Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[Pumpkin Row]

If you work hard, you succeed.

To quote a line from What it's like, "it usually depends on where you start". Some articles you may wish to take a look at:
Why you can't "bootstrap" yourself out of poverty

Why Don't Homeless People Just Get Jobs?

Where you start doesn't matter. Anyone can succeed. Again, there are programs for getting jobs on someone's behalf, and that's the hardest part.

 

[phoenyx]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

 

[phoenyx]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulation on government and public offices?

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you work hard, you succeed.

To quote a line from What it's like, "it usually depends on where you start". Some articles you may wish to take a look at:
Why you can't "bootstrap" yourself out of poverty

Why Don't Homeless People Just Get Jobs?

Micheal Jordan

Sam Walton

Enough said

 

[Wyatt earp]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulat on government and public offices?

Well we could start with hillary everyone bought her.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulat on government and public offices?

Why do you care that they've earned it? You're not okay with businesses earning income after a certain amount, so why individuals? I mean it's a government regulation preventing them from accepting what are basically bribes.

 

[Rshermr]

I see you didn't want to comment on this one why is that?

• The Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act (H.R. 1105) passed the House on December 4, 2013, with support from 36 Democrats. The Senate has done nothing. Not passed. I missed it. Simple enough to comment on. It was not a jobs bill, at any point. If it were dems would have passed it. You have a bill name which is interesting, but my bet is that it is of no value for saving jobs.

? And Why wouldn't harry want to pass the hire a veteran/hero Bill? Why would obama veto it? If it is just a symbolic Bill...

Answer me that... I do not believe that Harry, apparently your friend, stopped the bill with no reason. You have no information.
Shy would obama veto it? Is obama shy? He did not veto it. Obviously. Stop lying. It is getting old.
If it is just a symbolic bill, why do you list it, since it 1. Is not a jobs bill, and 2. Did not pass. 3, Is not important, just symbolic. Dipshit.
You know what, I am going to try to educate you. Because you really need it. Even though I do not like you.
Did you know that there are between 5 and 10 thousand bills every year in the possession of the head of the house or senate. Of those, did you know that only about 5% ever get passed. Under any administration. So, if Harry has 450 bills on his desk, only about 20 would likely be passed under any circumstance. Of those 450 would be voted on, the rest would be pulled for various reasons. Do you feel stupid yet?
Out of 5,000 Bills in Every Congress, Guess How Many Become Law?
I posted 10 bills that harry refused to be voted on, you going to post the other 300.
You have no proof of whether these particular 10 bills were ever voted on, me boy. None at all. I hear Harry had all voted on. Got any proof of anything, dipshit?
I really do not care how many bills you posted. NONE WERE JOBS BILLS, me poor ignorant con troll. And you posted 10 bills that you have no idea what happened to. See above to explain what happens to bills normally, me ignorant con troll.


Now tell me the jobs bills that the house members didn't pass?
Not before you can show me the great jobs created by republican jobs bills. Me lying con troll. I am tired of educating you, when you only lie and pretend. Where are those great republican jobs bills, and how many jobs did they create????

What the Republicans did not vote for was every stimulus bill brought to the hill, all by democrats. What every single republican voted against but that did pass was the Obama Stimulus. Which created over 9 MILLION jobs. That, me boy, is a jobs bill. Got a republican jobs bill, So far, we have 9,265,000 jobs created by democratics to zero created by Republicans. dipshit.
Here, again for your education, is a link to my claim. You will notice it is Factcheck.org. It is impartial and it is well respected by dems and republicans. Read and learn, me poor ignorant con troll.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
And again what bills for the poor did you want? More hand outs? No, me congenital idiot. Jobs, me boy. That thing which you and republicans do not care about.
So, have you always been an ass hole, or is it something you are just now working on.

So far, you have made lots of claims, proven you do not know how congress works, or what powers the president has, called a number of proposed bills jobs bills with no proof, and disrespected the working people of this country. Not working out well for you, me boy.

