SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

[danielpalos]

[Q

no, i mean like equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

If we really had employment at will then the fucking oppressive government wouldn't be in the business of dictating minimum wages, would they?

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

 

[leftwinger]

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

So.........you want every citizen over age 18 to be given $1000/week tax free if they choose not to work. Or if they work at $500/wk ......... you want them bumped up to $1000. Up to SSI age where it all would stop?

lets see.........100mil not working at $1000/wk = $100Bil/wk or $5.2T/yr.
Where do the funds come from? forgot, do illegals get paid also?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q

no, i mean like equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

If we really had employment at will then the fucking oppressive government wouldn't be in the business of dictating minimum wages, would they?

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

Equal protection under the law for what?????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

They have all the money.
What percentage of their income do they need to survive?
Everyone should earn enough to survive and afford to go to college so they can better themselves. Otherwise you create the slave class.

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

can it be immoral, to solve simple poverty and tax the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Let me tell you a little personal story of something that happened to me as a child back in the 60's.

I was with my father driving through a bad part of town. As I looked upon the despair, I turned to my father and said "I wish I had a million dollars." My father asked why? I said "So I could give it to these people so they could move out of here."

My father looked at me with a smile and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and in just a few years, they would be right back here in this neighborhood."

I didn't understand what he meant until I got older. But what he was telling me is that money doesn't solve poverty. In fact, books have been written on lottery winners where the money made their life a living hell.

That begs the question: If we could tax every millionaire at 90%, how would that help you? Of sure, it would give the government more money, but how would that help you?

The answer is it doesn't. If you give people money that aren't responsible enough to have that money, you could be doing them more harm than good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Entertainment has value you idiot. If it didn't then nobody would buy it, would they?

Hey einstein. People buy cigarettes too. Where is the value in that? Cigs have NEGATIVE VALUE. They cost america a fortune. THINK,

Do I actually need to explain the difference between entertainment and drugs?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Engineer , businessmen, scientist. Or on a lesser level - plumber, farmer, auto repairman, electrician. Stuff like that. People that make things and grow things and fix things. That's what wealth is. People with technical skills. Athletes are useless.

I don't know how you can conclude that. After all, those athletes put a lot of people to work.

But it's all make-work. Like having people dig holes in the morning and fill in the holes in the afternoon. Athletics doesn't produce wealth. Some people enjoy watching sports but then some people like using drugs too. THINK

Tell you what, Punkin. If you want to live a drab, boring subsistence life with no fun and nothing but the "important" things in it, you just go on with your bad self. But do NOT try to impose your Puritan mindset on society and arbitrate what is and isn't "worthy" or "valuable". Take your buckle-shoed, killjoy ass and join an Amish sect or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The fact is unless you are born rich, your odds of being rich are .0000001 percent. Oh we are fed the bs line about the american dream and other myths, and alit of dumb people actually believe in it.

The fact is, only about 2% of the "rich" are rich their whole lives. The vast majority BECAME rich. Many of them became rich, lost it, and became rich again.

But hey, whatever lies help you suffer through being a failure . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

And what might that "wrong" be? More to the point, what business is it of yours? Did you invest in that company?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

 

[Moonglow]

SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

If they have no rolled oats, do we roll out own?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

 

[Slyhunter]

How much does the one percent actually pay in real, personal income tax?

We know our, tax avoider in chief, may not have to pay any personal income taxes, for decades.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

They have all the money.
What percentage of their income do they need to survive?
Everyone should earn enough to survive and afford to go to college so they can better themselves. Otherwise you create the slave class.

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

They have all the money.
What percentage of their income do they need to survive?
Everyone should earn enough to survive and afford to go to college so they can better themselves. Otherwise you create the slave class.

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

 

[Slyhunter]

They have all the money.
What percentage of their income do they need to survive?
Everyone should earn enough to survive and afford to go to college so they can better themselves. Otherwise you create the slave class.

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

What is wrong is if you don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty it's inhumane. They become a slave class with no hope of ever succeeding. Then you create a fake religion so they stupidly think they'll be rewarded in the next life in order to placate the lower classes.

Incorporated - Season 1

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

What is wrong is if you don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty it's inhumane. They become a slave class with no hope of ever succeeding. Then you create a fake religion so they stupidly think they'll be rewarded in the next life in order to placate the lower classes.

Incorporated - Season 1

What I'd like to know is how we don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty. Nobody is stoping anybody from working or working more hours. Nobody is stopping anybody from getting training to learn a new career.

 

[Flash]

[

Let me tell you a little personal story of something that happened to me as a child back in the 60's.

I was with my father driving through a bad part of town. As I looked upon the despair, I turned to my father and said "I wish I had a million dollars." My father asked why? I said "So I could give it to these people so they could move out of here."

My father looked at me with a smile and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and in just a few years, they would be right back here in this neighborhood."

I didn't understand what he meant until I got older. But what he was telling me is that money doesn't solve poverty. In fact, books have been written on lottery winners where the money made their life a living hell.

That begs the question: If we could tax every millionaire at 90%, how would that help you? Of sure, it would give the government more money, but how would that help you?

The answer is it doesn't. If you give people money that aren't responsible enough to have that money, you could be doing them more harm than good.

The Libtard answer for everything is to throw more money at it. Only they don't want to throw their money, they want to throw other people's money.

 

[Flash]

[Q


Do I actually need to explain the difference between entertainment and drugs?

You have to explain a lot of things to these Moon Bats. They are not exactly the best and brightest.

The Moon Bat painted himself into a corner making a really dumbass statement and now has to double down on stupidity in order to justify it. Pathetic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q


Do I actually need to explain the difference between entertainment and drugs?

You have to explain a lot of things to these Moon Bats. They are not exactly the best and brightest.

The Moon Bat painted himself into a corner making a really dumbass statement and now has to double down on stupidity in order to justify it. Pathetic.

Of course. I would just like to know of one time of when a Democrat politician raised taxes on the rich and it helped one poor person. It might have made them feel a little better, but didn't put one dollar in their pocket.

 

[danielpalos]

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

So.........you want every citizen over age 18 to be given $1000/week tax free if they choose not to work. Or if they work at $500/wk ......... you want them bumped up to $1000. Up to SSI age where it all would stop?

lets see.........100mil not working at $1000/wk = $100Bil/wk or $5.2T/yr.
Where do the funds come from? forgot, do illegals get paid also?

Our current unemployment rate is more realistic than your right wing fantasy.

We can always end our drug war.

 

[danielpalos]

[Q

no, i mean like equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

If we really had employment at will then the fucking oppressive government wouldn't be in the business of dictating minimum wages, would they?

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

Equal protection under the law for what?????

employment at will.