Conservatives: how much money do you think billionaires are obligated to give...

[Meister]

Being a billionaire is excess. Anyone who earns that luxury deserves that luxury, but there is such a thing as misusing your fortune. As a billionaire, you can set up both yourself and your family for life and still have a shit load left over.

Why not put it to good use? Cancer research, diabetes, boys and girls program, take your pick. To me it is just WRONG to squander something that can do so much good.

Why don't you quit telling people what to do with their money, Billy? If I want to give to charity, I will, but not under orders.

What drives you to think compassion is obligatory?

I don't even consider it a matter of compassion. Compassion would denote sacrifice. Billionaires are not sacrificing much by giving to charity. This is a matter of responsibility in my opinion.

Contrary to what you conservatives like to believe, billionaires don't become billionaires without help. Give back to what society has helped you build.

I am not even setting a standard on this. I'm not suggesting a percentage. Just give something substantial. Something that would make a difference.

What makes you think they don't?

 

[Meister]

If we can require young men to give their lives for the good of the country, then we can certainly require billionaires to give money for the good of the country.

Require? Did we start the draft again?

I bet most billionaires are charitable without "requiring" them to be charitable.
just sayin.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Uhh... you just got done telling me I need to use your approved word list. And that was after failing to figure out my previous words which said not a thing about telling anyone what 'excess' is. Obviously if that happened you'd have a quote. Yet you want to tell me what excess words are.

Not just a hypocrite but an illiterate hypocrite. That's gotta hurt.

It's not my list you fucking moron. it's the English language.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/291693-conservatives-how-much-money-do-you-think-billionaires-are-obligated-to-give-8.html#post7179389

Here's your quote, Shit for Brains

Of course there is. Once you've bought/invested all you could ever need, anything left over is "excess

Who the fuck are you to say what people need?

WHO is doing the 'needing' in that sentence, Einstein?? The owner of the money. He's made his own decision. That's what "you" means: "one"; "a given person".

Welcome to our language. Try learning to read it before posting. You might save yourself a lot of embarrassment. Dumbass.

Hey moron if it's up to each person as to what is excess then your entire post is crap.

Tell you what go make up your own language and stick to talking to yourself and save us from the tedium of conversing with you.

 

[PredFan]

Obligated?

Zero.

 

[MikeK]

I'm not going to debate the whole Reagan/savings and loan revisionist spin. That would be pointless. I do want to ask you a question though while adhering to your own logic. If you don't like Ronald Reagan then why would you want to give him more money? You seem to always focus on the flaws of business and the individual but you rarely focus on the flaws of government. The flaws of business can wound a country financially in a worst case scenario. The flaws of the individual can be quarantined by a jail cell. The flaws of a government can destroy everybody though. The flaws of government allowed slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps and Obamacare. The more money the government has, the more atrocities are committed. History shows this. Not just our country but Stalin's Russia, Adolf's Germany, Pol Pots Cambodia and Kim Kardashians butt (I'm assuming it's subsidized).

Please understand I am not oblivious to the many flaws of our existing government, each of which must at some point be addressed -- some with criminal prosecution. And please assume that correcting each and every one of these flaws would be concurrent with my radical proposal to confiscate all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. In other words, I am proposing a political revolution --not just some routine legislative action. Whether or not it can happen, as it did in the 1960s, is not the question I have, which has to do with your thoughts.

The existing government is totally corrupt. The corruption has come about so gradually it's hardly been noticed. What is needed is to send a few high-level members of the Congress to prison for twenty year sentences and kick out a number of others on their asses. Then we can deal with the money ideas, because only then will we have statesmen in office rather than corrupted politicians.

So we are in agreement as to what must be done first. But before we can get around to doing it we must convince the brainwashed right-wing water-carriers for the rich as to how this corruption came about.

As to the matter of deregulation and its effects, the best answer I can offer is laid out plainly and irrefutably in the Inside Job video referenced in my signature line below. If you haven't watched I assure you it's worth your time.

 

[Pop23]

Obligated to give?

Sound kinda like "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm not going to debate the whole Reagan/savings and loan revisionist spin. That would be pointless. I do want to ask you a question though while adhering to your own logic. If you don't like Ronald Reagan then why would you want to give him more money? You seem to always focus on the flaws of business and the individual but you rarely focus on the flaws of government. The flaws of business can wound a country financially in a worst case scenario. The flaws of the individual can be quarantined by a jail cell. The flaws of a government can destroy everybody though. The flaws of government allowed slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps and Obamacare. The more money the government has, the more atrocities are committed. History shows this. Not just our country but Stalin's Russia, Adolf's Germany, Pol Pots Cambodia and Kim Kardashians butt (I'm assuming it's subsidized).

Please understand I am not oblivious to the many flaws of our existing government, each of which must at some point be addressed -- some with criminal prosecution. And please assume that correcting each and every one of these flaws would be concurrent with my radical proposal to confiscate all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. In other words, I am proposing a political revolution --not just some routine legislative action. Whether or not it can happen, as it did in the 1960s, is not the question I have, which has to do with your thoughts.

