Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:32 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: We Are All In A Union Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 5:46:58 PM

Behold the founding words:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

--Didja get that?

"...UNION..."

You conservatives need to get this through your heads. We are ALL in a union. It is about time you recognized that we ALL have to contribute to it. You can't just throw up your hands and ask to be left out of it. It doesn't work that way. It's all for one and one for all. It would work a whole lot better if a lot of people would get beyond their selfishness and be a team player.

If you are growing tired of funding welfare then how about we hold the so called 'job-creators' to task? Obviously just throwing repeated tax cuts at them has not worked. Let's take those cuts back. We need the money to help pay for the mess their greed has created instead of creating jobs. They have showered our candidates and our legislators with lots of cash. Decades of it. Oh, they have plenty of money to try to get special interest treatment and sway government policy. (But amazingly little for taxes.) And they have gotten many many concessions. And their taxes have been cut many many times. And many of their hated regulations got cut too under Reagan and Clinton. Are we enjoying a general welfare? No! A few have vast wealth. Many are able to get by fine. But an alarmingly growing number are NOT doing OK. And we are being asked to pay more and more to support them. This can not go on.

So if ya don't want to fix the run-away greed of the 1% then we will all have to pay for the damage they cause in the form of ever more taxes. We have got to curtail that greed, promote general welfare (and I don't mean the government program), or we will not have domestic tranquility. It's time for more of the UNION members to deal with UNION business.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,881
Points:534,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 5:04:37 PM

"Here you are accusing the TEA Party as being extremists because they may (or may not) have influence on the Hurricane Sandy aid."

I am accusing the Tea Party of being extremists based on their voting record and refusal to compromise even within their own party. You latched on to another specific example, I used the failure of Plan B specifically to exemplify the extreme position of said members of Congress.

"Where in the US Constitution does it say that the US Government MUST send aid to those who are harmed by ANY natural disaster? If there is no obligation, shouldn't the subject of aid be, at the very least, up to debate? The proper amount? Who would be eligible? Etc? ESPECIALLY when the 112th Congress in its last days was debating the ELIMINATION of over a TWO Trillion $ from our spending that was mandated in August of 2011?"

Like I said, only the 'bare minimum' was put forth in the Bill while the very process you have requested unfolds - yet the extremists couldn't even vote for this... The people affected can't wait 6 months for the entire process to run its course - that isn't reality.

It is also unrealistic to expect private donations to cover the incurred expenses following a natural disaster. People should just hope and pray that there are enough donors? That is not how countries are run my friend!

“The list is too long...”

I guess what I was trying to get at is that I bet your list doesn’t include ‘just’ Democratic policy (or at least shouldn’t)…
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 1:54:31 PM

Me: "I just get sick of these people who say: 'Your President, not mine.' They didn't get their way so they pretend they are not Americans for 4 or 8 years. It's like they want to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'Nah Nah Nah Nah' the whole time. That's stupid. Dissent if you want but the man got elected and we've got to give his decisions a chance to work. Republicans fighting to prevent progress are hurting our nation. That is not being loyal. Party over nation is killing us."

flyboyUT: "Will the same thing be said when there is a Conservative House, Senate and WH? Based on past history - dont bet your farm on it. "

--Of course I will. When Bush was President I never claimed he wasn't my President. I didn't vote for him and I had plenty of dissent about policy but he had his chance to show results.

***

nst: "The government is now pushing $45 billion into the economy every month because the stimulus failed. "

Ha HAAA! That's a good one. You are wrong. The stimulus DID work, was not large enough, and the $45 billion is a form of CONTINUED stimulus. Essentially, we have to run the economy on credit because the greed-o-maniacs of big corporations have sucked so much out of it that too few can afford to buy their products.

***

MJack: "Until we a mature enough to realize both major parties are at fault and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT CHANGING our predicament, we will be forced to deal with the inevitable clashes between the lessor of two evils."

--I agree; and am ready to jump on that cause as soon as it gains enough traction. But so far too much of the nation is still fooled by the PR and afraid to support a third party or even challenge the electoral process. Part of that problem is that the Presidential debates are controlled by a profit-making commercial media, and too many people are too mesmerized by commercial media to reject it. Another part of it is allowing big money to have so much influence over our government. Huge mistake that guarantees rampant destructive greed.

***

Weas: "You and SS are not as far apart on this as you would think. I 100% agree with this comment. Voting-in more extremeists and voting out the Moderates is only making things worse. "

--Thank you for injecting a realistic view.

***

mud: " I suspect what SS means by being loyal to your country is not fighting the liberal agenda and gladly handing your money and control of your life over to government. To the extent you aren't willing to do those things, and instead resist, you are disloyal. "

--Well, at least you are allowing for the possibility that I may not feel the way you think I do. And no, I don't think loyalty means lack of dissent. But voting against things that would have been approved if they were Republican Bills is the height of disloyalty. And stop with the fantasies about 'controlling your life'. That is such an exaggeration. And plenty of the Republican platform exerts government control over people's lives as well.

