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.
Big difference: Obama is nowhere close to being FDR. FDR wasn't perfect and had some bad ideas and questionable policies, but he was a leader and had intelligence and ability. He wasn't a created marionette like Obama. FDR could sell his ideas or force others to try them. Obaam eithers drops them or complains about them never being given a chance or if they fail it wasn't his fault.
First, 401Ks are taxed as orinary income, not capital gains. That furthers the argument that the rich have privileges.
Second, most capital gains value is unrealized gains -- like when one bought an asset 30 years ago at a fraction of today's price. The gain was NEVER taxed.
The reality is that most people are dreaming that fantasizing that they will be rich. They mostly won't. Besides, what's so bad about being rich and paying taxes.
Taxes are a necessary means to run a government. They aren't confiscation.
There are a lot of things about the current tax structure that i do not underdtand. They should lower taxes on 401Ks, and drop the increased taxes on those of us who work overtime.
Taxes are a necessary means to run a government. They aren't confiscation.
AS LONG AS YOU STICK TO THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION YOU ARE CORRECT. OF COURSE, WEALTH TRANSFER PROGRAMS AIN'T IN THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
Caps lock on, too lazy to correct.
Yes, theft has been legalized. Does not make it moral.
Once you start transferring wealth you are engaged in confiscation.
AS LONG AS YOU STICK TO THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION YOU ARE CORRECT. OF COURSE, WEALTH TRANSFER PROGRAMS AIN'T IN THE ENUMERATED POWERS.
Caps lock on, too lazy to correct.
Yes, theft has been legalized. Does not make it moral.
Once you start transferring wealth you are engaged in confiscation.
Once you stop the transfer of wealth in a country the biggest and meanest dog gets ALL THE MARBLES.
It's like a freakin mantra among the backwards thinking and looking people who have not a clue about the evolution of a modern state that at least has the bare trappings of being a just society. "Transfer of the wealth". LOL
I would say that one of the prime functions of any government in a democracy is the protection of the people from the power of concentrated wealth and that involves making sure they get a just piece of the economic pie. These blind and dumb people who cry about the fair distribution of the fruits of the workers labour make me sick. Tell me if you could? Do they want to go back to 1899 when workers were no more than wage slaves with no rights at all. Not health and safety, no pensions for a life time of hard work, no healthcare to speak of. If they gor sick and most times because of their working conditions they died and their families were left with nothing.
Remember the song, "A coal miners daughter". Here we have a hard working man who not only shovels coal all night but farms all day and he still can't afford shoes for his kids in the summer and only is able to get them some winter shoes by selling a pig. That's exactly what you get when there is no "Redistrubition of the wealth" in a country and that song was about the 50s not that long ago! That is why I say that those who cry about it know nothing about anything and are just tools of those who's own incredible riches and privelege count oh so much more than their country and the people of that country.
What do the working poor have to do to be able to live a life free from want? Can they trust the government to make sure that they recieve a fair share that requires a "redistribution" or do they have to do what has been done in so many countries so many times and have a revolution where they not only take all the wealth but almost always shoot the previously wealthy and destoy the entire country while doing so?
They are backward looking because every single thing they advocate has already been tried in the past and found not to work. The countries that already have the policies the GOP wants are horrible horrible places to be a worker but great places to be an owner.
The anti intellectual GOP must invision the USA as a country like Mexico. They have a very weak Federal government that can't even control much of the country outside of Mexico city.I don't think there is much unemployment in Mexico but on the other hand most people don't make a dollar per hour either.
First, 401Ks are taxed as orinary income, not capital gains. That furthers the argument that the rich have privileges.
Second, most capital gains value is unrealized gains -- like when one bought an asset 30 years ago at a fraction of today's price. The gain was NEVER taxed.
The reality is that most people are dreaming that fantasizing that they will be rich. They mostly won't. Besides, what's so bad about being rich and paying taxes.
Taxes are a necessary means to run a government. They aren't confiscation.
The reality is, 401k contributions were made from non taxed income. It isn't unreasonable to tax the distribution at an ordinary income rate. There is no advantage for the rich here. They have to pay taxes on income and their 401k distribution is taxed as ordinary income.
I don't understand your beef about not taxing unrealized gains? That is akin to taxing unearned income, it doesn't make much sense. I don't think you can support your statement that most capital gains are unrealized. Even if the were true it would be an argument for lowering capital gains taxes.
