What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

It's been wrong for a hundred years. Again, if someone is doing something wrong, make it illegal and put them in jail. Quit playing chickenshit games. Taxes are for funding government, not punishing the wicked.

Who said anything about "punishing the wicked"? Answer: you did. Sure taxes are for funding govt.and they are NOT wrong. Only thing wrong about taxes right now is that they are too small on the rich, and need to be raised to fix a lot of problems, that have been going unfixed, in unfairness to the American people.

Why is it Dumbocrats speak about topics which they are completely and totally uninformed about? The top 1% earned 13% of the wealth but pay 22% of the taxes. The top 20% earned 50% of the wealth but pay 68% of the taxes. Do you see a pattern? The taxes they pay are a much higher percentage than the wealth they are earning.

Now lets look at the other side. The bottom 40% earned 14% of the wealth but pay only 4% of the taxes. The taxes they pay are a much lower percentage than the wealth they are earning.

Only thing wrong about taxes right now [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION] is that they are way too high on the rich and way too low on the parasites...

You can toss out all the stats you like, but from whom are they derived ? Answer ? The same govt of rich people that I critiqued in the OP. So you're referring to a group of rich people to ask a question about rich people. Cool. Thta's about like asking the honchos of General Motors which is better > a Cadillac or a Lincoln ?

In the days of the old Soviet Union, the govt's "statistics there used to say it was a socialist country with an equal distribution of wealth. Only problem was the members of the Communist Party living in mansions and riding around in limousines, while millions of people were standing on bread lines. And in America ? No county's gap between he rich and the poor is greater the in the, and the US gap is greater than it ever as been since records have been kept, now surpassing the old largest gap (1927)

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/19/saupload_rich_us.png

PS - if anyone's wondering what we might call this upward surge on the graph since 1980, it could be called "the Reagan era".

 

[protectionist]

What does that have to do with the fact that taking things by force is theft?

Not necessarily. If someone picks your wallet out of your pocket and runs down the street with it. You run after him, tackle him, and take back your wallet. When you are then "taking" your wallet, out of his pocket, "by force", are you stealing from him ? With taxation, many would say super rich employers have stolen from their workers by underpaying them. Taxation is taking their wallets back.

Not "necessarily". In other words, "oh fuck - they've pinned me against the wall with indisputable fact and now I have to reach way into the world of nonsensical Dumbocrat jibberish to create some narrative to defend my previous insanity proven to be wrong".

If I stole my money from the government first, then you would be right in your insane view on taxes. But I didn't steal it from the government and you know it. I earned my money and they then stole it from me.

As far as the "super rich" - they didn't steal shit and they don't "underpay" shit. If someone agreed to the salary (as 100% of workers do) then they were clearly satisfied with that salary and not "underpaid" or they wouldn't have accepted it.

So now that your completely disingenuous false narrative has been exposed, what else do you have for us junior?

First of all. I'm 67 years old, so don't call me "junior", OK asshole ?

Now, the only thing you've exposed is your typical con jobbing salesmanship, which is going over here like a lead balloon. I already refuted the stupid idea about "agreeing" to a wage (but you're so embedded to your hollow talking points, you just can't abandon them, apparently - )

Of course the super rich steal from their workers, and from society in general. That's how they got to be super rich. Assinine to think that one guy should have billions$$ in his pockets (for any reason), when millions of people are unemployed and broke.

And of course thousands of businesses underpay their employees. You think we can have a wage like $7.25/hour (or $12.25/hour for that matter), and you can come in here and get away with saying businesses don't underpay ? I'll bet you're not working for a low wage right now are you ?

"Clearly satisfied", huh ? HA HA HA! Is that what you walk around telling yourself all day long ? I'll bet you've got those words pasted to your living room walls, and a little card in your wallet with them on it, that you take out and look at every once in a while, to insure that you don't slip back to being cognizant of the truth. HA HA. How does it feel to sit in a room and talk to people where every one of you is lying, every one of you knows it, yet you keep up the facade, so as to keep your sham business going at maximum profits (no matter who you hurt), and your sham life as well ? Keep those anti-acid pills handy. That sick to your stomach feeling isn't likely to go away any time soon.

PS - EARTH TO ROTTWEILER: NOBODY "earns" the kind of wealth that the super rich receive in America. The people who EARN the most money, (but don't get what they earn), are the ones who are NOT RICH. In fact, many of them are DEAD from having really EARNED their pay (firefighters, coal miners, troops in Afghanistan. etc) So the next time you think you can come swaggering in here talking about "earning" money, you keep in mind the actual meaning of the word (which you nonchalantly, and stupidly, mangle so recklessly)

 

[protectionist]

The basis of 100% of all lawmaking is force and violence.

More ridiculous NONSENSE. You seem to be good at that.

Why is it ridiculous nonsense? If law isn't about violence why do governments need weapons?

It's ridiculous because your post was already refuted by the post it quoted. So AGAIN, the basis of lawmaking is RIGHT & WRONG.

