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.
You can’t be more wrong.
America used to tax the rich at a much higher rate than we do now.
In fact America became a superpower when our highest tax rate was around 90%. Our jobs stayed here in America & business didn’t have the huge loopholes they have now.
I think we need a "climate change" type effort...Look, progs have convinced lots of people in the agenda paid for science of climate change, so we need to do that with our budget concerns.
Idiots in government have already borrowed and spent several future generation's money. This spending spree WILL come to an end one way or another. Trump is pursuing the only hope we have left, aggressive economic growth. We are in a debt hole so large now we can't tax or spending cut our way out.
I refuse to believe there isn't a solution...
There is a solution, hold our elected officials accountable for their spending, keep voting them out till someone cuts spending
Spending hasn't been cut since the late 1950's so.
Why would it be, we keep voting the same people in to office no matter how much they spend and add to the debt
ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.So your solution is to give Congress a blank check?
Sorry, but that's pure insanity.
They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.
You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.
You claim one thing and do another.
I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "fuck em if they cannot take a joke".
Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:
"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"
It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.
Politicians have rigged House and Senate races, and rigged power in Congress concentrating it into the hands of a few, and rigged control over the rest of our representatives via threats and reprisals if they refuse to vote as commanded. That's the current reality in the U.S.
ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.
You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.
You claim one thing and do another.
I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "fuck em if they cannot take a joke".
Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:
"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"
It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.
Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.
Politicians have rigged House and Senate races, and rigged power in Congress concentrating it into the hands of a few, and rigged control over the rest of our representatives via threats and reprisals if they refuse to vote as commanded. That's the current reality in the U.S.
Yes it is. What is needed is a revolution...everyone to vote for a 3rd party instead of the duopoly.
But that will not happen either because they have also convinced us that the other side is the enemy and must be defeated at all cost...even though doing so changes nothing.
What happened to the forgotten man, the Trump voter who had been betrayed & abandoned by Washington for too long?
ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.
You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.
You claim one thing and do another.
I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "fuck em if they cannot take a joke".
Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:
"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"
It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.
Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.
i would
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.
snip
Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.
Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll
If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....
The system is rigged so that you only get a choice of two thieves.ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.So your solution is to give Congress a blank check?
Sorry, but that's pure insanity.
They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.
You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.
You claim one thing and do another.
I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "fuck em if they cannot take a joke".
Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:
"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"
It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.
Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.
Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.
What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.
That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.
And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.
They have been hijacked.
Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.
The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.
Then get your people elected, raise taxes to what they were in the 50's, and see what happens to jobs and the economy. I think you'll be surprised. After all, DumBama had the House and Senate. Why didn't he raise taxes that high?
The founders wrote they did not want a standing army because they could never imagine the equipment, training, technology that it takes to defend the country today. If they could come back to life, know what our potential enemies have, do you think they would have kept that idea?
Correct, the founders didn't mean the general welfare to be bailouts and subsidies. But they also didn't mean it for food stamps, HUD, TANF, Planned Parenthood support, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIPs and the other eighty plus social programs we have today. Those were the born from the Great Society. General Welfare meant for those items listed in the Constitution, not what's in the Democrat playbook.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
Thinking of our 23 trillion dollar debt, imagine what that would be today if we only listened to Madison back then.
Polls are an accurate way of judging American minds ...
That's never gonna happen. And you claim my position is naive.Politicians have rigged House and Senate races, and rigged power in Congress concentrating it into the hands of a few, and rigged control over the rest of our representatives via threats and reprisals if they refuse to vote as commanded. That's the current reality in the U.S.
Yes it is. What is needed is a revolution...everyone to vote for a 3rd party instead of the duopoly.
But that will not happen either because they have also convinced us that the other side is the enemy and must be defeated at all cost...even though doing so changes nothing.
Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.
Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.
What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.
That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.
And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.
They have been hijacked.
Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.
The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.
Then get your people elected, raise taxes to what they were in the 50's, and see what happens to jobs and the economy. I think you'll be surprised. After all, DumBama had the House and Senate. Why didn't he raise taxes that high?
The founders wrote they did not want a standing army because they could never imagine the equipment, training, technology that it takes to defend the country today. If they could come back to life, know what our potential enemies have, do you think they would have kept that idea?
Correct, the founders didn't mean the general welfare to be bailouts and subsidies. But they also didn't mean it for food stamps, HUD, TANF, Planned Parenthood support, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIPs and the other eighty plus social programs we have today. Those were the born from the Great Society. General Welfare meant for those items listed in the Constitution, not what's in the Democrat playbook.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
Thinking of our 23 trillion dollar debt, imagine what that would be today if we only listened to Madison back then.
That 23 trillion was less than 1 trillion before Reagan. Before Reagan, the income inequality of today didn't exist. I can make that list a long one, culminating in what we have today with trillion dollar corporations getting tax refunds, while 40% of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency.
The failure of Reaganomics is the biggest problem that faces America. What the 1% have or does not have is irrelevant to America.
The Abject Failure of Reaganomics
Reaganomics didn't fail. Everything you posted is a lie.Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.
Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.
What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.
That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.
And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.
They have been hijacked.
Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.
The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.
Then get your people elected, raise taxes to what they were in the 50's, and see what happens to jobs and the economy. I think you'll be surprised. After all, DumBama had the House and Senate. Why didn't he raise taxes that high?
The founders wrote they did not want a standing army because they could never imagine the equipment, training, technology that it takes to defend the country today. If they could come back to life, know what our potential enemies have, do you think they would have kept that idea?
Correct, the founders didn't mean the general welfare to be bailouts and subsidies. But they also didn't mean it for food stamps, HUD, TANF, Planned Parenthood support, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIPs and the other eighty plus social programs we have today. Those were the born from the Great Society. General Welfare meant for those items listed in the Constitution, not what's in the Democrat playbook.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
Thinking of our 23 trillion dollar debt, imagine what that would be today if we only listened to Madison back then.
That 23 trillion was less than 1 trillion before Reagan. Before Reagan, the income inequality of today didn't exist. I can make that list a long one, culminating in what we have today with trillion dollar corporations getting tax refunds, while 40% of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency.
The failure of Reaganomics is the biggest problem that faces America. What the 1% have or does not have is irrelevant to America.
The Abject Failure of Reaganomics
You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.
You claim one thing and do another.
I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "fuck em if they cannot take a joke".
Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:
"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"
It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.
Right and wrong. It is 100% our fault, but only because if they actually did cut spending, it would end their political career, because then nobody would vote for them again.
i would
Maybe, but most won't. That's the point. You said you spent 20 years in the military. What if that politician wanted to cut military funding including benefits and pay? What about equipment that protects the lives of our men and women in war?