You have no proof of whether these particular 10 bills were ever voted on, me boy. None at all. I hear Harry had all voted on. Got any proof of anything, dipshit?
I really do not care how many bills you posted. NONE WERE JOBS BILLS, me poor ignorant con troll. And you posted 10 bills that you have no idea what happened to. See above to explain what happens to bills normally, me ignorant con troll.


I gave you the proof spunk, No, you did not. None at all. that the republican and democrat jobs bills no how little and symbolic they were passed the house and Senate, but didn't go to a full vote because harry Reid and the cometties hid them. Wow. You have no idea how stupid that post was, do you, me poor ignorant con troll. Jesus, you have shown how ignorant you are again. There is a house vote and a senate vote. It they had passed both, they would have been law. There is no full vote, and there is no such thing as a commettie. That is a new word you just made up.
So, you have no republican jobs bill. As I thought. Thanks for trying.

My proof is in the pudding dumb dumb, obama I think I am right has the all time low of vetos in the history of the USA.
All time low? Vetoes by president? President Obama has used the veto less often than any president since Harding in the early 1920's. Tell us why you think that is a bad thing, me boy. Or are you just bragging about him.
U.S. Senate: President Veto Counts

Harry Reid protected obama, plain and simple from the public eye, No, he did not, Damn dude, regeans own party shut down the government over his vetos like what five times?
There was never a president named regeans. Maybe you were thinking of Mr. Green Jeans. Eh?? Now President Reagan had two spending gaps each less than 2 days in length, not caused by anything worth worrying about. And certainly not over vetoes in any way. Really, me boy, maybe this is too difficult for you.

Do you know how a Bill works in the Senate you ******* idiot?
That is funny. Let me try to straighten your little mess out. So, lets start with the obvious. It is not how a bill works in the Senate, me boy. It is how it works in congress, and what the president does with it.
1. It gets passed by the house
It gets introduced by a congressman in either the senate or house, and is assigned a bill number.
If it is a tax bill, it must start in the house, otherwise it may start in either the house or the Senate.

2. You forgot this step.
It gets referred to the appropriate committee in the house or senate.
The Committee may then send the bill to a sub committee, kill the bill, or approve it.

3. thrown up to the Senate,
If the bill is approved by committee, it is sent to the full house or Senate depending on where it started.

4. You forgot this step.
There is a debate in each house, Representatives and Senate.
Genarally, two versions are produced, house and senate versions.
A conference committee combines the two versions.

5. it gets voted on
The final combined version of the bill is voted on by the house, and by the Senate.

6. It then goes to the speakers desk in this case Harry Reid and he files it in the garbage can or gives it to committees
Once the bill is approved by both houses, step 5, the bill goes to the president where it is approved or vetoed.
Nearly always the bill is simply signed by the president and becomes law.

X where the final amendments to that Bill is put up to a full Senate vote to be passed on to the president..Part was back in step 4.
Uh, the bill must be approved by both the senate and the House. Sorry, that is nonsense. Neither the senate nor the house can be the final word before submitting a bill to the President.

God You are ******* dumb for a so called college graduate.
That is funny, indeed, after that rat gaggle of an attempt to explain the path of a bill from introduction to law.

And I am just an industrial maintenance guy, pathetic moron.
A janitor? Yeah, that makes sense. Good for you.

You love to change the goal post you ******* idiot, I gave you a basic run down and didn't bother to cut and paste....What the **** are you talking about. Your basic run down had just one problem. It was WRONG.


Those bills did get voted on, did go to Harry's and the communities shit for brains where harry filed them in his garbage can or held up by the commities...NO, THEY DID NOT. IF YOU THINK THEY DID, OFFER SOME PROOF, DIPSHIT. AND POSTING NUT CASE CON TALKING POINTS DOES NOT COUNT.

Again asshole Why does obama have the lowest hero's in recent memory?
HEROES. YOU ARE BUTT STUPID, ME BOY. HE AND NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS A RATING OF HERO'S. JESUS, TRY TO POST SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE, AND STOP WITH THE CON TALKING POINTS. TOO STUPID.

Cause harry refused for a final vote to be sent to obama numb nuts.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rshermr]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulat on government and public offices?

Well we could start with hillary everyone bought her.