I never absurdly claimed that Bush wasn't my President or that I wanted my State to secede or that I was going to leave if so-and-do got elected. What actually happened was when I did dissent I was quoted the lame old "If you don't like it then you should leave the country.", something I incidentally never told conservatives; despite how much I disagreed with them.

***

MJack: "When some one who supports people who knowingly, or continually disregard the laws for their own benefit and then says I am being disloyal for not going along with popular sentiment, is to me the one who is ruining our country's future."

--Ya know I tossed a comment out there that implied such but I didn't actually say you, or that not going along, were disloyal. And I don't think Obama disregards law or does things for his own benefit. He is trying to do the best job he can for the good of the nation, just as Bush did. We've just got a really intricately twisted system that forces people into these choices. A lot of it has to do with maintaining 'political capital', party power and back scratching. As I say: Get the big money out of politics and we would see government of, by, and for we the people.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 10:45:26 AM

weaslespit, >>Who is disregarding the laws for their own benefit? I am not sure to what you are referring here...<<
***
The list is too long but let's start with your statement of, >>These same chuckleheads (as defined by fellow GOP members) even voted 'No' on the bare-minimum Sandy aid...<<

Here you are accusing the TEA Party as being extremists because they may (or may not) have influence on the Hurricane Sandy aid.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that the US Government MUST send aid to those who are harmed by ANY natural disaster? If there is no obligation, shouldn't the subject of aid be, at the very least, up to debate? The proper amount? Who would be eligible? Etc? ESPECIALLY when the 112th Congress in its last days was debating the ELIMINATION of over a TWO Trillion $ from our spending that was mandated in August of 2011?

The question then remains how do people benefit from the Federal Government sending aid. For those affected by the storm, the answer is obvious. For those not affected, they get the warm feeling that something is being done. Many who would donate to the relief effort, don't.

We, as a nation (includes those affected by the disaster), suffer more because we are left with the decisions of people, who for the most part have no idea what is really needed or not and the logistics of getting the aid to where its needed. As an example, THOUSANDS of mobile homes were left unused and vacant when Hurricanee Katrina hit.

We (I really should say we, our children and their children) are left with the bill for the homes, food, and clothing that did nothing to help the victims.

If your answer to all of this is, "Its the moral thing to do", then act morally and get out your check book instead of waiting for some politician to play politics with a disaster and attempting to point blame at people who are acting in the best interests of the GENERAL WELFARE of all citizens.

In summation, we are financially in trouble as a nation. Acting out of impulse and emotion has brought us to this point. When do we realize we cannot afford to shelter everyone, all the time from disasters?

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,881
Points:534,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 9:37:22 AM

"ROFL!! I suspect what SS means by being loyal to your country is not fighting the liberal agenda and gladly handing your money and control of your life over to government. To the extent you aren't willing to do those things, and instead resist, you are disloyal."

Seriously? Good grief...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,881
Points:534,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 9:35:49 AM

"Doesn't that depend upon what you consider "extremists"?"

I don't think many would consider the Tea Party as not being extreme. There are also very Liberal Democrats who behave similarly (my way or the highway). The fact that Boehner couldn't even get Plan B approved shows that the GOP membership in the House is being held hostage by the Conservative extremeists. These same chuckleheads (as defined by fellow GOP members) even voted 'No' on the bare-minimum Sandy aid...

"I, and I may be alone on this, regard people who obey the laws, even if they disagree with them, and attempt to change the ones they disagree with as being responsible citizens. When some one who supports people who knowingly, or continually disregard the laws for their own benefit and then says I am being disloyal for not going along with popular sentiment, is to me the one who is ruining our country's future."

Who is disregarding the laws for their own benefit? I am not sure to what you are referring here...
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 2:51:24 PM

Weaslespit, >>You and SS are not as far apart on this as you would think. I 100% agree with this comment. Voting-in more extremeists and voting out the Moderates is only making things worse.<<
***
Doesn't that depend upon what you consider "extremists"?

I, and I may be alone on this, regard people who obey the laws, even if they disagree with them, and attempt to change the ones they disagree with as being responsible citizens. When some one who supports people who knowingly, or continually disregard the laws for their own benefit and then says I am being disloyal for not going along with popular sentiment, is to me the one who is ruining our country's future.

SemiSteve and I do agree upon certain things such as the Fair Tax. We probably have differing reasons why we support the complete overhaul of our tax system but we do see it as being a positive for our nation.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 12:02:34 PM

MJ: "BULL S--T!!!"


