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.
So why does ANYONE in the U.S. go along with letting the Dems keep SO much of the population under-educated, dumb, and perpetually poor just to maintain a captive (to Dems for freebie public assistance handouts) voter base?
That seems to work exactly the opposite for those who actually vote GOP (they clearly have a different ideology - more heavily reliant on personal responsibility, pro school vouchers/choice to maximize everyone's potential, etc.). I posted the economist's analysis which cited both the Maxwell and NPR polls. So why shouldn't the overarching goal be better socioeconomic outcomes for ALL?
Independents? Like Bernie Sanders? Not impressive.
Have you witnessed what mass lay offs look like? these people were not cashiers at wal-mart or people flipping burgers. These were people with engineering degrees (some with masters and PhD's) and decades of design experience being thrown under the bus by companies (most companies and business class are supported by the GOP).
These are not jobs where you just go open up a news paper and have a new one lined up the next week (because your a "responsible" adult), these are careers where people have spent their lives working to fine tune their craft. Why should these people support the GOP who support laws that make it easier for companies to expose them to hardship?
Typically what this looks like is people have to move across the country (some times on their own dime) to get another at will position in a place where they know no one. Unfortunately engineers and designers are like 0.0001% of the US population, because of that we have no leverage, so why not join the wel-fare moms, the GOP is clearly not looking out for the technical folks of the USA.
[1] What do you think happens when corporate taxes are cut or eliminated? Corporations either SPEND that money for labor and goods (good for the economy) or pay DIVIDENDS (taxed at the personal level).
So why be upset? Cutting government out of the loop is a good thing. Unless you believe governments can spend YOUR MONEY better than you can.
[2] Technically speaking, no money has circulated since 1933. (See House Joint Resolution 192, June 1933)
Federal reserve NOTEs are IOUs denominated in dollars. And to "print more" requires borrowing more (deficit spending). Which begs the question, exactly what is being LENT to CONgress to substantiate the 20+ trillion dollar (not dollar bill) public debt?
Because dividends are taxed at an extremely paltry rate. I think its something like 10-15% which is pitiful.
Back in the day it could go as high as 90% depending on how much of a pay out there was. That money could then fund programs where the company failed to do so (sandia, los alamos, etc)
Because dividends are taxed at an extremely paltry rate. I think its something like 10-15% which is pitiful.
Back in the day it could go as high as 90% depending on how much of a pay out there was. That money could then fund programs where the company failed to do so (sandia, los alamos, etc)
I don't think so. I think they're taxed as same as interest.
But, it would make great sense to tax capital gains as ordinary income. They're currently taxed 1/2 as much. This would eliminate most of the Wall Street shenanigans and corporate manuvoeurs for takeovers, mergers, etc. It would be a lot fairer too.
And when government "takes" property and does not pay just compensation, it is prima facie evidence that the property is NOT private property, constitutionally protected. (See: Fifth amendment)
Have you witnessed what mass lay offs look like? these people were not cashiers at wal-mart or people flipping burgers. These were people with engineering degrees (some with masters and PhD's) and decades of design experience being thrown under the bus by companies (most companies and business class are supported by the GOP).
How is that not a predictable result of Democrats deliberately growing the welfare-dependent class? As the amount of per capita income/wealth decreases, so does the public's ability to buy the goods/services made by those companies which employ such engineers.
Incidentally, such is an added bonus for Dems as it increases the number of those dependent on public assistance.
IDEOLOGICAL THIEVES
=\\=\\=\\=\\=\\=
A popular mantra among the Left Wing is that NO ONE CAN OWN LAND.
That is completely wrong.
Without absolute ownership and the right to exclude others, there is nothing to stop predation and vandalism.
Without the "right to own" the farmer has no "right" to exclude the herdsman from trampling his crops with his herd. The herdsman has no "right" to prevent hunters from killing and taking his animals. All that remains are primitive hunter - gatherers in perpetual conflict over the planet "nobody can own."
Ownership and exclusion are vital to civilization.
No piece of land can simultaneously be used for shelter, grazing, farming, hunting, gathering, wildlife, and / or transportation.
The REAL GOAL of the Left Wing is to persuade the owners to surrender ownership to the collectivist STATE, so it can rule the (m)asses.
