Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you would do better paying for your own Cell Phone, Cable, Subway ride, and Insurance, rather than contribute and encourage further misuse and corruption. Living within ones own means should extend to Government. Sorry to disagree, but when the Power is in your own pocket, wallet, or purse, you are more prudent with how you decide to spend it, compared to an out of control Government, void of Conscience.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
so isn't stealing from those that work and giving to those that don't a form of selfishness too?
How the hell do you figure?
using a brain
I'm paying plenty of taxes. and spending money on continuing education and the expense for going to work.
Meanwhile someone is benefitting from that. staying home, drinking booze,smoking pot, having unprotected sex, free healthcare, free or subsidized housing.
I'm not buying as much b/c of everyone else's greed. My real income is eroded.
Oil companies, government, overpaid athletes, overpaid CEOs and welfare queens. They can all fuck off..........
You, I, and a lot of folks are paying plenty of taxes and yes that includes the poor. That also includes the poor that weren't poor and are now thanks to this latest bubble that burst in this scam they keep trying to label as capitalism which is really a grand pyramid scheme.
I see from your second sentence that you have a misguided perception of those who are and have become poor. Maybe it goes even deeper than that and includes the color of ones skin first and foremost. If so, consider this. Try to consider if the tables were turned and we whites were the ones who were/are the minority and not treated equally? I know they are not treated equally, it's as obvious as the day is long to those who bother to look, see, listen, etc.. How do you think we whites would be better when we weren't being treated equally?
you are the one that brought race into it.
How about proving that blacks are being treated unfairly there Mr Uncle Tim Wise
I think you would do better paying for your own Cell Phone, Cable, Subway ride, and Insurance, rather than contribute and encourage further misuse and corruption. Living within ones own means should extend to Government. Sorry to disagree, but when the Power is in your own pocket, wallet, or purse, you are more prudent with how you decide to spend it, compared to an out of control Government, void of Conscience.
When there is less and less $ in the working classes pocket when compared to the upper 10% that idea goes out the window.
If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.
why would anyone resent helping others?
My guess would be some need someone to blame for their woes and it is easy for some to blame someone anyone less fortunate.
Really? Doesn't seem that way to me. As a matter-of-fact, your king and messiah is currently running a reelection campaign promoting envy and blame of anyone more fortunate as being the source of misery and woe. Or haven't you been paying attention?
The argument about whether the "general welfare" wording of the Preamble and Article I, Section 8, enables Congress to enact any law that it deems to promote the "general welfare," ended about two hundred years ago, and it's really just a waste of bandwidth in 2012. Frankly, it is sort of a litmus test for whether the speaker is totally clueless when it comes to understanding the U.S. Constitution.
Witness the recent USSC decision on the abomination colloquially known as "Obamacare." Why do you suppose the Court did such fretting about the "interstate commerce" clause? (Notice parenthetically that CJ Roberts wrote emphatically that the mandate could not be justified under the Commerce Clause). If the "general welfare" wording had the import that is suggested above, then there would have been no need to even discuss the Commerce Clause, or even Congress' taxing powers.
The court would simply have said that if Congress wanted to impose an insurance mandate, they have the right to do so under the "general welfare" clause.
Carry on.
So, let me get this straight. According to YOU that's how the Constitution reads, and then YOU think anyone who happens to be poor should just fend for themselves? Best watch out for what one wishes cause you just might get it. I guarantee if you had the rug pulled out from under you you'd be looking to the govt, that we've all paid taxes too, to help you in your time of need. I believe that is good for the general welfare of this nation.
Yes, I believe the poor should fend for themselves. I've been there, several times, just last year in fact. Poverty is way too comfortable today. We pay people to be poor which makes them poorer yet, and more creatively poor. The worst danger faced by the poor today is that they will die of boredom.
You really have no clue....