ROFL!! I suspect what SS means by being loyal to your country is not fighting the liberal agenda and gladly handing your money and control of your life over to government. To the extent you aren't willing to do those things, and instead resist, you are disloyal.


mudtoe


[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/9/2013 12:03:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,881
Points:534,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 11:52:07 AM

"You're objecting to people NOT blindly following officials who have consistently violated the Constitution. Were we to do this, we would be endangering the future for ourselves, and our posterity."

That is not at all what I took from that comment...

"Until we a mature enough to realize both major parties are at fault and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT CHANGING our predicament, we will be forced to deal with the inevitable clashes between the lessor of two evils."

You and SS are not as far apart on this as you would think. I 100% agree with this comment. Voting-in more extremeists and voting out the Moderates is only making things worse.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 11:42:13 AM

SemiSteve, >>One can not be loyal to this country and also disloyal. Either you are loyal or you are not. That means you either accept the national situation as reality, including the messiness of it or you don't. That doesn't mean we lose the right to dissent. Dissent is part of it. Our Constitution includes that.<<
***
Again more BULL S--T!!!

You're objecting to people NOT blindly following officials who have consistently violated the Constitution. Were we to do this, we would be endangering the future for ourselves, and our posterity.

It has more to do with whether or not those who are elected are living up to their oaths of office. If they aren't, they are the ones being disloyal and not the ones, as you claim, abiding by the law who fail to tow the popular but UNCONSTITUTIONAL dictates and object.

Where were your cries for restraint and compliance when the other party was office? I know I voiced my opinion on a number of things Bush did and I agree that he is part of the many problems we now find ourselves facing.

Until we a mature enough to realize both major parties are at fault and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT CHANGING our predicament, we will be forced to deal with the inevitable clashes between the lessor of two evils.
_______
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,596
Points:4,558,130
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 10:08:20 AM

SemiSteve, "That doesn't mean we lose the right to dissent. Dissent is part of it. Our Constitution includes that."

Really? Try telling that to UniteHere Local 17, if you dissent on anything (like card check) they threaten your job.

They are very intolerant people there.

"Dissent if you want but the man got elected and we've got to give his decisions a chance to work. Republicans fighting to prevent progress are hurting our nation. That is not being loyal. Party over nation is killing us."

You seem to forget that those Republicans were also elected in the same election. We tried "the man's" policies and they are failing. The stimulus did not work. He said unemployment would be under 6% now if his stimulus passed. Where is unemployment now? The government is now pushing $45 billion into the economy every month because the stimulus failed.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,818
Points:1,497,570
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 9:59:37 AM

"I just get sick of these people who say: 'Your President, not mine.' They didn't get their way so they pretend they are not Americans for 4 or 8 years. It's like they want to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'Nah Nah Nah Nah' the whole time. That's stupid. Dissent if you want but the man got elected and we've got to give his decisions a chance to work. Republicans fighting to prevent progress are hurting our nation. That is not being loyal. Party over nation is killing us."

Will the same thing be said when there is a Conservative House, Senate and WH? Based on past history - dont bet your farm on it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 9:53:50 AM

It's a simple thing.

One can not be loyal to this country and also disloyal.

Either you are loyal or you are not.

That means you either accept the national situation as reality, including the messiness of it or you don't.

That doesn't mean we lose the right to dissent. Dissent is part of it. Our Constitution includes that.

I just get sick of these people who say: 'Your President, not mine.' They didn't get their way so they pretend they are not Americans for 4 or 8 years. It's like they want to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'Nah Nah Nah Nah' the whole time. That's stupid. Dissent if you want but the man got elected and we've got to give his decisions a chance to work. Republicans fighting to prevent progress are hurting our nation. That is not being loyal. Party over nation is killing us.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,887
Points:3,428,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 8:44:03 AM

SemiSteve said: "Either you are loyal to your country or you are not."

-- I tend not to like these absolutes. You can bet your bottom dollar that I'm utterly loyal to my country. But that doesn't mean that there's policies I don't like and policies (and even some people) who are dangerous to our country and lifestyle. So what am I to do? Go along with it and keep my mouth shut? Heck no. I'm going to voice my dissent.

You remember what the uber-libs were saying during the Bush 2 administration to excuse their dissent: "Peace IS patriotic." Or did you forget that one? OK, I dissent, and I'm a patriot.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 8:39:00 AM

SemiSteve, >>Either you are loyal to your country or you are not.<<
***
BULL S--T!!!

Either we ALL (and this includes ALL GOVERNMENTS and OFFICIALS who have sworn to follow, "PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND" the US Constitution) are law abiding or not.

As I said earlier, "Prospects of this happening? Not very encouraging are they?"



[Edited by: MahopacJack at 1/9/2013 8:40:29 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 8:31:46 AM

Either you are loyal to your country or you are not.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2013 7:43:44 AM

SemiSteve, >>...When do we say: "OK. The election is over. Time to unite around whichever leader we have chosen."<<
***
When most of the people who are elected to the PRIVILEGE of serving ALL of the people recognize they are to stay within the confines of the US Constitution.