 

[protectionist]

1. If it doesn't matter how rich people took the money they got why is Bernie Madoff in prison?
2. It is the answer.

1. He's in prison because he broke the law. You changed the subject. We were talking about taxation, not what is or isn't legal.

2. NO, it's not the answer, because it's unrelated o the question.

The government was perfectly happy to let Madoff steal as long as they got their cut in the form of taxes. It wasn't until he reached the point that he couldn't pay those taxes that the government stepped in, and now they want more taxes from the people who were victimized by Madoff.

Cute little scenario.

 

[protectionist]

The assholes that want to defend killing licensed by the state as not being murder are perfectly justified in saying that murder, by definition, is unlawful killing. That doesn't really address the issue of whether a violation of non-aggression principle, but they can pretend they have a point. Theft, however, is not defined as non legal stealing, it is defined by the act itself. If you take something without the permission of the owner, it is theft, even if you call it taxes. If we go back to that principle, and limit government to only the taxes that are justified even though we are stealing, we won't have a government that uses the tax code as a way to socially engineer its subjects.

Faulty premise. You CAN take something without the permission of the owner, while NOT being theft. It's called taxation.

You can call it whatever you want, I will call it theft.

Sure, because your whole existence as a business profiteer, depends on distorting reality, and making immorality appear to be morality, and then you all go around living your little lie, custom-tailored to whatever maximizes profits. Charming.

 

[Darkwind]

More ridiculous NONSENSE. You seem to be good at that.

Why is it ridiculous nonsense? If law isn't about violence why do governments need weapons?

It's ridiculous because your post was already refuted by the post it quoted. So AGAIN, the basis of lawmaking is RIGHT & WRONG.

Power and money is the basis of lawmaking, jr.

 

[protectionist]

1. Theft is a normal function of government, whether you call it taxation or asset forfeiture.
2. If you have evidence that companies are stealing from workers, present it. By the way, the current economic problem is because companies have been paying workers more than they should, not less.
3. I can prove they do.

ALL 3 of your statements are FALSE.

1. Taxation is not theft.

2. The OBVIOUS evidence is that ANY 40 hours of work in a week is worth far more than what many employers pay for that 40 hours. At the federal minimum wage ($7.25 hour), that is a weekly pay of $290. Anyone that would say that $290 is even close to a reasonable match with 40 hours work per week, could easily be defined as an idiot.

3. The current economic problem is because of employers using cheap labor, the wages of which don't go back in to the US economy (the leave the country). For the American workers who are paid less than they should , this also deprives the econimy of $$ input, because the workers don't have enough money to spend in the stores (AKA the economy)

1. The simple statement that something is, or is not, is not proof.
2. Labor is compensated by what you do, not how long you work, anyone smarter than an idiot would know that. (Probably why you are confused.)
3. You didn't even make a point worth refuting there.

HA HA. Do you expect me to be confined in debate to YOUR RULES of business management ? HA HA.

EARTH TO QW: >> IN YOUR LITTLE WORLD, and in American business generally, labor is compensated by what you do, not how long you work. IN REALITY, labor SHOULD BE (in case you haven't figured out what I'm taking about) compensated by both of those, with a minimum compensation being that amount of money (for ANY 40 hours of work per week) that accords the worker a LIVING (ie. the capability to cover all necessities + a reasonable degree of luxuries to create a satisfactory life) ANd that definition of "satisfactory" should be based on YOUR definition of satisfactory, as what would be "satisfactory" to YOU.

Hope this clears up YOUR confusion. No charge for the tutoring. My compliments.

 

[Mac1958]

.

At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

.

 

[protectionist]

Why is it ridiculous nonsense? If law isn't about violence why do governments need weapons?

It's ridiculous because your post was already refuted by the post it quoted. So AGAIN, the basis of lawmaking is RIGHT & WRONG.

Power and money is the basis of lawmaking, jr.

I was talking about how it SHOULD BE. And don't call me junior, fool.

 

[Redfish]

After 46 pages, and I did not read all of them, its clear that the answer is different depending on your income, age, and educational level.

IMHO, whats wrong with America is that we have lost the vision of the founders, we have forgotten what real freedom means, we have forgotten that the founders envisioned a small federal government with a very limited role, we have forgotten that real freedom includes both the freedom to succeed beyond your wildest expectations and to fail miserably, there are no guarantees except the guarantee that you may "pursue" happiness. Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results.

So, to summarize---------------liberal, progressive thinking (as understood in the vernacular of today) is what is wrong with America.

 

[Redfish]

.

At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

.

Yes

 

[protectionist]

.At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

It's not the reason we employ people, but it is part of the scenario that should be taken into account. If you don't provide for your employee's financial needs (and they are giving you 40 hours a week of their life), then the following results will occur >>

1. You will have angry employees who will not be motivated to do their best job.(if you fire them, but don't change your mindset, you'll just get more of the same)

2. You will be engaging in immorality, and endangering your immortal soul.

3. You'll be a jerk.

 

[Darkwind]

It's ridiculous because your post was already refuted by the post it quoted. So AGAIN, the basis of lawmaking is RIGHT & WRONG.

