How Dem House of Rep's Can Finish Off Republicans in 2020

[hadit]

The child in the sweatshop, the crew on the ship bringing the clothes to the US, the union guys unloading the ship, the truck driver bringing the clothes to the warehouse, the guys unloading the truck at the warehouse, the guys pumping fuel and maintaining the truck, the office workers in the trucking company, the driver taking the clothes to the store, the store employees who put the clothes on the mannequins, the attendant who gets the clothes and brings them to Paris to try on, the sales girl who rings up the sale and puts the clothes in a bag.

Should I go on?

Again, all those folks can be gainfully employed with the proper allocation of resources.

You are mistaking plutocratic parasites for vital organs.

The rich people paid for the cart or you'd have no cart to pull.

Yes, battered housewife republican everyone...

So when did they break you, these rich folks?

Bull. Those people are gainfully employed, full stop. You forgot about them in your zeal to criticize a wealthy person who pumps a lot of money into the economy and helps to employ many more people than you ever could. The fact is, the wealthy demand higher quality goods, which means people can charge higher prices, which means they can make a good living off the rich. Do you not think a sales lady at a very high end boutique can earn a lot more money than a cashier at WalMart? How about a waiter at a 5 star restaurant that caters to the wealthy? Can he earn more than a burger flipper at McDonalds? I think we know the answer.

What you are advocating is centralized control of the economy, and we know how that always ends up.

 

[JoeB131]

Bull. Those people are gainfully employed, full stop. You forgot about them in your zeal to criticize a wealthy person who pumps a lot of money into the economy and helps to employ many more people than you ever could.

Actually, the biggest employers are governments... so maybe we need more of that.

The fact is, the wealthy demand higher quality goods, which means people can charge higher prices, which means they can make a good living off the rich. Do you not think a sales lady at a very high end boutique can earn a lot more money than a cashier at WalMart? How about a waiter at a 5 star restaurant that caters to the wealthy?

Again, who cares? We could take the money the few people who work in those places make and employ MORE people at service industries catering to the masses. It shows how messed up our priorities are if we drive down streets in disrepair but Daddy Warbucks has a place to put his new Dressage Horse.

Now, we USED to get this in this country, when the rich paid their fair share, 33% of the workforce was unionized, and America enjoyed her greatest prosperity.... but that was too good and Republicans have spent the last 40 years fucking that up.

 

[hadit]

Bull. Those people are gainfully employed, full stop. You forgot about them in your zeal to criticize a wealthy person who pumps a lot of money into the economy and helps to employ many more people than you ever could.

Actually, the biggest employers are governments... so maybe we need more of that.

The fact is, the wealthy demand higher quality goods, which means people can charge higher prices, which means they can make a good living off the rich. Do you not think a sales lady at a very high end boutique can earn a lot more money than a cashier at WalMart? How about a waiter at a 5 star restaurant that caters to the wealthy?

Again, who cares? We could take the money the few people who work in those places make and employ MORE people at service industries catering to the masses. It shows how messed up our priorities are if we drive down streets in disrepair but Daddy Warbucks has a place to put his new Dressage Horse.

Now, we USED to get this in this country, when the rich paid their fair share, 33% of the workforce was unionized, and America enjoyed her greatest prosperity.... but that was too good and Republicans have spent the last 40 years fucking that up.

There's your problem right there. Government is the biggest employer. Government doesn't earn money, it takes money out of the economy.

 

[JoeB131]

There's your problem right there. Government is the biggest employer. Government doesn't earn money, it takes money out of the economy.

No, guy, that isn't a problem other than the minds of libertarian children.

Reality- a civilized society has a need for goods and services... that's what produces jobs. Not rich people or government.

Some can best be provided by government. Others can best be provided by private enterprise.

Neither really requires the kind of uber rich that we have that have far more than what they will ever need.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Reality- a civilized society has a need for goods and services... that's what produces jobs. Not rich people or government.

Some can best be provided by government. Others can best be provided by private enterprise.