Prospects of this happening? Not very encouraging are they?

Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 11:31:45 PM

SS: "How do we do it? "


Since nobody will cut spending, we don't. We wait for the crash which will cut spending for us. In once sense I hope the republicans cave and give Obama everything he wants, because that will cause the crash that much quicker. Since that's the only thing that will stop the spending I say bring it on now!


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 9:53:48 PM

Awesome cerebral post AC-302. Solving national problems certainly can not happen in a vacuum. But with so few Americans informed and aware, the power of big money has way too corrosive an effect on society. And to make matters even more difficult, those who make the effort to stay abreast of what's going on are divided. This magnifies the power of big money. The power-junkies have effectively got us divided and easily conquered. How can we ever resolve any really sticky issues when we are in a perpetual election cycle? When do we say: "OK. The election is over. Time to unite around whichever leader we have chosen."

If we never get there, perpetual gridlock is the result.

And gridlock is a another step backward with every passing day.

We have got to unite.

How do we do it?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,887
Points:3,428,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2013 1:48:17 PM

SemiSteve - the first part of coming to a solution/agreement is 1) to acknowledge the other side's point and 2) to define what the heart of the problem is. That's why I "get after you" at times. And often, you've ultimately agreed. We have to look at the real in order to solve the real world problems. Solving our problems doesn't and can't happen in a vacuum.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,881
Points:534,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 8:07:29 PM

"People out of work or who have had their overtime curtailed BECAUSE OF EVER INCREASING AND OFTEN CONTRADICTING REGULATIONS (among many other things)"

Regulations? Huh, I thought all of those manufacturing jobs and other outsourcing have been going overseas for the past 2 decades because of cheap labor...
Profile Pic
jjewell
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:9,456
Points:1,686,135
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 4:33:37 PM

Always pointing the finger at the "Right"

moving onto something worth actually typing about.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 4:14:22 PM

"You seem, like so many Others on the left, out to disparage the wealthy. Were it nOT for them things would be worse, much worse."

--Perceptions may be misleading. It is greed I disparage, not wealth. But because wealth is so often the result of greed the delineation may become indistinct.

There are the wealthy whom I admire. The ones who did it not by exploiting others but by making a positive contribution to society which has had a great effect. I am thinking of figures such as Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Morris Dees.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 3:13:19 PM

mj: "You seem, like so many OThers on the left, out to disparage the wealthy."


Envy and resentment are two of the most potent tools of the left. When you stop and think about it their entire pitch for power, aimed at the large portion of the public susceptible to those emotions, is basically that somebody else has screwed you and if you give them power they will pay those people back, confiscate their ill gotten gains, and then share the spoils with you.

This strategy is packaged under many different names such as social justice, sustainable society, environmental activism, civil rights, fair share, etc. No matter what name they use, it's always the same game plan though: pick a target, demonize that target, take the wealth from that target, and then distribute those spoils to their supporters after taking a hefty processing and handling fee for themselves.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 1:25:02 PM

SemiSteve, >> Like ever since Reagan and Clinton orchestrated the destruction of financial regulations meant to prevent a crash like '08; and also the wholesale dismantling of American manufacturing? And over the same time period our hard-working job-killing American corporate executives and financial big-shOTs have tripled their own income and exploded their own wealth at the expense of all OThers? Oh, I am SO glad you told me, and in such a nice way. Thanks from the BOTTOM of my heart.<<
***
A very passionate but inane none the less, rant nOT based in fact. People out of work or who have had their overtime curtailed BECAUSE OF EVER INCREASING AND OFTEN CONTRADICTING REGULATIONS (among many other things), simply are unable to contribute as much as they normally would.

Were you familiar with the bible, you'ld know that bOTh individuals AND GOVERNMENTS were encouraged to prepare for times of uncertainty. Something our government has failed miserably at.

You seem, like so many OThers on the left, out to disparage the wealthy. Were it nOT for them things would be worse, much worse.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 1:02:01 PM

"In case you haven't noticed, we've been at very high unemployment and under employment rates for quite sometime."

--Oh gee. No, I thought everything was peachy-keen. Gosh, oh golly gosh, gosh, gosh, gosh darn it all! You mean people are out of work and can't find a job? Or the job they have does not pay enough? Wow! So everything is not roses? What? Like ever since Reagan and Clinton orchestrated the destruction of financial regulations meant to prevent a crash like '08; and also the wholesale dismantling of American manufacturing? And over the same time period our hard-working job-killing American corporate executives and financial big-shots have tripled their own income and exploded their own wealth at the expense of all others? Oh, I am SO glad you told me, and in such a nice way. Thanks from the BOTTOM of my heart.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:35:01 PM

SemiSteve, >>--Why the past tense? Religious and other organizations STILL DO carry out a great portion of this function. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there has been ANY reduction in NGO social programs since the advent of government social programs.<<
***
In case you haven't noticed, we've been at very high unemployment and under employment rates for quite sometime. This has resulted in many middle class not being able to contribute as they had previously and an increase in the number of people who need such aid. If you don't see the difference, perhaps the much loathed (by the left) rich are picking up the slack.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 6:42:34 PM

AC-302, I understand that there are not enough rich to pay off the federal debt. Or solve the deficit problem, even if taxed at 100%. I'm not sure why it was so important for you to hear me say this as I have never claimed that to be the case.

