Cutting taxes sounds great till

[MikeK]

Just because one isn't true, doesn't mean the other isn't. The war on the rich is quite observable. The left wing politicians and people on this board spout everyday about how the rich need to pay their fair share and how the rich keep the poor down. There is most definately a war on the wealthy.

While there definitely is a growing awareness and resentment of the political shift toward corporate dominance of and the influence of independent wealth on politics, please tell us how the "war" on the wealthy you refer to has manifested. Tell us what blows have been struck by ordinary Americans against the super-rich who are draining the vitality of this Nation like a flourishing cult of vampires.

But the war the corporatocracy and the wealthy have been waging against the common people since Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class is clearly manifest in the stagnation and decline of wages, the elimination of unions, the exportation of American industries and jobs, the consistent rise in unemployment and homelessness, the engagement in unnecessary and unlawful military aggressions which benefit only the military industrial complex, the assaults on the environment by the oil and coal industries, corruption of the Supreme Court, incremental adaptation to police state tactics and the concentrated transfer of the Nation's wealth resources to a 2% minority of the population.

I would like to think you are consciously fabricating your claim that the "left" is waging war on the "rich" but I know you truly believe it. I know that because I have observed the progress of the deliberate indoctrination process conducted by corporate interests via the broadcast media and I believe you represent just one more example of its effectiveness.

You actually believe what you've said in the above message. And you believe it because Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and other propagandists in the employ of the corporatocracy have imbedded these ideas in your brain via methodically crafted, repetitive commentary.

 

[Bern80]

resentment of the political shift toward corporate dominance of and the influence of independent wealth on politics, please tell us how the "war" on the wealthy you refer to has manifested. Tell us what blows have been struck by ordinary Americans against the super-rich who are draining the vitality of this Nation like a flourishing cult of vampires.

Overragulation, double taxaton, just for starters.

But the war the corporatocracy and the wealthy have been waging against the common people since Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class is clearly manifest in the stagnation and decline of wages, the elimination of unions, the exportation of American industries and jobs, the consistent rise in unemployment and homelessness, the engagement in unnecessary and unlawful military aggressions which benefit only the military industrial complex, the assaults on the environment by the oil and coal industries, corruption of the Supreme Court, incremental adaptation to police state tactics and the concentrated transfer of the Nation's wealth resources to a 2% minority of the population.

Those aren't things the rich did to the poor. Wages have not declined just because business decided to pay people less. It is the result of people like you thinking the same skills that paid a certain wage yesterday are supposed to pay the same thing today. Elimination of unions is the result of unions no longer doing what unions are supposed to do. Unions demand more from employers not because they're really interested in the best interest of their members. They do it so those that run the union can make money. Exportation of jobs in production is a simple economic concept called competitive advantage. If a company doesn't take advantage of them another will and the company that didn't will die off and that really hurts jobs. Rise in unemployment and homelessness is not the responsibility of the wealthy.

the issue is about defining the problem and the problem with the left is that they refuse like whiny brate where their fingers in their ears yelling at the top of their lungs, that they are in any way contributing to the problem. it couldn't possibly be because the middle class is refusing to adapt to a changing market. It couldn't possibly be that the middle class believes it is entitled to more for less work.

I would like to think you are consciously fabricating your claim that the "left" is waging war on the "rich" but I know you truly believe it. I know that because I have observed the progress of the deliberate indoctrination process conducted by corporate interests via the broadcast media and I believe you represent just one more example of its effectiveness.

Mike, you don't know shit about me or how i came to the beliefs I came to. It would be just as easy for me to say that YOU were indoctrinated by our left wing media into believing your role in society is to be the perpetual victim.

You actually believe what you've said in the above message. And you believe it because Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and other propagandists in the employ of the corporatocracy have imbedded these ideas in your brain via methodically crafted, repetitive commentary.

Again a convenient, unsubstatiable, chicken shit argument to avoid having to addres the validity of YOUR beliefs. An accusation that means nothing from someone who believs the general welfare clause means wealth is supposed to be equitiably distributed.

 

[MikeK]

You know what. I just figured out how someone really really dense could read that clause wrong. When MikeK read collect taxes for the general welfare he actually thought welfare meant welfare like it's used today. He actually thought government is supposed to collect taxes and distribute actual welfare checks to everyone! Can ya believe that?!

". . . distribute actual welfare checks to everyone?"

"Everyone?"