The existing government is totally corrupt. The corruption has come about so gradually it's hardly been noticed. What is needed is to send a few high-level members of the Congress to prison for twenty year sentences and kick out a number of others on their asses. Then we can deal with the money ideas, because only then will we have statesmen in office rather than corrupted politicians.

So we are in agreement as to what must be done first. But before we can get around to doing it we must convince the brainwashed right-wing water-carriers for the rich as to how this corruption came about.

As to the matter of deregulation and its effects, the best answer I can offer is laid out plainly and irrefutably in the Inside Job video referenced in my signature line below. If you haven't watched I assure you it's worth your time.

There is nothing 'irrefutable' in that winger video

And gotta love how government is so corrupt that you want it to have more power, more control, in a bigger scheme.. which leads to.... wait for it... EVEN MORE CORRUPTION...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I shudder at the thought of a country where the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government.

How much money can a citizen keep till he becomes associated with hoarders? How many children can you have before the government decides that you are becoming less happy and comfortable? How many cars is the government going to allow you to have till they decide that you're becoming decadent and unhelpful to the general rules of governmental abstinence.

The thing about freedom is that it's so hurtful and unfair sometimes. It's still better than letting the politicians govern your values by confiscating your private property.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing our overly complex ridiculous tax code. A simple flat tax would fix much of our problems I believe. Also, what part about a government unable to balance a budget is supposed to make me comfortable with their financial expertise?

so in other words, you're another loony buying into Randian Nitwitticisms?

Nope, no objectivists here.

really? Whew

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

You seem to. I hope this clears everything up.

What an obviously ignorant comment

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm not going to debate the whole Reagan/savings and loan revisionist spin. That would be pointless. I do want to ask you a question though while adhering to your own logic. If you don't like Ronald Reagan then why would you want to give him more money? You seem to always focus on the flaws of business and the individual but you rarely focus on the flaws of government. The flaws of business can wound a country financially in a worst case scenario. The flaws of the individual can be quarantined by a jail cell. The flaws of a government can destroy everybody though. The flaws of government allowed slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps and Obamacare. The more money the government has, the more atrocities are committed. History shows this. Not just our country but Stalin's Russia, Adolf's Germany, Pol Pots Cambodia and Kim Kardashians butt (I'm assuming it's subsidized).

Please understand I am not oblivious to the many flaws of our existing government, each of which must at some point be addressed -- some with criminal prosecution. And please assume that correcting each and every one of these flaws would be concurrent with my radical proposal to confiscate all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. In other words, I am proposing a political revolution --not just some routine legislative action. Whether or not it can happen, as it did in the 1960s, is not the question I have, which has to do with your thoughts.

The existing government is totally corrupt. The corruption has come about so gradually it's hardly been noticed. What is needed is to send a few high-level members of the Congress to prison for twenty year sentences and kick out a number of others on their asses. Then we can deal with the money ideas, because only then will we have statesmen in office rather than corrupted politicians.

So we are in agreement as to what must be done first. But before we can get around to doing it we must convince the brainwashed right-wing water-carriers for the rich as to how this corruption came about.

As to the matter of deregulation and its effects, the best answer I can offer is laid out plainly and irrefutably in the Inside Job video referenced in my signature line below. If you haven't watched I assure you it's worth your time.

There is nothing 'irrefutable' in that winger video

And gotta love how government is so corrupt that you want it to have more power, more control, in a bigger scheme.. which leads to.... wait for it... EVEN MORE CORRUPTION...

Did he just say the govt was totally corrupt, but us right wingers are delusional? Uh we're the ones saying we want a smaller more accountable government....do liberals even read what they type?

 

[Pogo]

It's not my list you fucking moron. it's the English language.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/291693-conservatives-how-much-money-do-you-think-billionaires-are-obligated-to-give-8.html#post7179389

Here's your quote, Shit for Brains



Who the fuck are you to say what people need?

WHO is doing the 'needing' in that sentence, Einstein?? The owner of the money. He's made his own decision. That's what "you" means: "one"; "a given person".

Welcome to our language. Try learning to read it before posting. You might save yourself a lot of embarrassment. Dumbass.

Hey moron if it's up to each person as to what is excess then your entire post is crap.

Tell you what go make up your own language and stick to talking to yourself and save us from the tedium of conversing with you.

If you hadn't made the inane claim that "there's no such thing as excess", you wouldn't have needed correcting. Think before posting next time.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

You seem to. I hope this clears everything up.

What an obviously ignorant comment

Wait Dante, isnt that what liberals do? Give programs, isnt that how you measure compassion?

In abortion...what do we hear...the right wants the baby born but not taken care of, what does that mean? It means we're against government programs....that's what the left is saying....in a coded way

On race....we're rated on government programs only.....so we oppose them and you call us racist......



Even the arguement for gay marriage is in part due to receiving benefits as a couple....

so in essence every argument liberals make involved government money, you know it, I know it, and the american people know it.

so how was he wrong?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You seem to. I hope this clears everything up.

What an obviously ignorant comment

Wait Dante, isnt that what liberals do? Give programs, isnt that how you measure compassion?