I think you would do better paying for your own Cell Phone, Cable, Subway ride, and Insurance, rather than contribute and encourage further misuse and corruption. Living within ones own means should extend to Government. Sorry to disagree, but when the Power is in your own pocket, wallet, or purse, you are more prudent with how you decide to spend it, compared to an out of control Government, void of Conscience.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
When there is less and less $ in the working classes pocket when compared to the upper 10% that idea goes out the window.
If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.
Are you claiming the poor have these luxuries?
If you think Sweden's system is perfect, by all means pack your things and move there.
And do not twist and bend the US Constitution to suit your needs.
Taxation is not intended for liberals to use as a means to get even or to punish.
If you agree with Art 1 Sec 8 you must agree with ALL of it's parts. Not just the ones you believe support your position.
The argument that I should move to Sweden is the argument that I always get when I refute the argument that, "Socialism has always failed in every country where it has been tried."
In Scandinavia what right wing Americans claim does not work works fine.
The U.S. Constitution is vaguely worded and open to various interpretations. Basically it is nothing more than a guide book on how to run a democratic government. During the 1950s the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. There was nothing un Constitutional about that. For most Americans those were good years.
If you think Sweden's system is perfect, by all means pack your things and move there.
And do not twist and bend the US Constitution to suit your needs.
Taxation is not intended for liberals to use as a means to get even or to punish.
If you agree with Art 1 Sec 8 you must agree with ALL of it's parts. Not just the ones you believe support your position.
The argument that I should move to Sweden is the argument that I always get when I refute the argument that, "Socialism has always failed in every country where it has been tried."
In Scandinavia what right wing Americans claim does not work works fine.
The U.S. Constitution is vaguely worded and open to various interpretations. Basically it is nothing more than a guide book on how to run a democratic government. During the 1950s the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. There was nothing un Constitutional about that. For most Americans those were good years.
Try paying the tax rates of Sweden then. Everything comes at a cost. There is no free lunch.
Now, your side keeps playing the 91% card.
The fact is there was an almost unreachable threshold to even be in the 91% bracket. And that bracket as all do, only the income above a certain amount and not as your side wants everyone to believe is taxable at that rate.
For example. With a 91% rate a person who earns $1 million is not taxed from dollar one at that rate. To believe that is so would be absurd.
Question: Do you really believe that someone who earned $1 million would lose $910k to the government is just?
You people seek to bring on absolute equality of outcome. You believe we should all be the same regardless of ability or intelligence. Bullshit.
Those of us that work to advance ourselves and try to make a better life through that work are sick and tired of parasites wanting their cut of our money. We sweat, you people take. Is that how you believe it's supposed to work. Do you believe that you are somehow owed something?
Do you really believe that should the federal government figure out a way to increase taxes it will somehow miraculously find the spine to practice fiscal responsibility? As though more confiscation would somehow make it all better?
ANd please, don't hand me some nonsense such as "well, at least it's something". Or "At least we got back at those rich bastards". We have all heard those tunes before. It's boring.
The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.
The term "general welfare," like much of the Constitution, is open to various interpretations. I interpret it as an authorization of the welfare state. The Scandinavian countries have generous public sectors of the economy. They also have AAA ratings with Moody's and Standard & Poor's, and less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States.
have you checked your cell phone bill, cable/satellite tv bill or your land line telco bill lately?When there is less and less $ in the working classes pocket when compared to the upper 10% that idea goes out the window.
If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.
Are you claiming the poor have these luxuries?
If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.
Are you claiming the poor have these luxuries?
According to the Census Bureau:
* Eighty percent of the 46 million people in this country classified as "poor" have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire US population had it.
* 92 percent have a microwave.
* Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
* Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
* Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
* Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
* More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
* 43 percent have Internet access.
* One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
* One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
* 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom. (Tell us again, liberals, how desirable it would be to emulate these countries.)
If you want to argue with how good the poor actually have it in this country, go argue with the Census Bureau, not us.
There is no "deserve"....You people live in a world where wealth is considered luck. Winning the lottery of life.The argument that I should move to Sweden is the argument that I always get when I refute the argument that, "Socialism has always failed in every country where it has been tried."
In Scandinavia what right wing Americans claim does not work works fine.