Another con talking point, with no proof. From a ******* janitor, for christ sakes. Provide a quote from some one who knows something if you can. Some one who people have respect for. You know, the opposite of YOU. I know you will not, but no one cares what a janitor says. Get it, dipshit?

 

[phoenyx]

What draws you to that conclusion?

We'll leave that for another time, I don't like arguing with you religious types.

That's certainly an interesting way to frame the argument. For those who are just stepping in, I had been asking Pumpkin what drew her to the conclusion that Climate Change was a myth. Anyway Pumpkin, if you're ever interested in discussing it, I'll be happy to open up a thread in the Environment sub forum here.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What draws you to that conclusion?

We'll leave that for another time, I don't like arguing with you religious types.

That's certainly an interesting way to frame the argument. For those who are just stepping in, I had been asking Pumpkin what drew her to the conclusion that Climate Change was a myth. Anyway Pumpkin, if you're ever interested in discussing it, I'll be happy to open up a thread in the Environment sub forum here.

I don't step into that forum because it's entirely religion and not science. This particular case being one where the two are separate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulat on government and public offices?

Well we could start with hillary everyone bought her.

Another con talking point, with no proof. From a ******* janitor, for christ sakes. Provide a quote from some one who knows something if you can. Some one who people have respect for. You know, the opposite of YOU. I know you will not, but no one cares what a janitor says. Get it, dipshit?

No proof burger flipper? God Damn you are a moron...she is a bought and paid for shrill

The Top Donors Backing Hillary Clinton's Super PAC



Haim and Cheryl Saban, who top our list with $10 million in contributions, are longtime supporters of the former Secretary o.Haim and Cheryl Saban, who top our list with $10 million in contributions, are longtime supporters of the former Secretary of State. They gave to both her Senate campaigns and donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. The couple also co-hosted a fundraiser for Clinton this past April with George and Amal Clooney. Tickets started at $33,400 a person.

FORBES calculates Haim Saban’s net worth at $3.6 billion, amassed from his TV network and investments. What Saban, born to a Jewish family in Egypt, and Clinton have in common is their pro-Israel stance. In March, she gave a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee saying, “If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.” Clinton also wrote a letter to Saban in July 2015 asking for the billionaire’s “recommendations on how leaders and communite



Number two on the list is billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros. Though he supported Barack Obama over Clinton in 2008, Soros apparently regretted that decision in 2012. He’s made up for it in this election with $7 million in donations.

There are also some unfamiliar names on the list, including Fred Eychaner, founder of Newsweb Corporation, who gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action. Though a megadonor for the left (he’s one of seven contributors who’s gifted more than $25 million to the Clinton Foundation), Eychaner is notorious fo

 

[Wyatt earp]

I see you didn't want to comment on this one why is that?

• The Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act (H.R. 1105) passed the House on December 4, 2013, with support from 36 Democrats. The Senate has done nothing. Not passed. I missed it. Simple enough to comment on. It was not a jobs bill, at any point. If it were dems would have passed it. You have a bill name which is interesting, but my bet is that it is of no value for saving jobs.

? And Why wouldn't harry want to pass the hire a veteran/hero Bill? Why would obama veto it? If it is just a symbolic Bill...

Answer me that... I do not believe that Harry, apparently your friend, stopped the bill with no reason. You have no information.
Shy would obama veto it? Is obama shy? He did not veto it. Obviously. Stop lying. It is getting old.
If it is just a symbolic bill, why do you list it, since it 1. Is not a jobs bill, and 2. Did not pass. 3, Is not important, just symbolic. Dipshit.
You know what, I am going to try to educate you. Because you really need it. Even though I do not like you.
Did you know that there are between 5 and 10 thousand bills every year in the possession of the head of the house or senate. Of those, did you know that only about 5% ever get passed. Under any administration. So, if Harry has 450 bills on his desk, only about 20 would likely be passed under any circumstance. Of those 450 would be voted on, the rest would be pulled for various reasons. Do you feel stupid yet?
Out of 5,000 Bills in Every Congress, Guess How Many Become Law?
I posted 10 bills that harry refused to be voted on, you going to post the other 300.
You have no proof of whether these particular 10 bills were ever voted on, me boy. None at all. I hear Harry had all voted on. Got any proof of anything, dipshit?
I really do not care how many bills you posted. NONE WERE JOBS BILLS, me poor ignorant con troll. And you posted 10 bills that you have no idea what happened to. See above to explain what happens to bills normally, me ignorant con troll.