You are far too articulate for the obvious misuse of that word to be accidental. That glaring exaggeration is neither accidental nor intentional but has been superimposed onto your preconscious thinking. It is one more undeniably obvious example of why propagandists like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity earn millions of dollars per year just for talking to people like you for a few hours each day. The simple but increasingly obvious fact is you have been brainwashed.

The reality is distribution of welfare checks to citizens who for one reason or other are incapable of participating in the established system of acquiring money is one small component in the administration of the general welfare. And while there will be a predictable percentage of fraud and abuse of this charitable policy the distribution of these funds is an unavoidable necessity within a civilized and extraordinarily wealthy society.

Or do you think a better idea would be to abandon any such policy and allow those who are incapable of supporting themselves to just die on the streets or be driven to violent crime by hunger and desperation?

It will be interesting to know your thoughts on the matter. Your thoughts -- not Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's. We know what they are.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Mike, you don't know shit about me or how i came to the beliefs I came to. It would be just as easy for me to say that YOU were indoctrinated by our left wing media into believing your role in society is to be the perpetual victim.

[...]

What I know about you is what I see. And there is ample evidence in the things you say to convince me that your thoughts come from a can and have been deposited in your brain.

The absence of original reasoning in your perceptions is the notion that I think of myself as a victim. I have mentioned several times in this thread that I am quite comfortably retired and that I want for nothing. My life has been a quiet and unexceptional success. I am far from being victimized by anyone or any thing, yet we see here another clear example of your canned (indoctrinated) thinking: Because I don't agree with your superimposed notion of how the world should be I must be a self-perceived victim.

Of course you don't believe you've been brainwashed. That's normal. But I urge you to look more closely at the thoughts you express here (and probably elsewhere). Do they make sense? If they do then you are in serious need of re-education.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just because one isn't true, doesn't mean the other isn't. The war on the rich is quite observable. The left wing politicians and people on this board spout everyday about how the rich need to pay their fair share and how the rich keep the poor down. There is most definately a war on the wealthy.

While there definitely is a growing awareness and resentment of the political shift toward corporate dominance of and the influence of independent wealth on politics, please tell us how the "war" on the wealthy you refer to has manifested. Tell us what blows have been struck by ordinary Americans against the super-rich who are draining the vitality of this Nation like a flourishing cult of vampires.

But the war the corporatocracy and the wealthy have been waging against the common people since Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class is clearly manifest in the stagnation and decline of wages, the elimination of unions, the exportation of American industries and jobs, the consistent rise in unemployment and homelessness, the engagement in unnecessary and unlawful military aggressions which benefit only the military industrial complex, the assaults on the environment by the oil and coal industries, corruption of the Supreme Court, incremental adaptation to police state tactics and the concentrated transfer of the Nation's wealth resources to a 2% minority of the population.

I would like to think you are consciously fabricating your claim that the "left" is waging war on the "rich" but I know you truly believe it. I know that because I have observed the progress of the deliberate indoctrination process conducted by corporate interests via the broadcast media and I believe you represent just one more example of its effectiveness.

You actually believe what you've said in the above message. And you believe it because Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and other propagandists in the employ of the corporatocracy have imbedded these ideas in your brain via methodically crafted, repetitive commentary.

Rush, Sean and Glenn are idiot entertainers that I have no time for if I did believe they had any credibility.

15% of my net, before personal deductions goes to government.
29% of my gross after all deductions goes to government.
6% goes to state government as income taxes.
6% for sales tax on what I consume.
If 56% of EVERY DAMN THING I make is not a war against the working man then:
WTF IS?!

 

[Bern80]

You know what. I just figured out how someone really really dense could read that clause wrong. When MikeK read collect taxes for the general welfare he actually thought welfare meant welfare like it's used today. He actually thought government is supposed to collect taxes and distribute actual welfare checks to everyone! Can ya believe that?!

". . . distribute actual welfare checks to everyone?"

"Everyone?"

You are far too articulate for the obvious misuse of that word to be accidental. That glaring exaggeration is neither accidental nor intentional but has been superimposed onto your preconscious thinking. It is one more undeniably obvious example of why propagandists like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity earn millions of dollars per year just for talking to people like you for a few hours each day. The simple but increasingly obvious fact is you have been brainwashed.

The reality is distribution of welfare checks to citizens who for one reason or other are incapable of participating in the established system of acquiring money is one small component in the administration of the general welfare. And while there will be a predictable percentage of fraud and abuse of this charitable policy the distribution of these funds is an unavoidable necessity within a civilized and extraordinarily wealthy society.

