Impose A $20-million Limit On Accumulated Personal Assets!

[OohPooPahDoo]

Impose A $20-million Limit On Accumulated Personal Assets!

So you want to drive our world class inventers & business founders to foreign countries because you are to impatient to wait for their money they make from all the other countries of the world to trickle down here in the USA?

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Willis Haviland Carrier, Henry Ford & Elon Musk would have left this country under your stupid plan.

I oppose the OP, but you lost me at the trickle down part. Just how many fucking generations do we have to wait for something to finally "trickle down" ?

 

[Toro]

I've changed my mind. I think this is a great idea.

As a member of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, I highly recommend America adopt this as law.

And on a completely unrelated level, if you are rich, let me know and I will put you in touch with the right people.

 

[The Gadfly]

You're kidding ...

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use

By Lynn Davidson | April 22, 2007 | 20:35

I think I might know the reason that Karl Rove didn’t want Sheryl Crow touching him. He’s read her blog, and he knows where her hand has been. What is it with these environmentalists and scatology? First there was “The Year Without Toilet Paper” in the New York Times, and now this. Muzak-friendly pop-rocker, Sheryl Crow and “An Inconvenient Truth” producer and private-jet aficionado Laurie David are on a cross-country college speaking tour to promote the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Crow is blogging her experiences at the Huffington Post, and this time, she really came up with a Duesey (emphasis mine throughout).

Apparently, Crow wants to save the Earth one toilet paper square at a time. She proposed “a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting” and perhaps “just washing that one square out.” She doesn’t seem to want to pass a law, just culturally berate us into obedience. Here is Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

I’d like to say she was kidding, but based on other global warming “solutions,” it is hard to tell. Wacky ideas abound. A man-made volcano shooting sulfur into the air, giant “space umbrellas” and even getting rid of toilets so we can compost our own waste in a box underneath the sink.

So, when Crow said that instead of paper napkins, we use a detachable “dining sleeve” on specially designed clothes to wipe the mouth:

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

Sounds nutty, but it is any different than space suits keeping cow farts from killing Mother Earth or counting on UFO's to prevent global warming?

It’s too hard to tell when environmentalists are kidding. I’m not even sure if they know. One thing I do know is that the recent push of environmentalism into common culture is no accident. David told the Guardian that after the 2004 elections, she vowed to devote a year to “changing the national debate about global warming.” She exposed her methods with one revealing quote from a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, “We need to infiltrate popular culture!” That they did. I just hope that while they are infiltrating, they use hand sanitizer.

Read more: Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use | NewsBusters.org

I have a modest suggestion for Ms. Crow, Ms. David, and others similarly concerned. I suggest that they abandon the use of toilet paper entirely, and substitute the leaves of a plant we have here in the South in abundance. This plant grows profusely and rapidly enough, that it is definitely a renewable resource, so no global warming worries there, and is readily identifiable by its clusters of three, glossy dark green leaves. There is a further side benefit, in that after just one use, Ms.Crow and her associates will be too busy scratching their nether regions to talk about the issue further, those preventing the release of yet more hot air, mixed with CO2.

I call this "The Rhus Initiative", after the name of the plant involved, Rhus radicans, A/K/A "Poison Ivy". See, conservatives can "think green" too!

 

[kwc57]

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use

By Lynn Davidson | April 22, 2007 | 20:35

I think I might know the reason that Karl Rove didn’t want Sheryl Crow touching him. He’s read her blog, and he knows where her hand has been. What is it with these environmentalists and scatology? First there was “The Year Without Toilet Paper” in the New York Times, and now this. Muzak-friendly pop-rocker, Sheryl Crow and “An Inconvenient Truth” producer and private-jet aficionado Laurie David are on a cross-country college speaking tour to promote the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Crow is blogging her experiences at the Huffington Post, and this time, she really came up with a Duesey (emphasis mine throughout).

Apparently, Crow wants to save the Earth one toilet paper square at a time. She proposed “a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting” and perhaps “just washing that one square out.” She doesn’t seem to want to pass a law, just culturally berate us into obedience. Here is Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

I’d like to say she was kidding, but based on other global warming “solutions,” it is hard to tell. Wacky ideas abound. A man-made volcano shooting sulfur into the air, giant “space umbrellas” and even getting rid of toilets so we can compost our own waste in a box underneath the sink.