Now tell me the jobs bills that the house members didn't pass?
Not before you can show me the great jobs created by republican jobs bills. Me lying con troll. I am tired of educating you, when you only lie and pretend. Where are those great republican jobs bills, and how many jobs did they create????

What the Republicans did not vote for was every stimulus bill brought to the hill, all by democrats. What every single republican voted against but that did pass was the Obama Stimulus. Which created over 9 MILLION jobs. That, me boy, is a jobs bill. Got a republican jobs bill, So far, we have 9,265,000 jobs created by democratics to zero created by Republicans. dipshit.
Here, again for your education, is a link to my claim. You will notice it is Factcheck.org. It is impartial and it is well respected by dems and republicans. Read and learn, me poor ignorant con troll.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
And again what bills for the poor did you want? More hand outs? No, me congenital idiot. Jobs, me boy. That thing which you and republicans do not care about.
So, have you always been an ass hole, or is it something you are just now working on.

So far, you have made lots of claims, proven you do not know how congress works, or what powers the president has, called a number of proposed bills jobs bills with no proof, and disrespected the working people of this country. Not working out well for you, me boy.

You have no proof of whether these particular 10 bills were ever voted on, me boy. None at all. I hear Harry had all voted on. Got any proof of anything, dipshit?
I really do not care how many bills you posted. NONE WERE JOBS BILLS, me poor ignorant con troll. And you posted 10 bills that you have no idea what happened to. See above to explain what happens to bills normally, me ignorant con troll.


I gave you the proof spunk, No, you did not. None at all. that the republican and democrat jobs bills no how little and symbolic they were passed the house and Senate, but didn't go to a full vote because harry Reid and the cometties hid them. Wow. You have no idea how stupid that post was, do you, me poor ignorant con troll. Jesus, you have shown how ignorant you are again. There is a house vote and a senate vote. It they had passed both, they would have been law. There is no full vote, and there is no such thing as a commettie. That is a new word you just made up.
So, you have no republican jobs bill. As I thought. Thanks for trying.

My proof is in the pudding dumb dumb, obama I think I am right has the all time low of vetos in the history of the USA.
All time low? Vetoes by president? President Obama has used the veto less often than any president since Harding in the early 1920's. Tell us why you think that is a bad thing, me boy. Or are you just bragging about him.
U.S. Senate: President Veto Counts

Harry Reid protected obama, plain and simple from the public eye, No, he did not, Damn dude, regeans own party shut down the government over his vetos like what five times?
There was never a president named regeans. Maybe you were thinking of Mr. Green Jeans. Eh?? Now President Reagan had two spending gaps each less than 2 days in length, not caused by anything worth worrying about. And certainly not over vetoes in any way. Really, me boy, maybe this is too difficult for you.

Do you know how a Bill works in the Senate you ******* idiot?
That is funny. Let me try to straighten your little mess out. So, lets start with the obvious. It is not how a bill works in the Senate, me boy. It is how it works in congress, and what the president does with it.
1. It gets passed by the house
It gets introduced by a congressman in either the senate or house, and is assigned a bill number.
If it is a tax bill, it must start in the house, otherwise it may start in either the house or the Senate.

2. You forgot this step.
It gets referred to the appropriate committee in the house or senate.
The Committee may then send the bill to a sub committee, kill the bill, or approve it.

3. thrown up to the Senate,
If the bill is approved by committee, it is sent to the full house or Senate depending on where it started.

4. You forgot this step.
There is a debate in each house, Representatives and Senate.
Genarally, two versions are produced, house and senate versions.
A conference committee combines the two versions.

5. it gets voted on
The final combined version of the bill is voted on by the house, and by the Senate.