And agreed that too big to fail means too big to exist. And incompetent regulators need to be replaced. And that there are silly regulations which need to be fixed (or removed). Many of those situations are the result of power-junkies buying off which ever section of government helps them with their greed.

MJack: "Although most, if not all, social programs are well intended, it does not mean they are Constitutional. Prior to the FORCING of some citizens to pay for the unfortunate activities of some citizens, such support was rendered by other organizations such as religious organizations and other organizations."

--Why the past tense? Religious and other organizations STILL DO carry out a great portion of this function. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there has been ANY reduction in NGO social programs since the advent of government social programs. And if they are so clearly unConstitutional as you claim, why have there been no court cases to argue such? I doubt you are the first to make such claims. We do have courts available to take up such charges. That is if they have merit.

Weaslespit: "100% agree SemiSteve - the greed of the 1% has gotten out of hand. Income inequality is the worst it has been since prior to the Great Depression...

The rich 'work' for their money, so let's take more from those who don't, you know, like soldiers who are serving in a combat zone - they don't pay federal taxes and are part of the 47%!

Sad that with so many tax breaks the past decade+ that the so-called 'job-creators' have only lined their pockets thus increasing the income inequality rather than actually creating jobs and getting people out of the '47%'! "

--Thank you and well said.

Speedy, Oh my. What an 'uplifting video'. Makes me almost believe that Christianity is all about buying things in a mall. Obviously, that was a planned PR stunt by a religious group. If you think atheists want to destroy this country (I don't know if that is what you were implying) I'll just say that you are flat wrong. And if you want to have that discussion you might want to try a more appropriate topic for it. Just let me know where and I will carry that torch.

AC-302: "SemiSteve - but I am here to tell you that companies are leaving California in droves, and Governor Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown seems not to care very much about it. Understand that as these companies leave, often good jobs go with them. And ditto the taxes paid both by the company and by the workers. "

--Thanks for not persisting with the exaggerations. And I also presume that there are companies moving INTO CA as well. Probably not in equal numbers to those leaving. And I bet new job-creating businesses are being formed there every day.

The thing is that nobody wins in a race to the bottom. If every city and State is in competition with others to give away the biggest farm in the form of incentives and tax cuts or even tax-free status to the corporations then that is a race to the bottom. And such selfishness is not being a team player as a member of the Union. States and cities would do themselves a GIANT favor by coming to agreement on maximum give-aways before tax payers end up subsidizing every large employer by putting the shaft to the small ones where most jobs are created.

Jdanek630: "Honestly SemiSteve, I may be a bit biased when I think this outloud: but it does seem as though Boehner and the majority of Republicans have been the ones more than willing to close those excessive loopholes you speak of than the Democrats have been. It's the Democrats who insist on a higher marginal tax rate. Admittedly, that is befuddling to me. The closing of the loopholes brings in more $$ to the federal government than raising the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.6%."

--Why not do both? (And much more: Tax Capital Gains at full income level for amounts over 100K, for instance.)

YDraigGoch: "If the unions get what they want, higher union dues will go into big investment firms. (They used to go to the Mafia, until the big banks took over).

If the companies get what they want, their investors get more money to put into big investment firms.

The banks win either way. The wealthy get richer either way.

And we working people wind up paying more for less.

Either way! "

--Another astute post by Y. And the above is why I favor a financial transaction tax.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 6:26:14 PM

Think about this for a second. We borrow almost half of what we spend. If we aren't going to cut spending, that means taxes have to double on the half of the population that pays taxes in order to keep from borrowing even more money, and that's without paying down even one penny of the existing debt. If you add making even modest inroads on the debt then taxes on the half that pays would have to more than double.

Does anyone in their wildest dream think that taxes can double without destroying the economy completely? If anyone things this isn't a spending problem, better lay off the magic mushrooms and take a reality check. Here we are fighting over a couple percent increase on the wealthy, which is like getting into a tizzy over the position of the deck chairs on the Titanic. ...And you don't think we are doomed?


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 12/31/2012 6:29:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 5:25:39 PM

Rock and a hard place.

Unions, who want people to make a LOT more than their job is worth, and a lot of companies that want to pay a LOT less than the job is worth.

Here is the interesting bit.