The difference is that government jobs don't contribute to the economy because government jobs produce no profit. In the private sector, when one company does well, the ramifications are other companies (that provide goods and services to the company) do well.

Neither really requires the kind of uber rich that we have that have far more than what they will ever need.

So who made it up to you as to what others need? I'm sure there are plenty of Americans (and even more overseas) that believe you have too much. So based on their standards, does that mean we should take more from you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, the biggest employers are governments... so maybe we need more of that.

No, the biggest employers are small businesses. Now if you think success is more and a larger government, what would happen if we all quit our jobs and worked for government? Who would pay us?

This is an example of the failed leftist ideology. The private sector supports the government sector. It can't work the other way around. There is no way the government sector could ever support the private sector. And this is one reason why DumBama was such a failure.

 

[JoeB131]

The difference is that government jobs don't contribute to the economy because government jobs produce no profit. In the private sector, when one company does well, the ramifications are other companies (that provide goods and services to the company) do well.

Again, only if your only goal is making a profit. You give a guy a paycheck, he produces goods and services, that contributes to the economy. This can be done without the one percent sucking up half the wealth..

This isn't complicated.

The Europeans have already figured this out... and they are better off for it.

So who made it up to you as to what others need? I'm sure there are plenty of Americans (and even more overseas) that believe you have too much. So based on their standards, does that mean we should take more from you?

I have no problem paying more in taxes if hte rich pay their fair share.

No, the biggest employers are small businesses. Now if you think success is more and a larger government, what would happen if we all quit our jobs and worked for government? Who would pay us?

The government. again, this isn't complicated.

This is an example of the failed leftist ideology. The private sector supports the government sector. It can't work the other way around.

Actually, it already does. Or as a wise man said, "You didn't build that."

As much as the Libertarian Right whines, they couldn't have the success they have without the government providing infrastructure, security and an educated workforce. YOu wouldn't have anywhere to drive your truck because the roads wouldn't be passable, until that day someone stole all the trucks because there were no cops to protect your boss's property.

 

[hadit]

There's your problem right there. Government is the biggest employer. Government doesn't earn money, it takes money out of the economy.

No, guy, that isn't a problem other than the minds of libertarian children.

Reality- a civilized society has a need for goods and services... that's what produces jobs. Not rich people or government.

Some can best be provided by government. Others can best be provided by private enterprise.

Neither really requires the kind of uber rich that we have that have far more than what they will ever need.

Only when you have more than you need can you provide for others as well as yourself. Only then can you invest a lot to allow others to also succeed.

Government earns nothing, it can only take by force.

 

[Rustic]

House Democrat's can finish off Republicans in both the Senate and House of Rep's and take back rhe White House opening an opportunity to pack federal courts, including the Supreme Court with overwhelming liberal judges.

Tax reform can change America in one masterful plan. All the House must do is propose large tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets and eliminate all the breaks and loopholes going to the super high upper-income folks and obscenely rich. America will love the plan and flock to the voting polls.

 

[hadit]

The difference is that government jobs don't contribute to the economy because government jobs produce no profit. In the private sector, when one company does well, the ramifications are other companies (that provide goods and services to the company) do well.

Again, only if your only goal is making a profit. You give a guy a paycheck, he produces goods and services, that contributes to the economy. This can be done without the one percent sucking up half the wealth..

This isn't complicated.

The Europeans have already figured this out... and they are better off for it.

So who made it up to you as to what others need? I'm sure there are plenty of Americans (and even more overseas) that believe you have too much. So based on their standards, does that mean we should take more from you?

I have no problem paying more in taxes if hte rich pay their fair share.

No, the biggest employers are small businesses. Now if you think success is more and a larger government, what would happen if we all quit our jobs and worked for government? Who would pay us?

The government. again, this isn't complicated.

This is an example of the failed leftist ideology. The private sector supports the government sector. It can't work the other way around.

Actually, it already does. Or as a wise man said, "You didn't build that."