6. It then goes to the speakers desk in this case Harry Reid and he files it in the garbage can or gives it to committees
Once the bill is approved by both houses, step 5, the bill goes to the president where it is approved or vetoed.
Nearly always the bill is simply signed by the president and becomes law.

X where the final amendments to that Bill is put up to a full Senate vote to be passed on to the president..Part was back in step 4.
Uh, the bill must be approved by both the senate and the House. Sorry, that is nonsense. Neither the senate nor the house can be the final word before submitting a bill to the President.

God You are ******* dumb for a so called college graduate.
That is funny, indeed, after that rat gaggle of an attempt to explain the path of a bill from introduction to law.

And I am just an industrial maintenance guy, pathetic moron.
A janitor? Yeah, that makes sense. Good for you.

You love to change the goal post you ******* idiot, I gave you a basic run down and didn't bother to cut and paste....What the **** are you talking about. Your basic run down had just one problem. It was WRONG.


Those bills did get voted on, did go to Harry's and the communities shit for brains where harry filed them in his garbage can or held up by the commities...NO, THEY DID NOT. IF YOU THINK THEY DID, OFFER SOME PROOF, DIPSHIT. AND POSTING NUT CASE CON TALKING POINTS DOES NOT COUNT.

Again asshole Why does obama have the lowest hero's in recent memory?
HEROES. YOU ARE BUTT STUPID, ME BOY. HE AND NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS A RATING OF HERO'S. JESUS, TRY TO POST SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE, AND STOP WITH THE CON TALKING POINTS. TOO STUPID.

Cause harry refused for a final vote to be sent to obama numb nuts.

[/QUOTE]

You know I met Veto's pecked head, I don't give you respect anymore to bother to prof read a post... All you are is a lying hack.

 

[Rshermr]

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulat on government and public offices?

Well we could start with hillary everyone bought her.

Another con talking point, with no proof. From a ******* janitor, for christ sakes. Provide a quote from some one who knows something if you can. Some one who people have respect for. You know, the opposite of YOU. I know you will not, but no one cares what a janitor says. Get it, dipshit?

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE]
Well we could start with hillary everyone bought her. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Another con talking point, with no proof. From a ******* janitor, for christ sakes. Provide a quote from some one who knows something if you can. Some one who people have respect for. You know, the opposite of YOU. I know you will not, but no one cares what a janitor says. Get it, dipshit?[/QUOTE]

No proof burger flipper? God Damn you are a moron...she is a bought and paid for shrill
That she gets contributions is a fact. That trump gets contributions is a fact. That is all we know, and all you can prove. That she is bought and paid for is simply the opinion of a janitor.

The Top Donors Backing Hillary Clinton's Super PAC
Look, me poor ignorant janitor. You have shown donors. Not that any of them own anyone. Just as I show donors below for your buddy, Trump. But I can not prove he is owned. I can, however, prove that he is the biggest slinger of non true statements in the known world. But not that he is owned.

Haim and Cheryl Saban, who top our list with $10 million in contributions, are longtime supporters of the former Secretary o.Haim and Cheryl Saban, who top our list with $10 million in contributions, are longtime supporters of the former Secretary of State. They gave to both her Senate campaigns and donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. The couple also co-hosted a fundraiser for Clinton this past April with George and Amal Clooney. Tickets started at $33,400 a person.

FORBES calculates Haim Saban’s net worth at $3.6 billion, amassed from his TV network and investments. What Saban, born to a Jewish family in Egypt, and Clinton have in common is their pro-Israel stance. In March, she gave a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee saying, “If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.” Clinton also wrote a letter to Saban in July 2015 asking for the billionaire’s “recommendations on how leaders and communite

Number two on the list is billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros. Though he supported Barack Obama over Clinton in 2008, Soros apparently regretted that decision in 2012. He’s made up for it in this election with $7 million in donations.

