Ponderable

Greed?
Greed and hard work made our the greatest country in history.

Don't mistake my comments about Capitalism needing to be regulated, as a criticism of Capitalism. My point was Capitalism alone, with no controls, is what leads to horrible abuses born of greed. Yes, greed as a basic driver is what pushes us to excel, but it's also what pushes us to commit abuses against other men. Capitalism did not create the SEC, OSHA, DOL, FDA, EPA, etc., these protective agencies were created to curb the abuses created by greed.

I posted earlier that 50% of wage earners don't pay income taxes, that seems pretty progressive.
The greedy bastards at the top are paying nearly 40%, hell make them pay more.
After all, they're greedy capitalist....pffff.
Why should one work hard when a progressive government will take it from you?

I actually think our tax system is working as intended. Don't put me in a "liberal box", I work hard too and also hate tax season. You can acknowledge the power and efficiency of Capitalism and enjoy your life under our system, while at the same time acknowledge that Capitalism alone is not the answer to everything. We have a horrible track record when it comes to providing health care to our people and our Justice system needs an overhaul as well, otherwise we wouldn't have the largest prison population in the world.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh right... and thats why you're voting for Trump- the nominee who has the support of Russia, China and North Korea. Makes perfect sense.
I am supporting Hillary, as I stated at the convention.
My response was directed toward the poster who doubted there were any socialists, or socialist policies forming the democratic party platform.
 
Democrat is not synonymous with Socialist. There are tons of Democrats that enjoy our Capitalist society, but are open to some compassion.
 
Don't mistake my comments about Capitalism needing to be regulated, as a criticism of Capitalism. My point was Capitalism alone, with no controls, is what leads to horrible abuses born of greed. Yes, greed as a basic driver is what pushes us to excel, but it's also what pushes us to commit abuses against other men. Capitalism did not create the SEC, OSHA, DOL, FDA, EPA, etc., these protective agencies were created to curb the abuses created by greed.



I actually think our tax system is working as intended. Don't put me in a "liberal box", I work hard too and also hate tax season. You can acknowledge the power and efficiency of Capitalism and enjoy your life under our system, while at the same time acknowledge that Capitalism alone is not the answer to everything. We have a horrible track record when it comes to providing health care to our people and our Justice system needs an overhaul as well, otherwise we wouldn't have the largest prison population in the world.
Democrat is not synonymous with Socialist. There are tons of Democrats that enjoy our Capitalist society, but are open to some compassion.

When one doesn't have any money in the game, why care about high taxes.
Why not vote for the party that will give one everything needed to live a comfortable life?
Food, lodging, medical care...Only in America can someone be living at or below the poverty and own a house, a car, a flat screen tv, iphone & computer.
Democrat is not synonymous with compassion. There are tons of Republicans that are anti socialist and are very compassionate.

from 2014:
This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
 
Food, lodging, medical care...Only in America can someone be living at or below the poverty and own a house, a car, a flat screen tv, iphone & computer.

This is the narrative that the right likes to promote, I don't buy it and never have. Many middle class Americans are struggling and being priced out the housing markets, much less poor people living high on the hog. It's a myth. No need to post click bait articles about welfare abuse, I know it happens and should be mitigated just as Medicare abuse does.

There are tons of Republicans that are anti socialist and are very compassionate.

Never said there isn't, but in general, the right tends to be against public relief, which you go on to promote below.

Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.

That's an extremely creative use of statistics. What we have spent on the Defense department over that time period is exponentially more and yet there is still conflict.

There will always be poor people. I agree a "War on poverty" is as fruitless as a "War" on drugs. What that line above doesn't quantify is the amount of relief and happiness that has been brought about by public assistance. It's all how you choose to view things. The right prefers to view public assistance as an unnecessary expense. I don't.
 
This is the narrative that the right likes to promote, I don't buy it and never have. Many middle class Americans are struggling and being priced out the housing markets, much less poor people living high on the hog. It's a myth. No need to post click bait articles about welfare abuse, I know it happens and should be mitigated just as Medicare abuse does.



