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.
you don't get it. they control both parties homie. I am just not idiotic enough to believe that one sides has my best interest at heart. politicians have no hearts.
Ah, so you don't vote or you vote for a random third party. But when government talks about providing aid to the middle class and working poor, I am sure you are in support of that because it breaks from them giving to the rich instead.
No, it's because we let them tax us in the first place.
We established this country not to get away from taxes, but to have representation with taxation. Our founding fathers knew the importance of taxation for a country to survive.
Ah, so you don't vote or you vote for a random third party. But when government talks about providing aid to the middle class and working poor, I am sure you are in support of that because it breaks from them giving to the rich instead.
the first part is correct. the times I have voted, I wrote in a dead president once, and I wrote in myself. no use in voting where I am now. maryland is a lost colony. government has been talking about providing aid to the middle class and poor since its inception. each and every time, the working mans taxes go up, and the money never reaches its intended target. I support either a flat tax, or a consumption tax.
the first part is correct. the times I have voted, I wrote in a dead president once, and I wrote in myself. no use in voting where I am now. maryland is a lost colony. government has been talking about providing aid to the middle class and poor since its inception. each and every time, the working mans taxes go up, and the money never reaches its intended target. I support either a flat tax, or a consumption tax.
So you feel that aid doesn't reach the middle class or poor, but you support taxes that benefit the rich while being a bigger strain on the poor? That makes no sense at all.
So you feel that aid doesn't reach the middle class or poor, but you support taxes that benefit the rich while being a bigger strain on the poor? That makes no sense at all.
are you trying to say that the poor consume as much as the rich? I would be perfectly fine if they had a consumption tax of 0% on essential items. the poor don't buy new cell phones each month, or the new apple products. I support simplifying the system. pay as you go.
I refer you to the numerous conversations in this forum regarding income inequality, the gist of which is that conservatives believe that's it's a good thing and there should be more of it.
But let's review a few conservative policy objectives.
Privatize Social Security = Wall Street gets even wealthier and ordinary retirement savers are exposed to much more risk.
Cut taxes for the wealthy and increase them for the poor = the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Cut benefits for the poor = ditto.
Eliminate the minimum wage = more profits for companies, less money for workers.
And so on.
Actually the above policies would be one that a Marxist or a Leninist would embrace with joy. For we have no interest in making the American Capitalist system work. Policies that strip what little wealth the vast majority of Americans who are doomed to marginalization and poverty have will bring on the REVOLUTION we are counting on to clear the way for us to rise to rise to power! We count on the Capitalists to make all the rope needed to hang them!
the first part is correct. the times I have voted, I wrote in a dead president once, and I wrote in myself. no use in voting where I am now. maryland is a lost colony. government has been talking about providing aid to the middle class and poor since its inception. each and every time, the working mans taxes go up, and the money never reaches its intended target. I support either a flat tax, or a consumption tax.
She leads 50.17 to 49.50, and if she maintains a half percent lead, she avoids an automatic recount. Because of our stupid mail-in vote system (designed to promote fraud, IMO) we don't really no for sure in close elections for several weeks, because the votes keep trickling in over time.
I'm thinking that with this result, there is at least a fair chance that we will get the $15 minimum wage in the city of Seattle within the next year or so. The $15 min wage measure in SeaTac (small burb) is still leading, but opponents have already said it will be challenged in court.
She leads 50.17 to 49.50, and if she maintains a half percent lead, she avoids an automatic recount. Because of our stupid mail-in vote system (designed to promote fraud, IMO) we don't really no for sure in close elections for several weeks, because the votes keep trickling in over time.
I'm thinking that with this result, there is at least a fair chance that we will get the $15 minimum wage in the city of Seattle within the next year or so. The $15 min wage measure in SeaTac (small burb) is still leading, but opponents have already said it will be challenged in court.
Congrats to Sawants, so how much "fraud" happened in this election?
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.