Do not fall for it. Defend absolute ownership of private property, for if you can’t absolutely own yourself, your labor, and the fruits of that labor, who does own you and yours?
(You have no right to life, if you have no land upon which to live! All you have is a privilege, subject to the landlord. And your progeny will have no nation to live within, when others take the land for their own posterity.)
Is someone coming for my land? Did DH and I miss something?
How is that not a predictable result of Democrats deliberately growing the welfare-dependent class? As the amount of per capita income/wealth decreases, so does the public's ability to buy the goods/services made by those companies which employ such engineers.
Incidentally, such is an added bonus for Dems as it increases the number of those dependent on public assistance.
That makes sense, the problem is I will likely need assitance before some grand political shift happens (if it ever happens).
So do I vote myself into an early grave (exposure is not really a picnic) or do I vote in my own best interests. Loss of income and long term unemployment is kind of a big deal.
That makes sense, the problem is I will likely need assitance before some grand political shift happens (if it ever happens).
There won't be any grand political shift. The Democrats have simply been too effective at maintaining at least a moderate level of political power by deliberately growing the U.S. underclass, which overwhelmingly votes Dem.
Quote:
So do I vote myself into an early grave (exposure is not really a picnic) or do I vote in my own best interests. Loss of income and long term unemployment is kind of a big deal.
It likely won't matter. We're too far down the same self-destructive path that concluded with the Roman Empire's demise.
"Bread and Circuses" - term (translated from the Latin, panem et circenses) created by Roman writer, Decimus Junius Juvenalis, c. 100 AD.
The Roman government kept the populace happy by distributing free food and staging huge spectacles. Until they couldn't pay for it anymore.
There won't be any grand political shift. The Democrats have simply been too effective at maintaining at least a moderate level of political power by deliberately growing the U.S. underclass, which overwhelmingly votes Dem.
It likely won't matter. We're too far down the same self-destructive path that concluded with the Roman Empire's demise.
"Bread and Circuses" - term (translated from the Latin, panem et circenses) created by Roman writer, Decimus Junius Juvenalis, c. 100 AD.
The Roman government kept the populace happy by distributing free food and staging huge spectacles. Until they couldn't pay for it anymore.
We had a well running system in the 40's and 50's. IF you were filthy rich and didnt reinvest your earnings/profits back into your buisness there by creating jobs you were simply taxed up to 90% and that money was used to fund govt programs to create the jobs that said buisenss owner refused to do.
Its a problem now because the corporate greed has been going on since around the time of Regan adn probably a bit before. I think that 40 years ago people would have rather worked and been productive than taken hand outs but because of tax cuts companies were no longer compelled to create jobs, they could just hoard the earnings/profits.
We are now seeing what 40 years of extreme greed looks like and a poor class that has never had any hope of getting a GOOD job. Its been going on so long that we do now in fact have a dependant class. But this phenomena was not born from hand outs, it was born from corporate greed and by slowly making finding a job like the hunger games or some kind of gladiatorial games. The competition to find a GOOD job is overwhelming, far beyond any normal healthy level of competition and almost the economic equivalent of barbarians trying to brutally kill each other for survival.
We could turn this around over night but implementing the same tax strategy as back then (90% on ALL profits, dividends, C level exec wages, etc, etc over a certian amount), putting strategic tarrifs on all nations with cheap labor forces and cutting immigration to the level of switzerland.
If these 3 things happened simultaniously our economy would be fixed. People who wanted well paying, dignified, meaningful work would have it and only the most lazy would be homeless. Corporate elites would have no where to run to, go to China and then eat the import tax on the back end, hire unapproved immigrants in a swiss like immigration system go to jail (real jail time, several years, send a message), hoard the money and it just get taxed away.
You would also have to have a VERY hefty one time wealth tax on everyone with a net worth over a certain amount to set right the last 60-70 years of shenanigans, it would have to be steep too, something like 50-60% so that the elites could not perpetuate their influence through lobbying through the generations.
We would be a thriving nation again, but it would hurt the elites money bin hoard and lobby power.
Rome was the exact same situation, the elites had slaves to do their work so Roman citizens were unemployed, they needed the hand outs because they could not compete with slave labor (today we dont have slave labor per say
When the Communists tried sharing the land people starved. Besides, the elites will always own land. They just don't want us having any.
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.