Power and money is the basis of lawmaking, jr.

I was talking about how it SHOULD BE. And don't call me junior, fool.

Why would you start talking about how it should be now, junior?

I thought you leftists were all about ignoring what it should be and bringing on the change.

Well, there it is. Power and money. That is just one of the changse that is wrought by allowing government to expand beyond its legal role.

 

[Mac1958]

.
At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

It's not the reason we employ people, but it is part of the scenario that should be taken into account. If you don't provide for your employee's financial needs (and they are giving you 40 hours a week of their life), then the following results will occur >>

1. You will have angry employees who will not be motivated to do their best job.(if you fire them, but don't change your mindset, you'll just get more of the same)

2. You will be engaging in immorality, and endangering your immortal soul.

3. You'll be a jerk.

Well, to address #1: I'm all for a business choosing to pay its employees more if it feels that it is a good investment. More power to 'em.

But a business does not exist to provide for its employees' financial needs.

.

 

[dcraelin]

.

At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

.

Yes

I think people are realistic about that, but thats also why most people agree that we need a minimum wage bill

 

[Redfish]

.At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

It's not the reason we employ people, but it is part of the scenario that should be taken into account. If you don't provide for your employee's financial needs (and they are giving you 40 hours a week of their life), then the following results will occur >>

1. You will have angry employees who will not be motivated to do their best job.(if you fire them, but don't change your mindset, you'll just get more of the same)

2. You will be engaging in immorality, and endangering your immortal soul.

3. You'll be a jerk.

1. you earn what your work is worth to the employer, if you don't like it get more education and/or skills

2. ridiculous, but typical of libtardian thinking

3. even more ridiculous, but also typical.

 

[Darkwind]

.At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

It's not the reason we employ people, but it is part of the scenario that should be taken into account. If you don't provide for your employee's financial needs (and they are giving you 40 hours a week of their life), then the following results will occur >>

1. You will have angry employees who will not be motivated to do their best job.(if you fire them, but don't change your mindset, you'll just get more of the same)

2. You will be engaging in immorality, and endangering your immortal soul.

3. You'll be a jerk.

Number one might be true, but then, My grandson gets angry when he doesn't get his way either. Tough love is sometimes the best solution.

Numbers 2 and 3 are just so much crap.

 

[Redfish]

.

At some point, some people got it into their heads that the reason a business exists is to provide for their employees' financial needs.

.

Yes

I think people are realistic about that, but thats also why most people agree that we need a minimum wage bill

Then why not have the govt guarantee every citizen an income of 100K per year? same pay for every job, EQUALITY, FAIRNESS.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes

I think people are realistic about that, but thats also why most people agree that we need a minimum wage bill

Then why not have the govt guarantee every citizen an income of 100K per year? same pay for every job, EQUALITY, FAIRNESS.

I see that argument all the time, and it is ridiculous. Of Course that would destroy a business.

But if a Business cant pay a wage that provides for a basic existence then it probably doesnt really have a viable business anyway.

 

[protectionist]

After 46 pages, and I did not read all of them, its clear that the answer is different depending on your income, age, and educational level.

IMHO, whats wrong with America is that we have lost the vision of the founders, we have forgotten what real freedom means, we have forgotten that the founders envisioned a small federal government with a very limited role, we have forgotten that real freedom includes both the freedom to succeed beyond your wildest expectations and to fail miserably, there are no guarantees except the guarantee that you may "pursue" happiness. Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results.

So, to summarize---------------liberal, progressive thinking (as understood in the vernacular of today) is what is wrong with America.

America should not be just an embodiment of the "vision of the founders" (who generally were rich businessmen). We, living today are just as much American as any founder of America, and as far as being in position to steer the nation on a proper path, we are better suited than the founders, because they were not aware of the many more problems of our 2014 humungeous 316 million population country. They also weren't aware of the many intricacies that exist today, and their "vision" (which included slavery) wasn't all that wholesome & proper either.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al could be ressurected back to life now for one day, and see what they'd have to say about out gross gap between the rich and the poor. What would they think about the invasion of 12 million illegal aliens, with 8 million of them taking jobs away from 10 million unemployed Americans ? What would they think about affirmative action discriminating against hundreds of millions of white people, for 50 years now, and pompous idiots swaggering around acting like it's OK ? And what would they think about the way we coddle radical Muslim loonies, who hide behind the first amendment part regarding religious freedom, all the while trashing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause ? And what would they think about millions of Americans lives being endangered by infrastructure not being fixed ? And what might they think about all these problems going to pot, just because a bunch of looney Reaganists think it more important to be ridiculously rich than to (through taxation) fund all these pressing National Security problems ?