What Is Wrong With America ?

[LuckyDuck01!]

If you can read, write, have personal motorized transportation, food in a refrigerator, clothes on your back and money in the bank, you are better off than 90% of the planet. Thus, as the majority of people in this nation fall into that category, there is nothing overall wrong with this nation. I have travelled to a fair number of nations and we remain better off than they are.
The people that you see out there at intersections and freeway off-ramps holding cardboard signs, fall into one or more of four categories: 1. Scammers. 2. Alcoholics/drug addicts. 3. Mentally-ill. 4. Elderly that cannot get work due to rampant age discrimination.
Any solutions for those?
Scammers: You can't solve this one, as there is always someone out there trying to con you out of some cash.
Alcoholics/drug addicts: As long as they can access alcohol and drugs, we're stuck with them.
Mentally-ill: You can blame the ACLU for this lot. In the past they were housed in asylums, but the ACLU came along and said that if they weren't in voluntarily, or considered dangerous, they had to be let go.
Age discrimination: As employment age discrimination is very difficult to prove, the elderly will still be out in the streets, starving an dying.
I do agree that there are some inherent problems with this nation, but no nation is free of its problems. Most of the obscenely rich don't give a damn about the poor, or middle class, only their addiction to making more money. If every one of the obscenely rich had a trillion dollars, they still would want more. They just can't have enough extra homes and larger yachts, et cetera.
The other inherent problem is this nation's inability to reign in religions, due to the way the Constitution was written. They should not be tax free and any religious leaders that preach violence should be arrested and the religious books that advocate killing non-members, destroyed.
Our founding fathers never envisioned political parties. However, the way the Constitution was written, made the founding of political parties inevitable. The only solution that I can think of, is either get the lawmakers to outlaw financial contributions (good luck there) or, get people across the nation to create "The Poor Peoples Party." You dredge up some homeless person, clean him/her up, get people via the internet to contribute to the new party and put him/her in the running for the legislature. I'd recommend the presidency, however, the president doesn't make laws, only approve or veto them as they come across the desk.
Last: As to your job situation, beyond the U.S. adopting the German or Japanese method of employment, you're screwed. After all, our freedoms and capitalism don't take such matters into consideration.

 

[House]

Blinded by the ignorance!

HELP!

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no "redistribution" other than to restore America's tax system back to normal as it has been for most of the past 97 years, and for 90% of the time before the movie star taxation took over, and hoodwinked American conservatives into thinking the way you do now (that this is some kind of economic principle, other than pure GREED)

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

I don't know where you're getting all this crap. I'm a conservative, and I'm just as opposed to lazy, worthless, deadbeat do-nothings raking in tax dollars as any other conservative. But it looks like I might be opposed to it much more than you are, because (AS I STATED BEFORE - ho hum) your low tax, low spend policies are depriving the American people of the $$ we need to maintain national security. THAT National Security includes defending the US from the invasion of millions of illegal aliens, who account for most of the welfare drain that you keep crabbing about. They are who is getting most of the "redistribution". In other words YOU and YOUR dumb policies are to blame for what you are angry about. Get it ?

PS- this is the 4th or 5th time (I've lost count) that I've explained this to you (and supplied a link with it)

Most of the money that goes to national defense is for our soldiers (salary for those serving and retiree benefits), yes a lot of the money goes to the weapons and supplies our soldiers use. Which do you want to stop, paying our soldiers or buying the weapons and supplies they use?

As stated to you NUMEROUS TIMES paying for products and services provided for the necessary functions of this government approved by the constitution, is not income re-distribution. Income re-distribution is when our government pays people based on need not based on products and services provided.

That you can't discern the difference between paying people for the work they do and paying people to not work... yeah that just points out that you are liar when you say you are a conservative.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no "redistribution" other than to restore America's tax system back to normal as it has been for most of the past 97 years, and for 90% of the time before the movie star taxation took over, and hoodwinked American conservatives into thinking the way you do now (that this is some kind of economic principle, other than pure GREED)

National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

I hope you acknowledge that some government spending goes to the country as a whole, Defense and debt repayment for example , it doesnt all go out as welfare to the needy. quite a chunk goes out to retirees, I dont know where you place them. If it was agreed that any raise in taxes on the wealthy would go to pay down the debt, can I assume you would then be ok with it?