There are also some unfamiliar names on the list, including Fred Eychaner, founder of Newsweb Corporation, who gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action. Though a megadonor for the left (he’s one of seven contributors who’s gifted more than $25 million to the Clinton Foundation), Eychaner is notorious fo[/QUOTE]

Uh, that is truly profound. You found that she has a super Pac, mostly funded by the wealthy liberals. Did you have a point?? So, Trump has something over 20 SuperPacs. Take a look at the following list;
Summary data for Donald Trump, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Fundraising Details
Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined
Total Raised $88,997,986 $9,744,105 $98,742,091
Total Spent $68,787,021 $7,620,376 $76,407,397
Cash on Hand $20,210,966 $2,123,729 $22,334,695

Here is more:

Trump Unveils Stable of Republican Donors
A group of 20 prominent GOP donors say they will back the presumptive nominee’s presidential bid.

Trump 2016 vs. Romney 2012: How Do They Compare
Donald Trump's road to raising $1 billion for the general election just got a lot smoother.

A group of 20 Republican donors, a who's who of the party's financing apparatus, pledged Tuesday to help bring in cash to fund Trump's run for the White House. The announcement could help quell predictions that Trump wouldn't get enough support from traditional GOP donors and bundlers, many of whom have been openly critical of him up to now.

A joint press release from the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee listing the donors came as the candidate holds his first two fundraisers in coordination with the RNC—Tuesday night in New Mexico and the following night in California. Guests for the two events have already committed to give more than $5 million combined, Trump aides told Bloomberg Politics.

Other well-heeled supporters are starting to line up behind the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. According to Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, more than 40 influential Republicans have called the campaign offering to host bashes for Trump in the coming weeks in the Hamptons, Manhattan, Philadelphia, Connecticut, Texas, and elsewhere.

Trump’s 20-member lineup for his new fundraising “victory” team includes Republicans with ties to evangelicals, Wall Street, the donor networks of libertarian-conservative brothers Charles and David Koch, as well as the Bush political dynasty. It also includes supporters of Trump's former Republican presidential rivals, including Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker, plus some Palm Beach Republicans and a former member of the anti-Trump movement within the party's donor class.

One donor is a venture capitalist who pleaded guilty to pay-to-play charges in 2009, a history that could raise hackles among some Bernie Sanders supporters Trump hopes to recruit. But for the most part, the list represents an impressive start, several strategists said.

Several operatives said the Republican donor class has now come to grips with the fact that it's unlikely that a third-party candidate will be able to drop in and topple either presumptive nominee—Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton. They predicted that many of the key GOP fundraisers will soon climb aboard the campaign.

“A huge majority of major donors I have spoken to from both Texas and California are gravitating towards Trump,” said Jeff Miller, who was chief strategist for Rick Perry’s presidential campaign until he exited the race. Perry has endorsed Trump.

In Tuesday's announcement about what it dubbed the “Trump Victory Committee,” the Republican National Committee said the 20 people will raise money for the Trump campaign, as well as local and national parties.

The six vice chairs are venture capitalist Elliott Broidy, New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, chairwoman of building material provider ABC Supply Co. Diane Hendricks, shopping mall developer Mel Sembler, developer Ray Washburne, and real estate investor Ronald Weiser.

And 12 more notable donors will help out: Liz Uihlein, Charles Urstadt, Wilbur Ross, Dee and Andy Puzder, Howard Leach, Michael Kojiaian, Karen Iacovelli, Sam Fox, Diana and Llwyd Ecclestone, Kelly and Joe Craft and Hushang Ansary.

Some may help boost giving from the donor networks of various former candidates. Sembler, Ansary and Fox were Jeb Bush backers, while Hendricks was with Walker, Washburne supported Christie, and the Crafts backed Rubio.

Broidy was a major fundraiser for George W. Bush, raising more than $300,000 for his 2004 campaign, and for John McCain's 2008 bid, when he raised more than $500,000. His political activity was interrupted when he pleaded guilty in late 2009 to bribing four state officials who oversaw the New York state pension fund. His charge was reduced to a misdemeanor in 2012 in exchange for his cooperation with prosecutors. In 2015, Broidy waded back into political giving with a $2,700 contribution to the presidential campaign of Lindsay Graham. In April, he co-hosted a fundraiser for Ted Cruz at the Harvard Club of New York.

