have on Obama saying he's not sure if he is the Barrack Obama that has been created over the past two years that everyone has made him out to be. IE... that over the past two years Barrack Obama is more like a thing and not a person that everyone who voted for him has put all these hopes/dreams/ideas into a change machine and it's more than him as a single man. It seems to me that he is still trying to keep up with this thought and it was shown true when he was the first elected official to such a high office that shooed his family off stage and did the acceptance speech alone with just him and an empty stage so that he had 100% of the attention. I guess only time will tell?
I'm mostly just glad that the world leaders are all looking at America in a positive light now.
2. Obama hasn't even taken office yet and the day after he gets elected chooses a chief of staff and announces his transition team. This man is on top of things. He is smart and ready for the job. I don't remember what its like to have a competent leader in the White House.
In 2000 Bush announced his Chief of Staff on Nov 26, 2 weeks before the election was finalized by the Supreme Court. Clinton was mid Dec, Reagan was Nov 14. The transition team is always known months before the election, because that gets support from top people. I would bet he already has his inauguration speech written too. You see change because you want to see it.
3. If you look at Obama's speech in Grant Park in Chicago and compare it with previous presidential acceptance parties, then you must notice a huge difference between the stuffy, elegant ballrooms of the privileged and the open air, every man gathering of supporters.
Something has begun. Its growing throughout the country and the world. Tolerance, compassion and accountability in the White House? Its a reflection of the will of people. For Obama supporters, its time to keep the movement going. For those who don't yet believe in this man, please afford him the grace and help change the world with us.
Interestingly it was the black and hispanic Obama supporters coming out to vote that made the gay marriage ban in Calif pass. Had they not voted, Obama would have still easily won but the ban would have failed. So much for tolerance and compassion. One oppressed group comes out to oppress another!
Dragon - if those high paying jobs are so easy, why don't you get one? Oh wait...because they're (a) not that easy, and (b) require highly specialized skill sets and education that most people don't possess.
Please don't quote scripture to me when you've made your views on the Bible previously known and clearly lack a full understanding of context. Just because someone is rich in the material sense, does not preclude them from being rich in the spiritual sense. God has blessed the rich with riches so that they can know the joy of charity and sharing. You seem to have disregarded everything I've said about charitable giving. It is up to the person to decide, not the government. If someone forcibly takes it from you, then you are not giving it charitably.
Yes, I agree with ant, that it is completely clear that you are a socialist, though you deny this because you believe democracy and socialism are somehow incompatible. Socialism is an ECONOMIC construct, democracy is a GOVERNMENTAL construct. It just so happens that most of the other socialist countries were dictatorships. Modern europe is almost entirely socialist, and they have democracy.
Also, your way of thinking is screwed up. Just because I point out that a vast majority of people don't pay their fair share, you automatically assume that we should tax them MORE. How moronic. We need to strip away a tremendous amount of government spending, so that we can ALL be taxed LESS. The machine has gotten too bloated...that is the nature of building socialist programs. It disgusts me that you think a tiny percentage of Americans should be willing to pay for socialist garbage for everybody else. What happened to self reliance and dignity?
I never said high paying jobs were easy to obtain, I simply said in many cases they were easier to preform.
Aparently according to scripture, you shouldnt complaign if your money is taken. According to scripture, you should never have enough wealth to hoard and amass it. God has blessed the rich? That statement in itself is almost sinfull. You dont have to be rich to give charitably. According to you god gives free will, so why would he need to bless you with useless things. In the whole tone of the bible, god blesses the needy, he doesnt make people millionairs. Jesus word is not for the rich to give a little bit of their money to charity. Jesus's word is to give up everything. Its very clear in the bible, no matter how anyone tries to reframe it so they can not feel bad about the conflict between their religion and their desire for money.. Jesus wants you to give up everything and take only what you need.. That is what he and his disciples said.
I certainly dont think democracy and socialism are imcompatible.. I think its pretty clear the point im trying to make is that they are compatible, and it can work rather nicely. I also belive you can have a capitolist economic system, with many elements of socialism. We are already proof of that, I just think its a good idea, where as you think its a bad idea, and we should get rid of the socialist ideas. Wasnt all the points I was making about universal health care pretty much pointing at europe and saying hey this is what I think is a good idea! Where would you get the notion that I dont think democracy and socialism can work together?
If your saying someone isnt paying their fair share.. then the logical answer is.. that you want them to pay their fair share. I suppose thats moronic of me. I dont know what your definition of fair share is either. 1% of the population controlls the majority of the wealth in this country. So the other 99% is expected to be able to afford to pay the same? Taxs are there to pay for the needs of the people, the vast majority of the people are low income or middle income. The tax system is going to favor the majority. Its not only common sense, but its democracy. Our system is bloated and cannot afford the basic humanitarian needs of the people? We are the richest nation in the world. Far poorer countries can afford it. To say were bloated and cant afford it is just excuses. How can anyone argue to give breaks to the super wealthy, and give less breaks to the starving.. It doesnt make any kind of logical sense and its immoral.
Dragon - I don't believe we will ever be able to reconcile our differences on this issue. You lack the ability to distinguish to fundamental injustice of taking what is not yours simply because somebody has something that you do not.
agreed ... it would be like saying dragon lunch we as a country like your Nintendo NES collection ... but we feel it best that others be able to have it too ... so we as a nation will be confiscating 30% of it to redistribute as we feel fit and will give you nothing for it .... By the way as we do this, you should be HAPPY that we are going to just toss the stuff in a truck and ride down the road and throw a game out at a bunch of random people ... maybe one of them can make money off of it ... which will help redistribute the wealth ... YOUR GOVERNMENT THANKS YOU FOR BEING PATRIOTIC ... give us more money please