So, when Crow said that instead of paper napkins, we use a detachable “dining sleeve” on specially designed clothes to wipe the mouth:

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

Sounds nutty, but it is any different than space suits keeping cow farts from killing Mother Earth or counting on UFO's to prevent global warming?

It’s too hard to tell when environmentalists are kidding. I’m not even sure if they know. One thing I do know is that the recent push of environmentalism into common culture is no accident. David told the Guardian that after the 2004 elections, she vowed to devote a year to “changing the national debate about global warming.” She exposed her methods with one revealing quote from a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, “We need to infiltrate popular culture!” That they did. I just hope that while they are infiltrating, they use hand sanitizer.

Read more: Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use | NewsBusters.org

I have a modest suggestion for Ms. Crow, Ms. David, and others similarly concerned. I suggest that they abandon the use of toilet paper entirely, and substitute the leaves of a plant we have here in the South in abundance. This plant grows profusely and rapidly enough, that it is definitely a renewable resource, so no global warming worries there, and is readily identifiable by its clusters of three, glossy dark green leaves. There is a further side benefit, in that after just one use, Ms.Crow and her associates will be too busy scratching their nether regions to talk about the issue further, those preventing the release of yet more hot air, mixed with CO2.

I call this "The Rhus Initiative", after the name of the plant involved, Rhus radicans, A/K/A "Poison Ivy". See, conservatives can "think green" too!

The leaves are even shaped like little mittens, so they fit your hand perfectly!

 

[flacaltenn]

It's so cute to see our lefty buds getting grossed out by a TRUE Socialist.

Never knew they had EXTREME wingers like this hiding out in their tent.. Or that THEY have been driving us closer to this extreme everytime their party gains power..

Makes the Tea Party look like summer campers..

 

[Sallow]

This is, I think, not a real good idea.

This idea would make the supply side deficient while greatly increasing the demand side.

While I am completely on board with a TRULY progressive system of taxation, imposing a limit on what people's net worth is not a good idea.

Well it's like taking a meat clever where a scalpel will do. One of the major problems in this country is that most of the bottom supports the very system that makes "the top" very rich..yet the share is extremely skewed upward.

Some like a 10 to 1 rule might be in order..where the top executives in a company can make no more in total compensation the 10 times the average employee.

Or a cap on the maximum compensation in a year..of say five million.

It's good to have salary ranges..because it gives everyone something to strive for..

But this is really gotten excessive.

Thats basically the same as a wealth cap, just in a different form, and I don't see something like that ever getting passed.

No it isn't. It's a "wage/compensation" cap.

You can still accumulate all the wealth you want.

 

[KissMy]

Impose A $20-million Limit On Accumulated Personal Assets!

So you want to drive our world class inventers & business founders to foreign countries because you are to impatient to wait for their money they make from all the other countries of the world to trickle down here in the USA?

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Willis Haviland Carrier, Henry Ford & Elon Musk would have left this country under your stupid plan.

I oppose the OP, but you lost me at the trickle down part. Just how many fucking generations do we have to wait for something to finally "trickle down" ?

You only need to wait for their death tax or their heirs inheritances to get taxed. Then the US collects half of their wealth.

 

[freedombecki]

Well it's like taking a meat clever where a scalpel will do. One of the major problems in this country is that most of the bottom supports the very system that makes "the top" very rich..yet the share is extremely skewed upward.

Some like a 10 to 1 rule might be in order..where the top executives in a company can make no more in total compensation the 10 times the average employee.

Or a cap on the maximum compensation in a year..of say five million.

It's good to have salary ranges..because it gives everyone something to strive for..

But this is really gotten excessive.

Thats basically the same as a wealth cap, just in a different form, and I don't see something like that ever getting passed.

No it isn't. It's a "wage/compensation" cap.

You can still accumulate all the wealth you want.

The government no longer represents me, Sallow. If I earned wealth, and it does take hard work I hear, a government owned by the people could not have at it. If the government owns the people, it can.

Governments that own people use them as slaves.

I am anti-slavery, and I belong to the anti-slavery party, the Republican party.

We have zero intention of the government owning us.

Uncle Sam used to be America's uncle.

Now, he's just another funny uncle if he's going to take property and assets away from people who earn them.