Never said there isn't, but in general, the right tends to be against public relief, which you go on to promote below.



That's an extremely creative use of statistics. What we have spent on the Defense department over that time period is exponentially more and yet there is still conflict.


There will always be poor people. I agree a "War on poverty" is as fruitless as a "War" on drugs. What that line above doesn't quantify is the amount of relief and happiness that has been brought about by public assistance. It's all how you choose to view things. The right prefers to view public assistance as an unnecessary expense. I don't.


There you go... painting with a roller regarding what the "right" view as unnecessary.
If they're living at or below the poverty level they certainly aren't living high on the hog. Never implied as much.
But many do own homes and cars and iphones & while they are not living high on the hog, many are comfortable enough & feel no need to change their conditions.
We have welfare and food assistance and a myriad of government programs to take care of people., which are all wonderful as long as it's not passed on generation to generation.
I'm not promoting public relief as much as I'm questioning it.
Why do our inner cities, in most cases led by the self described "compassionate" ones (Democrats), still suffer from poverty after all these years of leadership, programs & "creative uses" of money?
Why?
 
There you go... painting with a roller regarding what the "right" view as unnecessary.
If they're living at or below the poverty level they certainly aren't living high on the hog. Never implied as much.
But many do own homes and cars and iphones & while they are not living high on the hog, many are comfortable enough & feel no need to change their conditions.
We have welfare and food assistance and a myriad of government programs to take care of people., which are all wonderful as long as it's not passed on generation to generation.

Breaking the cycle of poverty is tough, I did it, but it took a lot of discipline. Not everyone, especially those who surround themselves with very bad influences and or lives under very tough conditions and perhaps isn't of a preferred skin color, are able to break the cycle. I agree, it's a problem we should study more. Just complaining about welfare abuse all day long isn't really studying the problem.

I'm not promoting public relief as much as I'm questioning it.

I said you go on to promote the mindset that is against public assistance.

Why do our inner cities, in most cases led by the self described "compassionate" ones (Democrats), still suffer from poverty after all these years of leadership, programs & money?
Why?

I don't know, but it's a worthy topic of discussion and study. Have you ever researched the topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto
 
BBqR7Pn.img
e151e5.gif


:cool:
With the possible exception of Jefferson Davis, Donald Trump will be the worst president in American history. I know that sounds extreme. No, not the Jefferson Davis part. Everyone agrees about that.

But with the Democratic National Convention barely over and the sound of Hillary Clinton’s voice still grating in the ears of Bernie Bros across the land, I understand how it could seem a little early to write off candidate Clinton.

The election is still 102 days away. Clinton’s historic candidacy has a special appeal to the smarter half of the American electorate, and it is backed by both of America’s first black presidents. The Clinton machine features such finely tuned fundraising machinery that Tesla engineers turn greener at the very sight. Its battle-hardened communications apparatus has already set records in selling high efficiency American-fueled natural gas furnaces to Saudi royalty.

Despite polls showing the deeply unpopular Clinton behind in the race against reality-TV Republican Donald Trump, only a fool would bet against her. And yet, every time a Clintonite attacks Trump, it is getting hard not to giggle, or at least titter, depending on your jocular orientation.

When Trump launches into a spittle-flecked tirade against those #BlackLivesMatter radicals who think police should shoot fewer unarmed black men, the racism is so obvious it might as well have been written in the sky by the Blue Angels.

But no one is listening anymore. When mild-mannered technocrat Mitt Romney was running for president, Clinton’s obscure Obama-administration colleague Joe Biden told a black audience that Republicans “are going to put ya’ll back in chains.” If you listen to Democrats, every Republican who has run for anything in my lifetime has Klan robes in their closet and secret Confederate memorabilia collection.

When Trump joked that maybe Russian President Vladimir Putin could find Clinton’s missing emails, the Hillary-friendly precincts of Twitter erupted with accusations of #TrumpTreason. In a nationally televised speech, Clinton’s obscure Obama-administration colleague Leon Panetta tut-tutted at an “irresponsible” Trump asking one of our “adversaries to engage in hacking … against the United States of America.”