Once you stop the transfer of wealth in a country the biggest and meanest dog gets ALL THE MARBLES.
It's like a freakin mantra among the backwards thinking and looking people who have not a clue about the evolution of a modern state that at least has the bare trappings of being a just society. "Transfer of the wealth". LOL
I would say that one of the prime functions of any government in a democracy is the protection of the people from the power of concentrated wealth and that involves making sure they get a just piece of the economic pie. These blind and dumb people who cry about the fair distribution of the fruits of the workers labour make me sick. Tell me if you could? Do they want to go back to 1899 when workers were no more than wage slaves with no rights at all. Not health and safety, no pensions for a life time of hard work, no healthcare to speak of. If they gor sick and most times because of their working conditions they died and their families were left with nothing.
Remember the song, "A coal miners daughter". Here we have a hard working man who not only shovels coal all night but farms all day and he still can't afford shoes for his kids in the summer and only is able to get them some winter shoes by selling a pig. That's exactly what you get when there is no "Redistrubition of the wealth" in a country and that song was about the 50s not that long ago! That is why I say that those who cry about it know nothing about anything and are just tools of those who's own incredible riches and privelege count oh so much more than their country and the people of that country.
What do the working poor have to do to be able to live a life free from want? Can they trust the government to make sure that they recieve a fair share that requires a "redistribution" or do they have to do what has been done in so many countries so many times and have a revolution where they not only take all the wealth but almost always shoot the previously wealthy and destoy the entire country while doing so?
I suggest you read "The Myth of the Robber Barons' and you might have a new vision of what the world is like. The fact is government can only come in and take what capitalism has produced. The claims that government is solely responsible for improved wages and working conditions is total bunk. What happens is capitalism is a dynamic system that produces greater wealth which all but eliminates the problems of earlier generations. Then socialists come in and pass a law to conpletely eliminate some condition and claim to be wholy responsible for it.
I am sorry rape would not be moral if the legislature legalized it. Legal slavery was not moral. Neither is theft.
Why does anyone make more than the minimum wage?
We have a fundamental difference. You believe stealing is OK. I do not.
First of all I'm not talking about conservatives. We have a very conservative government in Canada and by and large they are doing a good job. I'm talking about that disfunctional, idiot ,self serving organization called the GOP.
The Queen is just the representitive head of state in our country. She owns nothing and she has nothing at all to do with public policy.
Queen Elizabeth is THE largest land owner alive, with over 6.6 Billion acres, spanning the British Commonwealth .... Australia, Canada, the Falklands and other places.
Just to give you an idea of how much land that actually is ... the United States is roughly comprised of 2.3 Billion acres ... so Queen Mum has a pretty substantial back yard.
The crown is a symbol and a very good one it is I must add. What the crown represents is the sovereignity of THE PEOPLE and that is why we have far greater freedoms than the USA. Any political leader is just that and nothing else. He will pass away and another will take his place. They will all fail in one way or another but it does not hurt the collective souls of the Canadian people. THE CROWN REPRESENTS PERMANENT VALUES that make up what joins all Canadians together into a strong united and patriotic nation.
The "Crown" REPRESENTS ROYAL BLOODLINE ELITISM and it's sovereign right to RULE and SUBJUGATE the commoners ... which is the difference between being "Subjects" and "Citizens"
The founding of the United States was a rejection by our forefathers of such elitist rule by royal inbreds, basically declaring themselves as sovereigns in their own right, equal to, rather than subordinates of this class of self anointed superiors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
You on the other hand have sleasy politicians as your head of state and when they screw up big time like they almost always do america and Americans go into shock and dispair. I've seen it too many times. Nixon and watergate. Clinton and his never ending soap opera. Obama and what the Obama haters make up and so on.
Ww don't have that kind of problem here in a parlimentary democracy. We expect politicians to screw up and when they don't do it too badly it's a bonus.
Oh my .... now, I'll grant you that we indeed do have virtually nothing but sleazy politicians .... but they "rule" nothing. They are owned and directed by the same elitists that own you.
The differences are inconsequential, and only a matter of perception and illusion. You believe the owner is just a symbol, and you embrace it. We believe we actually defeated it, and determine our own fate. Both perceptions are false.
6.6 Billion acres is a heck of a lot of symbolism!
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.