In abortion...what do we hear...the right wants the baby born but not taken care of, what does that mean? It means we're against government programs....that's what the left is saying....in a coded way

On race....we're rated on government programs only.....so we oppose them and you call us racist......



Even the arguement for gay marriage is in part due to receiving benefits as a couple....

so in essence every argument liberals make involved government money, you know it, I know it, and the american people know it.

so how was he wrong?

Judging by the sophistication of his last comment I'm assuming a diatribe about my proximity to cooties is just around the corner.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What an obviously ignorant comment

Wait Dante, isnt that what liberals do? Give programs, isnt that how you measure compassion?

In abortion...what do we hear...the right wants the baby born but not taken care of, what does that mean? It means we're against government programs....that's what the left is saying....in a coded way

On race....we're rated on government programs only.....so we oppose them and you call us racist......



Even the arguement for gay marriage is in part due to receiving benefits as a couple....

so in essence every argument liberals make involved government money, you know it, I know it, and the american people know it.

so how was he wrong?

Judging by the sophistication of his last comment I'm assuming a diatribe about my proximity to cooties is just around the corner.

it's just too much fun hammering liberals, they're so insulated against other points of view.....easy to destroy their talking points

 

[Skull Pilot]

WHO is doing the 'needing' in that sentence, Einstein?? The owner of the money. He's made his own decision. That's what "you" means: "one"; "a given person".

Welcome to our language. Try learning to read it before posting. You might save yourself a lot of embarrassment. Dumbass.

Hey moron if it's up to each person as to what is excess then your entire post is crap.

Tell you what go make up your own language and stick to talking to yourself and save us from the tedium of conversing with you.

If you hadn't made the inane claim that "there's no such thing as excess", you wouldn't have needed correcting. Think before posting next time.

Maybe you should read a little more slowly. it's OK to follow along with your finger and move your lips if you need to.

I said there is no such thing as excess income or excess savings. I never said there was no such thing as excess. You'll notice that in the case of income I used excess as an adjective not a noun..

There certainly is an excess of stupidity when you are around.

Instead of making up childish words maybe you should learn to read English better.

 

[Pogo]

Hey moron if it's up to each person as to what is excess then your entire post is crap.

Tell you what go make up your own language and stick to talking to yourself and save us from the tedium of conversing with you.

If you hadn't made the inane claim that "there's no such thing as excess", you wouldn't have needed correcting. Think before posting next time.

Maybe you should read a little more slowly. it's OK to follow along with your finger and move your lips if you need to.

I said there is no such thing as excess income or excess savings. I never said there was no such thing as excess. You'll notice that in the case of income I used excess as an adjective not a noun..

There certainly is an excess of stupidity when you are around.

Instead of making up childish words maybe you should learn to read English better.

I know what you said, moron. I truncated it. Go look that one up and quite wasting everybody's time.

mye naem iz trollpilate an i kin reed reel gud

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you hadn't made the inane claim that "there's no such thing as excess", you wouldn't have needed correcting. Think before posting next time.

Maybe you should read a little more slowly. it's OK to follow along with your finger and move your lips if you need to.

I said there is no such thing as excess income or excess savings. I never said there was no such thing as excess. You'll notice that in the case of income I used excess as an adjective not a noun..

There certainly is an excess of stupidity when you are around.

Instead of making up childish words maybe you should learn to read English better.

I know what you said, moron. I truncated it. Go look that one up and quite wasting everybody's time.

mye naem iz trollpilate an i kin reed reel gud

Truncated?

You took my words out of context and falsely portrayed me as using the word excess as a noun so you could try to support your position.

That's dishonest at best and that you don't understand the concept you again display your imbecility.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe you should read a little more slowly. it's OK to follow along with your finger and move your lips if you need to.

I said there is no such thing as excess income or excess savings. I never said there was no such thing as excess. You'll notice that in the case of income I used excess as an adjective not a noun..

There certainly is an excess of stupidity when you are around.

Instead of making up childish words maybe you should learn to read English better.

I know what you said, moron. I truncated it. Go look that one up and quite wasting everybody's time.

mye naem iz trollpilate an i kin reed reel gud

Truncated?

You took my words out of context and falsely portrayed me as using the word excess as a noun so you could try to support your position.

That's dishonest at best and that you don't understand the concept you again display your imbecility.

There are things I don't know much about but none of them is language. Clearly this is all over your head. Why don't you stick to threads you can follow?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I know what you said, moron. I truncated it. Go look that one up and quite wasting everybody's time.

mye naem iz trollpilate an i kin reed reel gud

Truncated?

You took my words out of context and falsely portrayed me as using the word excess as a noun so you could try to support your position.

That's dishonest at best and that you don't understand the concept you again display your imbecility.

There are things I don't know much about but none of them is language. Clearly this is all over your head. Why don't you stick to threads you can follow?

Funny the idiot who doesn't know the difference between a noun and an adjective telling others what they do or don't understand.

Go make up some more baby words at least you'll sound as intelligent as you are.

 

[bripat9643]

it's just too much fun hammering liberals, they're so insulated against other points of view.....easy to destroy their talking points

They're mostly insulated from facts and logic.