As much as the Libertarian Right whines, they couldn't have the success they have without the government providing infrastructure, security and an educated workforce. YOu wouldn't have anywhere to drive your truck because the roads wouldn't be passable, until that day someone stole all the trucks because there were no cops to protect your boss's property.

If everyone quits their jobs, government has no money to pay them. Did you forget that? Or are you of the opinion that government can magically materialize wealth out of nowhere with no ill effects?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, only if your only goal is making a profit. You give a guy a paycheck, he produces goods and services, that contributes to the economy. This can be done without the one percent sucking up half the wealth..

This isn't complicated.

The Europeans have already figured this out... and they are better off for it.

Really? So why don't south and central America pound on their borders for a change? Seems to me everybody wants to come to the US.

If you can't be a one-percenter in the USA, WTF is the point of gambling your money by opening up a business?

I have no problem paying more in taxes if hte rich pay their fair share.

The top 20% of our wealthy pay nearly 85% of all our federal income taxes. If that's not a "fair" share, then what is?

The government. again, this isn't complicated.

The government gets it's money from where? It isn't that complicated.

Actually, it already does. Or as a wise man said, "You didn't build that."

As much as the Libertarian Right whines, they couldn't have the success they have without the government providing infrastructure, security and an educated workforce. YOu wouldn't have anywhere to drive your truck because the roads wouldn't be passable, until that day someone stole all the trucks because there were no cops to protect your boss's property.

Oh please, cities and states know who funds all those things, and it's business way more than your average citizen. That's why they build new roads, new business developments, because they are going to make a profit off those roads and bridges they are building.

In other words, government isn't given them a thing. You can't say government gave you something that you paid for ten times over.

 

[JoeB131]

Only when you have more than you need can you provide for others as well as yourself. Only then can you invest a lot to allow others to also succeed.

Government earns nothing, it can only take by force.

Except the rich don't provide for others, they steal the work of others...

The One Percent have 43% of the wealth, they did not do 43% of the labor to create it...

This isn't complicated.

If everyone quits their jobs, government has no money to pay them. Did you forget that? Or are you of the opinion that government can magically materialize wealth out of nowhere with no ill effects?

Meh, quite the contrary, we have our greatest prosperity when government makes the rich pay their fair share, and invests in infrastructure and jobs to make our economy run more efficiently.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? So why don't south and central America pound on their borders for a change? Seems to me everybody wants to come to the US.

If you can't be a one-percenter in the USA, WTF is the point of gambling your money by opening up a business?

Oh, I don't know. Just being a decent human being. Frankly, if someone wants to be a one percenter, he's probably got a mental illness.

The top 20% of our wealthy pay nearly 85% of all our federal income taxes. If that's not a "fair" share, then what is?

When they pay 85% of ALL TAXES. They have 87% of the wealth, so they should pay the majority in taxes.

In other words, government isn't given them a thing. You can't say government gave you something that you paid for ten times over.

Actually, no, for most of us, we are getting exactly what we pay for... the problem is, we are also paying to subsidize the fucking rich with corporate welfare and bailouts.

Again, we bailed out GM, and GM turned around and screwed us the minute they got a president they knew would let them get away with it.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

House Democrat's can finish off Republicans in both the Senate and House of Rep's and take back rhe White House opening an opportunity to pack federal courts, including the Supreme Court with overwhelming liberal judges.

Tax reform can change America in one masterful plan. All the House must do is propose large tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets and eliminate all the breaks and loopholes going to the super high upper-income folks and obscenely rich. America will love the plan and flock to the voting polls.

2007 all over again!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I don't know. Just being a decent human being. Frankly, if someone wants to be a one percenter, he's probably got a mental illness.

Right. Well I have news for ya, millions of people take money they earn and play the lottery to become a one-percenter every single week. So we must have a lot of people with mental illnesses in this country according to you.

When they pay 85% of ALL TAXES. They have 87% of the wealth, so they should pay the majority in taxes.