If the unions get what they want, higher union dues will go into big investment firms. (They used to go to the Mafia, until the big banks took over).

If the companies get what they want, their investors get more money to put into big investment firms.

The banks win either way. The wealthy get richer either way.

And we working people wind up paying more for less.

Either way!
Profile Pic
Jdanek630
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:3,608
Points:1,658,615
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 1:40:01 PM

"So if ya don't want to fix the run-away greed of the 1% then we will all have to pay for the damage they cause in the form of ever more taxes. We have got to curtail that greed, promote general welfare (and I don't mean the government program), or we will not have domestic tranquility. It's time for more of the UNION members to deal with UNION business."
Honestly SemiSteve, I may be a bit biased when I think this outloud: but it does seem as though Boehner and the majority of Republicans have been the ones more than willing to close those excessive loopholes you speak of than the Democrats have been. It's the Democrats who insist on a higher marginal tax rate. Admittedly, that is befuddling to me. The closing of the loopholes brings in more $$ to the federal government than raising the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.6%.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 11:45:49 AM

AC: "Mudtoe - I take issue with your statement, sir! "


I didn't think that you did vote for those things, but the point is that you are seriously outnumbered and living in hostile territory. May be time to vote with your feet instead of at the ballot box, as the takers are multiplying far faster than you producers.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,887
Points:3,428,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 11:35:09 AM

Mudtoe - I take issue with your statement, sir! I didn't vote for that numbskull. But the large majority of the numbskulls here DID vote to re-elect the numbskull in chief.

You also said: "My best advice for the producers in California is run don't walk to another state."

--Less regulation, lower wages and more favorable (much lower) cost of living, better quality of life.. this is why my company is doing this very same thing, and why I'm off work right now. :( Our $20/h assembler jobs here in LaLa land are considered "peanuts" by many. Where my company is moving, $20/h is a pretty good living, particularly for someone with no formal education after HS.

[Edited by: AC-302 at 12/31/2012 11:38:44 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 1:03:49 PM

Well AC, you all in California did the same thing the rest of the country did in November, voted to screw itself, both by voting for Obama and voting to raise taxes on yourselves to try to make up for the producers leaving and being replaced by takers. I guess you all are going to play the role of the canary in the mine for the rest of us, as we may get a glimpse of what's in store for us as it happens to California first.

My best advice for the producers in California is run don't walk to another state. If you own a house, this impending exodus of producers is going to kill your property values. Best sell while you can still get a reasonable price, even though it's far less than during the bubble. Once the producers leave and the jobs follow, it will be worth far far less. As the takers and government unions own the state legislature you producers don't have a chance; you are just cattle being led to slaughter.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,887
Points:3,428,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 11:10:18 AM

SemiSteve - but I am here to tell you that companies are leaving California in droves, and Governor Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown seems not to care very much about it. Understand that as these companies leave, often good jobs go with them. And ditto the taxes paid both by the company and by the workers.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,620
Points:2,856,030
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 6:36:53 PM

This reminds me that there is still good left in America and we will some day stop those that want to destroy this God loving country.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,620
Points:2,856,030
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 6:09:03 PM

>>If there is one single business and one single job in California then "all of the jobs and businesses" have NOT been driven out of California.<<

You are so clever, Steve. No, not every job has been run out of California.

Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 6:04:49 PM

mj: "I have and I hope you are wrong. That is not saying you are wrong, only I hope you are as it amount to a monumental conspiracy."



When in doubt, follow the money and the power. Actually, LBJ admitted what the purpose was, although I can't repeat the exact quote here because it's not politically acceptable to do so anymore. You can google it for yourself if you are interested.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 5:11:00 PM

mudtoe, >>You may want to give some thought to the "well intended" part. Was the primary goal of these programs to help people or was it to:a). create dependency so that the recipients will always vote democrat out of fear of losing their freebies

b). put government in charge of the vast sums of money being taken in by the taxes to support these handouts.Think about it. <<
***
I have and I hope you are wrong. That is not saying you are wrong, only I hope you are as it amount to a monumental conspiracy. I do not doubt there is some clandestine goals in some of these do good programs. A good example would be Teddy Roosevelt' s usage of Upton Sinclairs work (fiction) to get legislation underway. He actually did not trust him according to one source.



[Edited by: MahopacJack at 12/29/2012 5:14:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,881
Points:534,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 2:55:49 PM

100% agree SemiSteve - the greed of the 1% has gotten out of hand. Income inequality is the worst it has been since prior to the Great Depression...

The rich 'work' for their money, so let's take more from those who don't, you know, like soldiers who are serving in a combat zone - they don't pay federal taxes and are part of the 47%!

Sad that with so many tax breaks the past decade+ that the so-called 'job-creators' have only lined their pockets thus increasing the income inequality rather than actually creating jobs and getting people out of the '47%'!
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,660
Points:1,850,270
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 2:21:13 PM

mj: "Although most, if not all, social programs are well intended, it does not mean they are Constitutional."