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.

Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.

No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

 

[RKMBrown]

My point is that the "rich" that you democrats target to savage, are not the couple of dozen billionaires, but instead those making a couple hundred thousand. The class warfare that your party wages is aimed at the middle - it always has been.

Typical Reaganist talking point. Trying to put words in peoples' mouths that tax the rich policies are really tax the middle class policies. HA HA. People would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new ? Pheeeeww!!

One would have to be a complete moron to not agree with the point that the super rich have, quite literally, thousands of ways earn money that are not taxable as income. Income and capital gains taxes impact the upper middle class a helluva lot more than they do the billionaires.

 

[dcraelin]

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

I hope you acknowledge that some government spending goes to the country as a whole, Defense and debt repayment for example , it doesnt all go out as welfare to the needy. quite a chunk goes out to retirees, I dont know where you place them. If it was agreed that any raise in taxes on the wealthy would go to pay down the debt, can I assume you would then be ok with it?

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.

Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.

No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

 

[RKMBrown]

I hope you acknowledge that some government spending goes to the country as a whole, Defense and debt repayment for example , it doesnt all go out as welfare to the needy. quite a chunk goes out to retirees, I dont know where you place them. If it was agreed that any raise in taxes on the wealthy would go to pay down the debt, can I assume you would then be ok with it?

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.

Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.

No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

Theft at the point of a gun is not "practicality." If someone comes to your home and walks off with the food in your freezer, or your car that you need to drive to work, is that "practicality?" We make out like taking a % of someone's income is just the way it is, but when the money is taken from peter to pay paul it's no different than a felonious assault. We just white wash it and call it tax and spending policies.

When you look at the SS/Medicare stuff the bottom quintile get more out than they put in, the second quintile breaks even. The third quintile may or may not break even based on how many years they live past the average. The fourth quin-tile gets royally screwed over and the upper quintile gets a tax exemption preventing him from being more screwed over than the fourth quintile.

 

[protectionist]

I don't think liberty is a disease.

All depends on what kind of "liberty" one is talking about.

Liberty to steal, rape, defraud, molest kids, exceed speed limits, deal addicting drugs, start forest fires, yell fire in a crowded theater, commit slander/libel, etc etc. Lots of kinds of liberties, and lots of people would like to have them.

Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience.

I would agree.

 

[protectionist]

What's to debate guys? I answered the thread TWICE

I answered it 20 times that amount.

 

[protectionist]

There are two major problems with this country (aside from the people in office)

The PATRIOT Act
The "Affordable Care" Act

Get rid of those two pieces of unconstitutional b/s and I'll be a thousand times happier.

WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ? First thing that will happen ? If you have private insurance, they will drop you like a hot potato. Unless you have VA coverage, you'll be screwed (without the ACA)

As for the patriot Act, I doubt if any of us really knows what would have happened since 9/11 if it hadn't been enacted. I doubt if we know what terrorist attacks it has prevented. A lot of this stuff takes place behind the scenes, and is hard to assess.
I do know that I have not been negatively impacted by the Patriot act since its inception.

 

[protectionist]

I have never been rich, but I have visited 4 of the 7 continents, and most of the poor people I grew up around spent their money in a foreign country.

Are you tuned in ? Did those poor people spend their money in a country which was foreign TO THEM ? (or in their own country)

The lived in this country and rarely spoke the language of the country they shopped in, so you tell me.

So you're saying most of the poor people you grew up around, lived in the USA and spent their money in a foreign country ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

A kid once sold a Micky Mantle baseball card to a pawn shop for $10. The owner turned around and sold the card for $50,000 to a collector. The parents of the kid cried foul, the pawn owner replied "Ain't my fucking problem, a voluntary deal was made."

What you claim is mostly false, but also irrelevant. The federal government forces a mandatory requirement on the population. Those who pay in have fulfilled their requirement. IF the government loses money on the deal, it an't my fucking problem. And it SURE THE FUCK isn't welfare. The government sold a product, by force. If they fucked up and priced it wrong, it's their problem.

 

[protectionist]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

To answer your question...
Instead of Statesmen, we have a government run by politicians.