There is no such thing as "the wealth." That's a liberal canard. And it's still a fact they pay almost all of the income tax now, so if you want them to pay a fair share, fair means equal, so they should be paying the same amount of money as anybody else.

Actually, no, for most of us, we are getting exactly what we pay for... the problem is, we are also paying to subsidize the fucking rich with corporate welfare and bailouts.

Again, we bailed out GM, and GM turned around and screwed us the minute they got a president they knew would let them get away with it.

And who bailed them out?

GM is not our union buddies, they are yours. Furthermore they were conned into making electric cars that nobody wanted by your big-eared freak. And speaking of subsidies? Nobody would buy the golf carts unless YOUR PRESIDENT gave them money to buy one.

As for our President, he's already threatened to take those subsidies away from GM because of what they did. What would have Obama done? Tell us those days are gone and those jobs are not coming back.

 

[JoeB131]

Right. Well I have news for ya, millions of people take money they earn and play the lottery to become a one-percenter every single week. So we must have a lot of people with mental illnesses in this country according to you.

I don't think most of them really expect to win. It's kind of like comparing a guy who looks at playboy to a rapist.

There is no such thing as "the wealth." That's a liberal canard. And it's still a fact they pay almost all of the income tax now, so if you want them to pay a fair share, fair means equal, so they should be paying the same amount of money as anybody else.

No, a fair share is paying 70% of their income to the government, like they did before Reagan fucked it up. they want to pay less, show they are doing something constructive with that money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think most of them really expect to win. It's kind of like comparing a guy who looks at playboy to a rapist.

They wouldn't be playing if they didn't want a chance to become wealthy. Most normal people would love to be wealthy.

No, a fair share is paying 70% of their income to the government, like they did before Reagan fucked it up. they want to pay less, show they are doing something constructive with that money.

HTF do you figure 70% is a fair share? If they pay 70%, you should be paying 70%. That's fair.

You leftists run around this forum talking about how everybody else is so greedy, yet you never look in the mirror. Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what they earn or one that wants to take what another has earned?

 

[JoeB131]

They wouldn't be playing if they didn't want a chance to become wealthy. Most normal people would love to be wealthy.

I'm sure they would... it's what they are willing to do to get there...

The problem with the corporatist mentality is that it has no problem screwing over the people who do the actual work... But as long as they have Battered Housewife Republicans like you, they can keep doing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They wouldn't be playing if they didn't want a chance to become wealthy. Most normal people would love to be wealthy.

I'm sure they would... it's what they are willing to do to get there...

The problem with the corporatist mentality is that it has no problem screwing over the people who do the actual work... But as long as they have Battered Housewife Republicans like you, they can keep doing it.

They are not screwing anybody. They have job X to do, and job X pays X dollars. You either accept the job or you don't. If you think you are not getting enough from them, then open up your own company and pay yourself whatever you want.

You can't bash rich people for doing the same exact thing you do all the time.

 

[hadit]

Only when you have more than you need can you provide for others as well as yourself. Only then can you invest a lot to allow others to also succeed.

Government earns nothing, it can only take by force.

Except the rich don't provide for others, they steal the work of others...

The One Percent have 43% of the wealth, they did not do 43% of the labor to create it...

This isn't complicated.

If everyone quits their jobs, government has no money to pay them. Did you forget that? Or are you of the opinion that government can magically materialize wealth out of nowhere with no ill effects?

Meh, quite the contrary, we have our greatest prosperity when government makes the rich pay their fair share, and invests in infrastructure and jobs to make our economy run more efficiently.

Yeah, you can do that once, then the money is gone and not coming back. Everyone quit their jobs, remember? That includes the CEOs and top earning executives you envy so much. No, you need the wealthy to keep making tons of money so you can raid their paychecks to pay for your distribution schemes.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to punish the rich by making them earn less, but you also want them to finance the government. Socialism really does stop working when you run out of other people's money. Face it, you need the rich to stay rich.