Ross, an investor who has made billions by betting on out-of-favor industries like steel and coal, brings deep money connections not only on Wall Street but also in Palm Beach County, where he's known for soirees at his lakefront home, his support of the local civic association and his collection of surrealist art. Uihlein is the wife of Richard Uihlein, a major donor who gave $2 million to an anti-Trump campaign in March. Richard Uihlein has also given millions to Club for Growth, which was a major sponsor of anti-Trump advertising this spring.

Hendricks, a Wisconsin billionaire, gave the maximum $334,000 donation to the RNC in February. She also gave $2 million to Freedom Partners Action Fund, the super-PAC arm of the Koch brothers' political organization, in 2015. She co-hosted a Milwaukee fundraiser for Mitt Romney in 2012 that featured many of her state's most prominent donors as well as its best known politicians, including Governor Scott Walker, former Governor Tommy Thompson and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who was then Romney's running mate.
Trump Unveils Stable of Republican Donors

Then, there is trump himself. One of the least ethical people on planet earth. The single biggest documented liar known.

But, you claim Hillary is owned. You can not prove it. So we have nothing. Just as I can not prove that Trump is owned. Next.

 

[Rshermr]

Right. There are really no, as in zero, entirely capitalist nations. They would be known as Libertarian countries, which have never existed in the real world.
The us is furthest leaning toward capitalism, but still has a good deal of socialism here. Clowns like ed like to suggest that only libertarianism, or laissez faire capitalism is desirable. But can not answer why, if that is the case, there are none and never have been any such nations that got beyond infancy. Like communism, the people do not like the pure capitalist economic system. Never have, never will.

It seems like a whole lot of conservatives are completely against any tax monies going to help the poor. That is so disappointing. I think it's a very important part of a successful economy/country to make sure your poor people are fed and clothed. I can only imagine how horrible things could be here in the US if some conservatives had their way.

I have never seen a conservative support tax plans of any kind. Just lowering them. What drives them nuts is that their hero raised taxes several times after his great 1982 tax cut and resultant killing of government programs drove the unemployment rate to 10.8%. Then, after finding himself in heavy trouble with voters, Reagan raised taxes, and spent more than all presidents before him combined. Tripled the national debt.
But today, nearly all republican congressmen have signed a promise to never increase taxes under any circumstance. They never, ever vote for anything that increases taxes.
Nearly all the GOP candidates bow down to Grover Norquist

Also, I have never heard a republican have a problem when the poor suffer. From the start of the great recession of 2008, republicans blocked every single attempt to pass bills to help the situation. And with unanimous support by all republican congressmen. And they put forward exactly zero bills to help. Zero. So, they are the party of the 1%. And to hell with the working class.

Also, I have never heard a republican have a problem when the poor suffer. From the start of the great recession of 2008, republicans blocked every single attempt to pass bills to help the situation. And with unanimous support by all republican congressmen. And they put forward exactly zero bills to help. Zero. So, they are the party of the 1%.And to hell with the working class.


Again you are so argonant, full of shit and lying.



None



In the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.
— Lynn Jenkins on Tuesday, July 29th, 2014 in a press conference

Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate

Are you dancing your happy dance, me boy? You should not be. You are about to strike out.
What I said, me poor stupid con troll, is that republicans put NO BILLS FORWARD to address the great republican recession of 2008. No lie at all. They put lots of bills forward to help their friends, the wealthy. Now, do you want to show which bill is not to help the wealthy but to do something about their very own recession.
I am still looking for one. Which is why you can show no bill that was meant to address their very own great recession. Just business issues for the congress and wet kisses for the wealthy. Dipshit.
Thing is, for all rational minds, the problem started when we were loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month at the end of Bush W's administration. Remember:

"Republican Death March: Betting Recession Continues and America Fails

By Brent Budowsky
The passage of the jobs bill represents a great victory for President Obama, a huge triumph for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a tremendous moment for the smart Republican senators, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. It is a crushing blow for the do-nothing, obstructionist, recession Republicans who are betting against America."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...betting-recession-continues-and-america-fails

Then, on the very eve of Obama's inauguration, there was the meeting by republicans where they came to an agreement to never allow Obama to win at any time. Whether it helped the workers of the country or not, they agreed to always stop any bill that obama wanted:

"Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.
The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz's request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."
The Republicans have done that, bringing Washington to a near standstill several times during Obama's first term over debt and other issues."
The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation

Reoublicans voted for no helpful bills, voting in mass against several. And they brought no such bills to help the situation forward. Because they wanted the recession to go on. They cared not at all about the middle class or the unemployed of this country. They were, in short, unamerican.
So, prove me wrong. Find that bill meant to help that Republicans tried to put forward. And show us all they gave a damn.