In other words. Instead of representing the people of their constituency, and acting for them, they act for THEMSELVES. Right ?

 

[House]

There are two major problems with this country (aside from the people in office)

The PATRIOT Act
The "Affordable Care" Act

Get rid of those two pieces of unconstitutional b/s and I'll be a thousand times happier.

WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ? First thing that will happen ? If you have private insurance, they will drop you like a hot potato. Unless you have VA coverage, you'll be screwed (without the ACA)

As for the patriot Act, I doubt if any of us really knows what would have happened since 9/11 if it hadn't been enacted. I doubt if we know what terrorist attacks it has prevented. A lot of this stuff takes place behind the scenes, and is hard to assess.
I do know that I have not been negatively impacted by the Patriot act since its inception.

Right, because clearly that situation has left millions of people screwed over the past couple hundred years without MalpracticeCare because there was no Medicaid, MediCare, or Hospice.

Enjoy the delicious sarcasm.

Herp. Derp.

As for TPA, there are hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since its inception. I don't need to expound on its corruption, it's obvious to anyone that actually cares to do their due diligence.

 

[protectionist]

I'm not sure why you can't separate the two disparate concepts of taxation and spending. When taxed income is "distributed" to people based on "need" alone, not based on "products and services" provided, that is most certainly "RE-DISTRIBUTING INCOME." When taxed income is spent on products and services outlined in the constitution, that is the normal function of this government. When Peter pays one tax percentage that is higher than the percentage that Paul pays, that is taxation based on a goal to punish Peter and for the benefit of Paul. It's a sick world in which we live when people like you feel they are entitled to benefit from the labors of others.

Heads up... eventually Peter may become pissed enough to shoot Paul.

Oh and greed... yeah that's Paul wanting Peter's income without having to do the same work that Peter does. That's like an artist that demands to be paid like a superstar when he's just a part of the background. It's a stupid argument that you can only make happen with the aid of a gun, because no one is dumb enough to pay you what YOU think you are worth.

I don't know where you're getting all this crap. I'm a conservative, and I'm just as opposed to lazy, worthless, deadbeat do-nothings raking in tax dollars as any other conservative. But it looks like I might be opposed to it much more than you are, because (AS I STATED BEFORE - ho hum) your low tax, low spend policies are depriving the American people of the $$ we need to maintain national security. THAT National Security includes defending the US from the invasion of millions of illegal aliens, who account for most of the welfare drain that you keep crabbing about. They are who is getting most of the "redistribution". In other words YOU and YOUR dumb policies are to blame for what you are angry about. Get it ?

PS- this is the 4th or 5th time (I've lost count) that I've explained this to you (and supplied a link with it)

Most of the money that goes to national defense is for our soldiers (salary for those serving and retiree benefits), yes a lot of the money goes to the weapons and supplies our soldiers use. Which do you want to stop, paying our soldiers or buying the weapons and supplies they use?

As stated to you NUMEROUS TIMES paying for products and services provided for the necessary functions of this government approved by the constitution, is not income re-distribution. Income re-distribution is when our government pays people based on need not based on products and services provided.

That you can't discern the difference between paying people for the work they do and paying people to not work... yeah that just points out that you are liar when you say you are a conservative.

Are you blind ? In the very post you quoted, I will remind you I said >> "I'm just as opposed to lazy, worthless, deadbeat do-nothings raking in tax dollars as any other conservative", so where do you get off to now say "you can't discern the difference between paying people for the work they do and paying people to not work" ? What gives you the idea that I can't discern that difference ? And why are you talking to me about paying people to not work ? Did I ever say I liked that idea ? Fact is, I hate it, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so adamant against illegal immigration (have you been reading this thread ?)

As for paying people based on need, I don't see that as an issue of conservative vs liberal, as long as the needy people getting the $$ really need it, can't help themselves, and are AMERICANS. If you have a gripe with that, then just wait until YOU become one of them someday, and then you can talk. See Post # 890 (first paragraph).