The U.S. Constitution is vaguely worded and open to various interpretations. Basically it is nothing more than a guide book on how to run a democratic government. During the 1950s the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. There was nothing un Constitutional about that. For most Americans those were good years.
Try paying the tax rates of Sweden then. Everything comes at a cost. There is no free lunch.
Now, your side keeps playing the 91% card.
The fact is there was an almost unreachable threshold to even be in the 91% bracket. And that bracket as all do, only the income above a certain amount and not as your side wants everyone to believe is taxable at that rate.
For example. With a 91% rate a person who earns $1 million is not taxed from dollar one at that rate. To believe that is so would be absurd.
Question: Do you really believe that someone who earned $1 million would lose $910k to the government is just?
You people seek to bring on absolute equality of outcome. You believe we should all be the same regardless of ability or intelligence. Bullshit.
Those of us that work to advance ourselves and try to make a better life through that work are sick and tired of parasites wanting their cut of our money. We sweat, you people take. Is that how you believe it's supposed to work. Do you believe that you are somehow owed something?
Do you really believe that should the federal government figure out a way to increase taxes it will somehow miraculously find the spine to practice fiscal responsibility? As though more confiscation would somehow make it all better?
ANd please, don't hand me some nonsense such as "well, at least it's something". Or "At least we got back at those rich bastards". We have all heard those tunes before. It's boring.
I don't think anyone is arguing that some people don't deserve more that others...it's the amount we're arguing about....When the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, something is seriously wrong.
If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.
Are you claiming the poor have these luxuries?
According to the Census Bureau:
* Eighty percent of the 46 million people in this country classified as "poor" have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire US population had it.
* 92 percent have a microwave.
* Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
* Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
* Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
* Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
* More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
* 43 percent have Internet access.
* One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
* One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
* 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom. (Tell us again, liberals, how desirable it would be to emulate these countries.)
If you want to argue with how good the poor actually have it in this country, go argue with the Census Bureau, not us.
have you checked your cell phone bill, cable/satellite tv bill or your land line telco bill lately?If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.
Are you claiming the poor have these luxuries?
Most of those fees and taxes go to government and are redistributed as transfer payments to subsidize cell phones, cable tv and other 'luxuries'.
Ever ask yourself why every person you see in poor inner city neighborhoods or out in rural areas has a cell phone?
The argument that I should move to Sweden is the argument that I always get when I refute the argument that, "Socialism has always failed in every country where it has been tried."
In Scandinavia what right wing Americans claim does not work works fine.
The U.S. Constitution is vaguely worded and open to various interpretations. Basically it is nothing more than a guide book on how to run a democratic government. During the 1950s the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. There was nothing un Constitutional about that. For most Americans those were good years.
Try paying the tax rates of Sweden then. Everything comes at a cost. There is no free lunch.
Now, your side keeps playing the 91% card.
The fact is there was an almost unreachable threshold to even be in the 91% bracket. And that bracket as all do, only the income above a certain amount and not as your side wants everyone to believe is taxable at that rate.
For example. With a 91% rate a person who earns $1 million is not taxed from dollar one at that rate. To believe that is so would be absurd.
Question: Do you really believe that someone who earned $1 million would lose $910k to the government is just?
You people seek to bring on absolute equality of outcome. You believe we should all be the same regardless of ability or intelligence. Bullshit.
Those of us that work to advance ourselves and try to make a better life through that work are sick and tired of parasites wanting their cut of our money. We sweat, you people take. Is that how you believe it's supposed to work. Do you believe that you are somehow owed something?
Do you really believe that should the federal government figure out a way to increase taxes it will somehow miraculously find the spine to practice fiscal responsibility? As though more confiscation would somehow make it all better?
ANd please, don't hand me some nonsense such as "well, at least it's something". Or "At least we got back at those rich bastards". We have all heard those tunes before. It's boring.
I don't think anyone is arguing that some people don't deserve more that others...it's the amount we're arguing about....When the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, something is seriously wrong.