Or do you think a better idea would be to abandon any such policy and allow those who are incapable of supporting themselves to just die on the streets or be driven to violent crime by hunger and desperation?

It will be interesting to know your thoughts on the matter. Your thoughts -- not Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's. We know what they are.

There really isn't anything much more insulting then to dodge an argument by claiming someone is nothing more than talking head for someone else. NOTHING could be farther from the truth. The accusation and teh fact that you have absolutely zero evidence to support it says far far more about you than the lie you are trying to claim about me.

 

[Bern80]

[...]

Mike, you don't know shit about me or how i came to the beliefs I came to. It would be just as easy for me to say that YOU were indoctrinated by our left wing media into believing your role in society is to be the perpetual victim.

[...]

What I know about you is what I see. And there is ample evidence in the things you say to convince me that your thoughts come from a can and have been deposited in your brain.

The absence of original reasoning in your perceptions is the notion that I think of myself as a victim. I have mentioned several times in this thread that I am quite comfortably retired and that I want for nothing. My life has been a quiet and unexceptional success. I am far from being victimized by anyone or any thing, yet we see here another clear example of your canned (indoctrinated) thinking: Because I don't agree with your superimposed notion of how the world should be I must be a self-perceived victim.

Of course you don't believe you've been brainwashed. That's normal. But I urge you to look more closely at the thoughts you express here (and probably elsewhere). Do they make sense? If they do then you are in serious need of re-education.

I promise I posses far greater capacity for objective introspection than you do.

I urge YOU to put your money where your mouth is and do the same.

At best you are simply projecting. Every fault you claim to find in me is equally observable in you. You say I exhibit every cliche argument of the right? You exhibit every cliche argument of the left. You claim I talk like Beck and Limbaugh? You sound no different than the Pelosis, Mahers and Frankens of the left.

 

[MikeK]

Rush, Sean and Glenn are idiot entertainers that I have no time for if I did believe they had any credibility.

Gadawg,

I'm not surprised that this trio of high-level propagandists is incapable of penetrating your defenses. But while they might be merely entertaining to those who are immune to their venom, as I'm sure you can tell by reading this thread they impart a rather insidious effect on others. In fact, I compare them to Goebbels, Hess and Speer in the early days.

15% of my net, before personal deductions goes to government.
29% of my gross after all deductions goes to government.
6% goes to state government as income taxes.
6% for sales tax on what I consume.
If 56% of EVERY DAMN THING I make is not a war against the working man then:
WTF IS?!

I can understand (somewhat) why you might be pissed off by your tax bite. But, as mentioned previously, I cannot sympathize with you because my net worth is less than one fourth of yours and my annual earnings were probably around half of yours, or less. So would it be ironic for me to say I wish I had your problems but I don't?

If you're pissed off at how much the government takes from you, imagine how pissed off Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers must be.

And therein lies the tale.

 

[MikeK]

You just lost an almost good argument by referring to psychic phenomenon.

Why? Don't you consider brainwashing to be a psychic (i.e., psychological) phenomenon? If not, why not?

I think you mean psychological. And if someone actually brainwashed me into thinking my financial outcomes in life are my responsibility then I would thank them a million times over. I pity people like you who were brainwashed into thinking that society owes them something.

You're quite right. I do mean psychological.

But I would like you to tell me specifically what I've said to convey the impression that I believe society owes me something. And if you cannot refer to any specific statement I've made to that effect I urge you do give some thought to the possibility that the notion was externally influenced.

I believe I've heard Hannity deliver that one a few times.

 

[Eric Cartman]

The accusation and teh fact that you have absolutely zero evidence to support it says far far more about you than the lie you are trying to claim about me.

I believe that this is at least the second time that you pointed out that Mike couldn't PROVE that you are a talk radio zealot but you never deny that it is true.

That tell me two things about you:

1 You are an honest person that doesn't like to lie.

2 You are a talk radio zealot.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Rush, Sean and Glenn are idiot entertainers that I have no time for if I did believe they had any credibility.

Gadawg,

I'm not surprised that this trio of high-level propagandists is incapable of penetrating your defenses. But while they might be merely entertaining to those who are immune to their venom, as I'm sure you can tell by reading this thread they impart a rather insidious effect on others. In fact, I compare them to Goebbels, Hess and Speer in the early days.