[/QUOTE]


Again fool it was a conspiracy to stop obama care, minimum wage laws and all Obama's other studio ideas to slow down and crash the economy some more in a disaster area.

It is true republicans passed 100s of job bills and democrats got paused 30 of their own , it is true Reid and the communities stalled them and most didn't see the light of day for a vote.

the republicans did what their voters asked them to do stop obama and Reid did what he did stall any and all bills so Obama didn't have to Veto them in front of the public[/QUOTE]

So, still waiting to see a republican jobs bill. Again, I have proven that every single republican congressman and every republican senator voted against the stimulus, which the non partisan CBO stated (and I showed you their statement) saved and created 9,265,000 jobs. But you can still find no republican jobs bill at all, not even one that has been proved to save a thousand jobs.
So, we have a republican great recession, and democrats are the only ones that saved and created jobs. Republicans just sat back and watched, quite happily.
So, per the CBO and it's bipartisan teams of researchers and economists, the Obama stimulus resulted in 9.3Million jobs. At the same time, the expert in economics and full time janitor can show zero jobs created or saved by republicans.
Republicans care about the wealthy, but not about the middle class.

 

[phoenyx]

I agree. What do you think it is? For my part, I believe the U.S. is pretty much an oligarchy, though Bernie and others are trying to change it into a true democracy.

It never was a democracy, it was never intended to be a democracy. So long as there's representation for anyone who isn't a majority, and constitution, it will never be a Democracy. People calling for a Democracy don't know what one is, and the horrors one would come with. America is a Constitutional Republic, and it should always stay a Constitutional Republic.

Hope this helps...
**I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted...**

Read more at: Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

 

[phoenyx]

There is a hidden assumption in your logic: that business owners need employees as much as employees need money. It's a fatal flaw in your theory. In times when cash is scarce, business owners will lay off employees in order to save on expenditures, but those employees will still need money to simply survive. Given this fact, wealthy business owners can do very well financially when there is an over abundance of labour and a low amount of cash that is being used to hire employees. The same cannot be said for the labour.

That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.

Do the rich need McDonald's?

 

[phoenyx]

All people who acquire money are connected to someone who is viewed favourably to some extent by the banks or the government. Failing this, they would be unable to acquire money, unless through robbery. Ethics frequently has little if anything to do with it. I strongly recommend you take a look at the following documentary detailing the morally reprehensible things that many corporations have done and continue to do:

You likely view anyone with any decent amount of money morally reprehensible.

As mentioned previously, no, I don't. But I really think you should take a look at some of the nefarious things that corporations have done in the name of profit. It may make you think twice about supporting capitalism at all costs. I know your bandwidth is limited, so instead of watching the video posted above, you can take a look at the following article...
10 Evil Corporations You Buy From Everyday - Listverse

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I agree. What do you think it is? For my part, I believe the U.S. is pretty much an oligarchy, though Bernie and others are trying to change it into a true democracy.

It never was a democracy, it was never intended to be a democracy. So long as there's representation for anyone who isn't a majority, and constitution, it will never be a Democracy. People calling for a Democracy don't know what one is, and the horrors one would come with. America is a Constitutional Republic, and it should always stay a Constitutional Republic.

Hope this helps...
**I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted...**

Read more at: Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

It's a Constitutional Republic. A Democracy has no representation of the minorities. We have Delegates and upper levels of government with different amounts of people. Including an Executive branch lead by one man. People who claim America is a Democracy doesn't know what one is. Quoting an article written by someone who ALSO doesn't know what a Democracy is doesn't reinforce the point you failed to make.