You may want to give some thought to the "well intended" part. Was the primary goal of these programs to help people or was it to:


a). create dependency so that the recipients will always vote democrat out of fear of losing their freebies

b). put government in charge of the vast sums of money being taken in by the taxes to support these handouts.


Think about it.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 2:09:32 PM

SemiSteve, >>--No, they would have to be 'affecting or concerning' nearly everyone. Social programs improve our country by helping to provide upward mobility and reduce crime. Crime has fallen. Nuff said.<< in his reply to, "In order for your uses to be constitutional, they would have to be used by nearly everyone AND positively effect every citizen."
***
You confuse the granting of taxing power to the Federal Government (Article I, Section 8.1) to fund for POSITIVE GENERAL welfare with providing carte blanche for the many socialistic programs we currently have. The general welfare programs are listed in that same Article I, Section 8.2 through 8.18. They include, the protection of the ENTIRE population from invasions, providing for a postal system, providing a stable currency, infrastructure, regulating INTERSTATE commerce, among other benefits. With the exception of 8.4, all were intended for the GENERAL public. Section 8.4, provided for a "uniform rule of naturalization," along with "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." All of which are of course funded through Section 8.1.

Although most, if not all, social programs are well intended, it does not mean they are Constitutional. Prior to the FORCING of some citizens to pay for the unfortunate activities of some citizens, such support was rendered by other organizations such as religious organizations and other organizations.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,887
Points:3,428,145
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 12:52:10 PM

SemiSteve said: "Finally you have a valid argument. I agree that the oversight is incomplete."

--I think you used the word "incompetent" elsewhere, and I think that is closer to the truth. Remember that we BOTH agreed that vis a vis financial institutions, "too big to fail" should equal "too big to exist" (as a single entity). Again, I think we both agreed the regulators were either paid off and need to be jailed, or asleep at the wheel, in which case they need to be fired and never, ever again be permitted to work in the financial industry in any capacity.

And BTW, I don't consider asking your effective tax% (ie % after deductions) to be rude. It says absolutely nothing about your individual financial situation. I told you that I had one tax year where I paid nothing - my expenses, deductions, credits and losses totaled more than my income, on paper. But it was only one year. But you do have to admit, you've been adamant that folks need to "pay up" to support other folks. That's fine. The point here is that you decry rich people not paying enough in taxes. IN all seriousness, are you just "spouting off", or have you really looked into the taxes paid by the rich? Are you letting Pacifica News Network, or MSLSD do your thinking for you, or have you actually looked it up yet on the GAO and other websites? What I will show you is that even these high wage earners are paying up, particularly when you compare them to the bottom 50%, or even the rest of the top 25%. But again, I'm sure you don't want to hear it. We have one of the most "progressive" - regressive tax systems on Earth. Rich people pay more. And that's fine, that's how it's supposed to work. I get that and approve to a degree. But to now say that the rich need to finance everything and everyone and should bear the brunt of all tax increases.. well.. There's just not enough of them to pay for everything you want. Do you understand that one, or not? Even if you taxed the "rich" at 100%, you still wouldn't even balance the budget. Our spending levels are unsustainable. This is what needs to change. Again, do you get that?

[Edited by: AC-302 at 12/29/2012 1:01:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 6:30:49 PM

semiSteve, >>--Finally you have a valid argument. I agree that the oversight is incomplete. I am sure there is corruption, too. It seems nothing is perfect. I hope it does not have to be to satisfy us. It's a messy world. But by all of us being in this Union we have power.<<
***
No Steve. Finally you admit (to a very slight degree) that there is indeed something wrong.

These feel good UNCONSTITUTIONAL programs are bankrupting our country! The people who continue to try to do positive things to correct the many and varied problems are demonized and disparaged by the left who literally stop at nothing to keep their gravy train going.

In case you're wondering to whom I'm referring, their know as TEA Party advocates.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:44:39 PM

If that's the case, We need to go on strike because of obama's bungled management of the country.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 3:01:47 PM

"If there is any oversight it is incompetent. Most are overwhelmed with fraud, others serve a small portion of the population, others simply do not deliver the intended services (ie. the FDA allows potato chips to be advertized as a health food but refuses to allow walnuts the same status- they're considered a drug!)."

--Finally you have a valid argument. I agree that the oversight is incomplete. I am sure there is corruption, too. It seems nothing is perfect. I hope it does not have to be to satisfy us. It's a messy world. But by all of us being in this Union we have power. United we stand. We gotta hang on to that. I think these programs are indeed Constitutional. And yes they are fraught with problems. It is kinda like our justice system. In order for our justice system to be as fair as possible we must have this foundation of innocence until guilt is proven. Many times criminals will go free for lack of proof or for a loophole. In the same way our welfare system will have people who game it even though they are fit to work and simply lazy. But I would rather look at the good it accomplishes than to scrap it because of the downside. The thing to do is find clever ways to minimize the downside.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 11:50:16 AM

SemiSteve, >>Don't all the things you mentioned have oversight?<< in reply to my:

And therein is the SOURCE of our troubles!

