Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This would be the ideal way to cast a vote but it probably won't happen in my lifetime. Too many people with differing ideas of what's most important for them instead of us as a whole.
We have a population of 324,379,183 million people. Approximately 126 million people voted in 2012. We don't come together in any way to decide on two or three meaningful issues (that should be explained in great depth and detail before a vote) and then vote based on our preferred plan. We would rather listen to two parties promise us the sun, the moon and the stars and then wonder, after it all falls apart and nothing gets done, how and why it all went wrong.
In Britain they had the Brexit referendum which broke the chokehold that the Brussels Establishment Elite had over Britain.
The only way to stop the growing strangleholdt hat the Establishment Elite has its to shutdown the money spigot that the repeal of Glass-Steagall opened up. Any other approach will fail.
Trump is a big threat like never before to the establishment. This is why they hammer Trump on his tone, his words and yet never want to speak negatively like that about Hillary.
The left and the right hate Trump. And yet republicans, democrats and independents support Trump in great numbers without any favors from the media. It is a movement against the destruction of this country by the powerful elites who want globalism. This is the problem with the economy. Globalism. Giving our jobs away.
Quantities easing, pumping money into the economy failed. There are no more answers. Trump is the only hope and he will try his best to make it happen.
Bummer... because the left and right are much bigger than the trump followers. Keep dreaming.
His policies... Look at this tax plan, look at how he talks about his policies. He is for the people y'all think he's for. His friends are all the elites, he supports them and the big corporations. Do you really think the 'common people' will benefit from much of anything he proposes? Like, people who inherit money are going to run out and create jobs with it? You are being played.
Globalism is nothing more than the unification of the Establishment Elites' money centers, i.e. the Central Banks and Mega Corporations. As long as the Establishment Elites control there printing press they can control any economic and political interest.
It's always about the money. Nothing else matters. At this point, they are buying votes by stealing from the middle class and giving some trickle down debt in its place. By some odd turn off events wealth is nowadays defined by how much debt one owes. Remarkable.
Also read Peter Schweizer's book: " Clinton Cash" or watch the video on Youtube. Any doubts you might have over whether Hillary belongs in prison will be erased and you'll demand she be sent to jail.
Bummer... because the left and right are much bigger than the trump followers. Keep dreaming.
His policies... Look at this tax plan, look at how he talks about his policies. He is for the people y'all think he's for. His friends are all the elites, he supports them and the big corporations. Do you really think the 'common people' will benefit from much of anything he proposes? Like, people who inherit money are going to run out and create jobs with it? You are being played.
What policies benefit 'common people?' Raising wealthy peoples' taxes? Taxing deceased people on the assets they have accumulated after paying taxes while they were alive? This hasn't been working very well for common people under Obama (and it won't work very well under Hillary).
The point is not who is wealthy, who's poor, who needs the money more, etc. It's about private property rights. Why should wealthy peoples' property rights (to their own incomes/assets/wealth) be weaker than non-wealthy peoples' property rights to their own assets? I'm not saying wealthy peoples' private property rights should be greater than the property rights of non-wealthy people, but it's wholly unfair for them to be weaker.
Liberals, when they refer to tax cuts for the wealthy as a 'gift,' are saying (quite directly) that they don't think the money people earn or the assets they accumulate belong to them. Do you consider this a good thing?
How is someone who wants to keep a higher percentage of the income/assets they have earned themselves greedy while the person who wants the government to confiscate more of other peoples' income/assets/wealth compassionate?
Well. What does this look like? Something like the the great depression? Give a senerio will a bit of detail.
It is the same as the other recent collapses only much larger. It will take the form of sovereign (country) bankruptcies. China has a debt burden that had grown from $10 trillion to $36 trillion in just 10 years, thanks to the greed of the Elite Establishment. $trillions of dollars of money poured down the drain leaving behind ghost cities and global depressing pollution. Of course, the money itself ended up in the hands of a few Billionaires who are buying up all the land in NY, Toronto Vancouver, London, and pushing out all the people who built these cities.
What policies benefit 'common people?' Raising wealthy peoples' taxes? Taxing deceased people on the assets they have accumulated after paying taxes while they were alive? This hasn't been working very well for common people under Obama (and it won't work very well under Hillary).
The point is not who is wealthy, who's poor, who needs the money more, etc. It's about private property rights. Why should wealthy peoples' property rights (to their own incomes/assets/wealth) be weaker than non-wealthy peoples' property rights to their own assets? I'm not saying wealthy peoples' private property rights should be greater than the property rights of non-wealthy people, but it's wholly unfair for them to be weaker.
Liberals, when they refer to tax cuts for the wealthy as a 'gift,' are saying (quite directly) that they don't think the money people earn or the assets they accumulate belong to them. Do you consider this a good thing?
How is someone who wants to keep a higher percentage of the income/assets they have earned themselves greedy while the person who wants the government to confiscate more of other peoples' income/assets/wealth compassionate?
Billionaire didn't earn their money. They stole it "legally" from the middle class. The last 20 years has been nothing more than a gigantic transfer of wealth to the top 1% engineered by the Federal Reserve and the government that the Billionaire Class owns.
Billionaire didn't earn their money. They stole it "legally" from the middle class. The last 20 years has been nothing more than a gigantic transfer of wealth to the top 1% engineered by the Federal Reserve and the government that the Billionaire Class owns.
Can you walk me through this phenomenon (of wealthy people/billionaires stealing wealth/assets from the middle class) in as much detail as possible? I've heard this many times but am failing to see the mechanism behind how it supposedly happened.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,506,556 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
It is the same as the other recent collapses only much larger. It will take the form of sovereign (country) bankruptcies. China has a debt burden that had grown from $10 trillion to $36 trillion in just 10 years, thanks to the greed of the Elite Establishment. $trillions of dollars of money poured down the drain leaving behind ghost cities and global depressing pollution. Of course, the money itself ended up in the hands of a few Billionaires who are buying up all the land in NY, Toronto Vancouver, London, and pushing out all the people who built these cities.
So do you think China will fail first? If so how will that effect the U.S.? How will that bring us together?
Speaking to New York. The reason why it so expensive to live there is because people want to live there now. People, especially the younger folks have realized suburban life sold to the greatest Generation and Baby boomer is all it's cracked up to be. Having live in NYC metro area, Boston metro area, and now living in DC Metro. You can see the the growth and gentrification with in those cities fairlyreadily. So to me it's not globalism that causing this. It a generational shift of people wanting to live in cities. And yeah. Unfortunately People are going to be displaced during this process. But your not going to stop this trend in the near future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