15% of my net, before personal deductions goes to government.
29% of my gross after all deductions goes to government.
6% goes to state government as income taxes.
6% for sales tax on what I consume.
If 56% of EVERY DAMN THING I make is not a war against the working man then:
WTF IS?!

I can understand (somewhat) why you might be pissed off by your tax bite. But, as mentioned previously, I cannot sympathize with you because my net worth is less than one fourth of yours and my annual earnings were probably around half of yours, or less. So would it be ironic for me to say I wish I had your problems but I don't?

If you're pissed off at how much the government takes from you, imagine how pissed off Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers must be.

And therein lies the tale.

I am pretty sure that his earnings aren't a gift, hence the title "earnings". What entitles other people to more than half of what he has earned, especially given that most who make higher incomes have spent a long period of time making good decisions, doing the right things and working very hard to achieve those incomes? How does anyone justify taking more than half of another person's earnings to give to people at someone else's discretion? If the recipient of that money took it directly from him it would be theft, but if the government works as his agent it is O.K.? What ever happened to reasonable taxation, even if it is progressive, 56% is criminal theft.

 

[zzzz]

Who was the best Pres...?

To answer this question you must first define the parameters of the exercise. A President is a figurehead that essentially leads. He cannot introduce legislation, create jobs or other things attributed to them while they are in office. They do have control on foreign policy and this is one area you can rate them on and leadership ability.

Leadership was definitely Reagan's strong-point and a President must be able to lead and on this basis He was the best. He also brought the country out the economic quagmire of the Carter years and the Foreign policy nightmare that Carter got us into.

I can't leave this post unchallenged. Carter inherited the economic quagmire (google: Ford stagflation WIN) and had very bad luck when our Embassy was taken over. Yet eventually all hostages came home safely. Carter did try to get us off oil, putting solar panels on the White House which Reagan promptly removed. Had Carter's vision prevailed we might be energy independent today and not engaged in two (three?) wars all of which have something to do with oil.
Presidents can create jobs, at least they can if the Congress cooperates. Posting that they cannot create policies which stimulate job growth is a lie.

Carter had 4 years to get the economy straightened out and could not do it. He appointed Admiral Stansfield Turner as director of the CIA who promptly fired all of the human operatives and virtually destroyed our Humit intelligence for decades. The fall of Iran and the hostage situation can be indirectly tied to his failures ad CIA director not to mention decades of problems in Central America.

Carter was and is not a bad person, but as a President he was a failure.

A President can lead and create policy, yes, but it is congressman and senators who introduce and make legislation.

 

[Bern80]

I believe that this is at least the second time that you pointed out that Mike couldn't PROVE that you are a talk radio zealot but you never deny that it is true.

That tell me two things about you:

1 You are an honest person that doesn't like to lie.

2 You are a talk radio zealot.

I am not a talk radio zealot. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Bern80]

Why? Don't you consider brainwashing to be a psychic (i.e., psychological) phenomenon? If not, why not?

I think you mean psychological. And if someone actually brainwashed me into thinking my financial outcomes in life are my responsibility then I would thank them a million times over. I pity people like you who were brainwashed into thinking that society owes them something.

You're quite right. I do mean psychological.

But I would like you to tell me specifically what I've said to convey the impression that I believe society owes me something. And if you cannot refer to any specific statement I've made to that effect I urge you do give some thought to the possibility that the notion was externally influenced.

I believe I've heard Hannity deliver that one a few times.

If you heard it on Hannity I'm afraid that would mean you listen to him far more than I do.

Specifically, your reference to the general welfare clause and your ridiculous notion that it means wealth is to be distributed equally. Meaning that if one has more than someone else the one who has more owes those that have less by the simple fact that he has more. I'm sure you'll deny it when stated that way, but that is the reality of your position.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Again a convenient, unsubstatiable, chicken shit argument to avoid having to addres the validity of YOUR beliefs. An accusation that means nothing from someone who believs the general welfare clause means wealth is supposed to be equitiably distributed.

If you're going to reference my thoughts you should frame them properly. I didn't say or suggest that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution means equitable distribution of wealth but rather that it includes equitable distribution of wealth. The General Welfare clause refers to anything and everything having to do with the overall well being of the nation and its people. And for the benefit of those who might not understand, equitable distribution does not mean equal distribution. It means fairly proportioned distribution, such as was implemented by FDR's New Deal, a revolutionary change of policy that led to the rise of the middle class and the most prosperous period in American history.