We are forced to fund to mismanagement of:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Welfare
Amtrack
Government Bailouts
Foreign Aid
Unconstitutional Agencies (EPA, FDA, Education, etc.)
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
and many more vote getting programs

Demanding MORE is bringing us to Financial perdition!!!
***
If there is any oversight it is incompetent. Most are overwhelmed with fraud, others serve a small portion of the population, others simply do not deliver the intended services (ie. the FDA allows potato chips to be advertized as a health food but refuses to allow walnuts the same status- they're considered a drug!).

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 11:49:29 AM

"adjective
1 affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread: books of general interest.
• not specialized or limited in range of subject, application, activity, etc.: brush up on your general knowledge.
• (of a rule, principle, etc.) true for all or most cases.

In order for your uses to be constitutional, they would have to be used by nearly everyone AND positively effect every citizen."

--No, they would have to be 'affecting or concerning' nearly everyone. Social programs improve our country by helping to provide upward mobility and reduce crime. Crime has fallen. Nuff said.

"why hasn't there been any attempt at amending the US Constitution to include them?"

--Because it is not needed. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass the laws which accomplish the stated goals.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 11:45:18 AM

theTower, is China the new boogie-man? It's hard to keep up. Commies, terrorists, Muslims, Gays, Latinos, now the Chinese, eh? How about we do what the 'good book' says and just show some brotherly love. It doesn't seem like the fear/hate thing has worked out so well for us.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,189
Points:429,585
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 11:41:46 AM

AC-302, if you want to talk brackets that is fine. But I am not going to disclose my personal income tax situation, as I have repeatedly said. Ask all you want, you will get the same answer every time. BTW, I consider the question rude.

It's kind of funny the indignation some Americans feel when they travel abroad and are rebuffed for what is frequent common small talk in the USA. What I am referring to is the question which often pops up shortly after meeting someone new: "What do you do [for a living]?" Many Americans do not realize how crass a question this is. I presume they hardly give it a second thought. But across borders this is a question that is rarely asked. The reason is out of politeness. Because asking such a question is tantamount to simply asking someone how much money they have. You may as well simply ask them "What is your net worth?"

If you ever travel abroad I would advise you to not ask such questions. You may find that not everyone is so willing to answer; and some will politely excuse themselves from your presence or even just ignore you.

This topic is not about you and I. Our individual examples have little bearing on this subject. Let's talk of ideas, not other people, shall we?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,525
Points:1,846,625
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 11:41:16 AM

SemiSteve, >>Tell me MJack. Do you disregard the meaning of the preamble? Has it no significance? Do you not see it as stating in a few words what the PURPOSE of the Constitution is? And yet you seem to want to overlook that purpose and use only strict interpretations of specifics. Even though 'provide for the general Welfare' is repeated in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8. What I get is that you assign no meaning what so ever to that statement. Because, in another interpretation, all of the things I mentioned do exactly that. The things that we could use? They are providing for the general welfare. Just like it says in the Constitution.<<
***
Again, you forgot to use the dictionary.

From my Apple supplied dictionary :

general |'jen?r?l|
adjective
1 affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread: books of general interest.
• not specialized or limited in range of subject, application, activity, etc.: brush up on your general knowledge.
• (of a rule, principle, etc.) true for all or most cases.

In order for your uses to be constitutional, they would have to be used by nearly everyone AND positively effect every citizen.

The very section you mentioned (Article I, Section 8) ENUMERATES those areas where the government is PERMITTED to pass legislation that results in the GENERAL welfare of ALL.

I purposely left out infrastructure as one the things you said we 'used' as the Interstate System was initially done for the security our nation. It also support the free exchange of goods between states.

I also think there may be a case for the power grid IF country wide standards are required.

But you mentioned, " schools, libraries, parks, power generation, smart grid, dredging, waterfront access, hospitals, public medical schools, drug counseling and rehab centers (not prisons)? Things we can really use!"

Schools, people are resorting more and more to home schooling. Just as it was when the Constitution was signed. The results are head and shoulders ABOVE what our public schools offer. Many people are beginning to realize that the Department of Education is useless.

Most of the item you mentioned are certainly beneficial but is it up to Ggovernment to supply these wants to specific people or areas of our country?

IF THEY ARE THAT IMPORTANT, why hasn't there been any attempt at amending the US Constitution to include them? The debate on this just might help get the many people who are turned off about politics, once again interested in ggovernment.
Post a reply Back to Topics