As for me lying about being a conservative, HA HA. That's a good one. The liberals in this forum whom I've been fighting tooth and nail in my other OPS, must be gagging right about now, having heard you say that. LOL.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...ns-using-the-irs-to-scam-the-us-taxpayer.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...n-from-the-last-time-egypt-did-democracy.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/europ...r-britain-to-reinstate-the-death-penalty.html

 

[protectionist]

My point is that the "rich" that you democrats target to savage, are not the couple of dozen billionaires, but instead those making a couple hundred thousand. The class warfare that your party wages is aimed at the middle - it always has been.

Typical Reaganist talking point. Trying to put words in peoples' mouths that tax the rich policies are really tax the middle class policies. HA HA. People would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new ? Pheeeeww!!

One would have to be a complete moron to not agree with the point that the super rich have, quite literally, thousands of ways earn money that are not taxable as income. Income and capital gains taxes impact the upper middle class a helluva lot more than they do the billionaires.

Sounds like you would agree with me then that we should raise taxes ON THE RICH. Make the ways they get money TAXABLE. Do what it takes. And close the loopholes, and keep closing new ones as they arise. This is part of what we're paying our legislators for. Let them earn their pay (and maybe their approval rates just might go up a bit)

 

[protectionist]

I hope you acknowledge that some government spending goes to the country as a whole, Defense and debt repayment for example , it doesnt all go out as welfare to the needy. quite a chunk goes out to retirees, I dont know where you place them. If it was agreed that any raise in taxes on the wealthy would go to pay down the debt, can I assume you would then be ok with it?

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.

Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.

No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

I wonder if that calculation has taken decades of inflation into account. Example - if a retiree received $900 this year from Social Security, that is equivalent to $114.36 in 1960.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

 

[protectionist]

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.

Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.

No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

Theft at the point of a gun is not "practicality." If someone comes to your home and walks off with the food in your freezer, or your car that you need to drive to work, is that "practicality?" We make out like taking a % of someone's income is just the way it is, but when the money is taken from peter to pay paul it's no different than a felonious assault. We just white wash it and call it tax and spending policies.

When you look at the SS/Medicare stuff the bottom quintile get more out than they put in, the second quintile breaks even. The third quintile may or may not break even based on how many years they live past the average. The fourth quin-tile gets royally screwed over and the upper quintile gets a tax exemption preventing him from being more screwed over than the fourth quintile.

Someday you may BE that "Paul". Then what ?

 

[protectionist]

There are two major problems with this country (aside from the people in office)

The PATRIOT Act
The "Affordable Care" Act

Get rid of those two pieces of unconstitutional b/s and I'll be a thousand times happier.

WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ? First thing that will happen ? If you have private insurance, they will drop you like a hot potato. Unless you have VA coverage, you'll be screwed (without the ACA)

As for the patriot Act, I doubt if any of us really knows what would have happened since 9/11 if it hadn't been enacted. I doubt if we know what terrorist attacks it has prevented. A lot of this stuff takes place behind the scenes, and is hard to assess.
I do know that I have not been negatively impacted by the Patriot act since its inception.

Right, because clearly that situation has left millions of people screwed over the past couple hundred years without MalpracticeCare because there was no Medicaid, MediCare, or Hospice.

Enjoy the delicious sarcasm.

Herp. Derp.

As for TPA, there are hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since its inception. I don't need to expound on its corruption, it's obvious to anyone that actually cares to do their due diligence.

I don't see the connection between your first paragraph and mine. Could you please answer the question >> "WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ?"

If there are "hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since the inception of the Patriot Act, then you shouldn't have a problem with citing a few here, right. So please do (with links please)

PS - at the same time, maybe you could note some of the helpful examples of the PA.

 

[dcraelin]

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

A kid once sold a Micky Mantle baseball card to a pawn shop for $10. The owner turned around and sold the card for $50,000 to a collector. The parents of the kid cried foul, the pawn owner replied "Ain't my fucking problem, a voluntary deal was made."

What you claim is mostly false, but also irrelevant. The federal government forces a mandatory requirement on the population. Those who pay in have fulfilled their requirement. IF the government loses money on the deal, it an't my fucking problem. And it SURE THE FUCK isn't welfare. The government sold a product, by force. If they fucked up and priced it wrong, it's their problem.

so your comparing taxpayers being ripped off to a greedy pawn shop owner taking advantage of an uninformed kid?