Because inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably result in the transition from democracy to plutocracy, which we see happening today, it logically follows that the General Welfare clause would address such a contingency as readily as it would address the contingency of a plague or natural disaster.

Inequitable distribution of wealth, such as existed during the so-called Gilded Age, is inimical to the general welfare of the Nation. And it is unfortunate that you apparently do not understand why.

 

[Bern80]

[...]

Again a convenient, unsubstatiable, chicken shit argument to avoid having to addres the validity of YOUR beliefs. An accusation that means nothing from someone who believs the general welfare clause means wealth is supposed to be equitiably distributed.

If you're going to reference my thoughts you should frame them properly. I didn't say or suggest that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution means equitable distribution of wealth but rather that it includes equitable distribution of wealth. The General Welfare clause refers to anything and everything having to do with the overall well being of the nation and its people. And for the benefit of those who might not understand, equitable distribution does not mean equal distribution. It means fairly proportioned distribution, such as was implemented by FDR's New Deal, a revolutionary change of policy that led to the rise of the middle class and the most prosperous period in American history.

Because inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably result in the transition from democracy to plutocracy, which we see happening today, it logically follows that the General Welfare clause would address such a contingency as readily as it would address the contingency of a plague or natural disaster.

Inequitable distribution of wealth, such as existed during the so-called Gilded Age, is inimical to the general welfare of the Nation. And it is unfortunate that you apparently do not understand why.

No I'm afraid it doesn't even include the notion that wealth be distributed equitably. What the general welfare clause says in layman's terms is that the fed has he authority to tax for the purpose of providing for the general welfare. General in this instance means for all citizens of the United States and welfare means for their betterment. Whatever government taxes for, the tax must be collected uniformely and whatever that tax is spent on must benefit everyone equally. It has NOTHING to do with granting a power to government that allows them to take money from those that have a lot for the singular purpose of redistributing it more equally.

 

[Gadawg73]

Rush, Sean and Glenn are idiot entertainers that I have no time for if I did believe they had any credibility.

Gadawg,

I'm not surprised that this trio of high-level propagandists is incapable of penetrating your defenses. But while they might be merely entertaining to those who are immune to their venom, as I'm sure you can tell by reading this thread they impart a rather insidious effect on others. In fact, I compare them to Goebbels, Hess and Speer in the early days.

15% of my net, before personal deductions goes to government.
29% of my gross after all deductions goes to government.
6% goes to state government as income taxes.
6% for sales tax on what I consume.
If 56% of EVERY DAMN THING I make is not a war against the working man then:
WTF IS?!

I can understand (somewhat) why you might be pissed off by your tax bite. But, as mentioned previously, I cannot sympathize with you because my net worth is less than one fourth of yours and my annual earnings were probably around half of yours, or less. So would it be ironic for me to say I wish I had your problems but I don't?

If you're pissed off at how much the government takes from you, imagine how pissed off Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers must be.

And therein lies the tale.

How do you know what my net worth is?
And who earned it?

 

[asterism]

[...]

Again a convenient, unsubstatiable, chicken shit argument to avoid having to addres the validity of YOUR beliefs. An accusation that means nothing from someone who believs the general welfare clause means wealth is supposed to be equitiably distributed.

If you're going to reference my thoughts you should frame them properly. I didn't say or suggest that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution means equitable distribution of wealth but rather that it includes equitable distribution of wealth. The General Welfare clause refers to anything and everything having to do with the overall well being of the nation and its people. And for the benefit of those who might not understand, equitable distribution does not mean equal distribution. It means fairly proportioned distribution, such as was implemented by FDR's New Deal, a revolutionary change of policy that led to the rise of the middle class and the most prosperous period in American history.

Because inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably result in the transition from democracy to plutocracy, which we see happening today, it logically follows that the General Welfare clause would address such a contingency as readily as it would address the contingency of a plague or natural disaster.

Inequitable distribution of wealth, such as existed during the so-called Gilded Age, is inimical to the general welfare of the Nation. And it is unfortunate that you apparently do not understand why.

If you have more than anyone in your town I guess you should get busy writing checks then.

 

[Avatar4321]

Carter was and is not a bad person, but as a President he was a failure.

I'm not at all convinced that Carter is not a bad person. His antisemetism and other things concern me. But I am not his judge. I pray that He recieves mercy.

 

[MikeK]

[How do you know what my net worth is?
And who earned it?

Because you recently said your assets amount to two million dollars.