Of course, foreign data theft is nothing to laugh at. But the pilferage of old yoga schedules and plans for a wedding long-consummated hardly seem the kind of thing to require the involvement of an old CIA director long-retired.

And, well, calling Russia an “adversary” seems unnecessarily dramatic. It wasn’t long-ago that Clinton’s obscure Obama-administration colleague Barack Obama was laughing at the previous wild-eyed lunatic nominated by Republicans as their presidential candidate. Mitt Romney had called Russia a “foe.”

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama smirked. Perhaps it was funny because Romney used a one-syllable word when any worthy Oval Office aspirant would use at least three or, preferably, seven.

Before the convention, Hillary Clinton herself launched an attack on Trump that blew past titters and giggles and straight into guffaw territory. Trump is terrifying enough with the power of social media, she intoned, but “imagine if he had not just Twitter and cable news to go after his critics and opponents, but also the IRS."

Yes, imagine a president who would abuse the powers of the IRS. Not to paint Clinton with the unfair and overbroad brush of guilt by association, but the administration in which she served as secretary of State, twice, accidentally, released the private taxpayer information of its political opponents at moments that, perhaps inadvertently, were politically damaging. And then there was the “targeting” of the administration’s Tea Party opponents by the Obama administration IRS while Clinton was coincidentally serving as secretary of State. For non-political reasons no doubt, the Obama administration is still fighting in court to keep the full details of those events from the public eye.

Then on Thursday night in her big speech, Clinton attacked him again. She rightly pointed out that all a foreign leader has to do to get a rise out of Trump is launch a malicious tweet. God save us when Trump can respond to digital provocations by replying with megatons instead of megabytes. No tweet would ever get a response from Clinton. She doesn't respond unless she gets served with a subpoena; engraved in stone; in triplicate.

Which brings us to another Trumpian weakness. The guy is hiding his tax returns in an effort to avoid public scrutiny of whether he has fulfilled his most basic duty as an American: to pay his fair share to support the nation we all love. He should release those tax returns now.

But … and here come those titters again … who are the very last people on the planet who could possibly lecture Trump on the need for openness? That would be anyone who thinks Clinton should be the next president of the United States.

Yes, when Trump becomes our president in January, it will be a disaster. There is no way I would ever vote for a guy with the temperament of a rabid weasel, the maturity of a drunken kindergartner and the depth of a California reservoir. If we're lucky, he'll get himself impeached during the transition.

But I don’t care how much Hillary Clinton spends on attack ads revealing the full awful truth about Donald Trump. As long as she is talking, nobody is going to hear a word over all the laughter.

David Mastio is the deputy editorial page editor of USA TODAY. Follow David Mastio on Twitter: @DavidMastio

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...-david-mastio/ar-BBv2fxk?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 
Perhaps not post the whole wall of text....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/worthy-of-our-contempt.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

"And whatever one may say about ordinary voters, the real sinners here are Republican leaders — people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell — who are actively supporting a candidate they know poses a danger to the nation.

It’s not hard to see why they’re doing this. Opposing their party’s nominee, no matter how awful he is, would probably end up being a career killer.

But there are times when you’re supposed to put such considerations aside. The willingness of some people who know better to support Donald Trump is understandable; it’s also despicable."

I'll further add, from your article:

"Which brings us to another Trumpian weakness. The guy is hiding his tax returns in an effort to avoid public scrutiny of whether he has fulfilled his most basic duty as an American: to pay his fair share to support the nation we all love. He should release those tax returns now."

I'm guessing a big reason he won't release those tax returns is they may reveal he isn't the grand man in business he claims to be.
 
Got to say this post, and the fact that it's this sort of reasoning is how republican leaders use in decision making, reminds me of why here in the state of California we removed Republicans from positions of power in state government. And also it reminds me of how much better the state is doing since we did so...
Here's a good old analogy that had been posted several times before the site was erased. Enjoy.

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.


One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.

Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.

I guess this is why American businesses have $10 trillion or so in offshore deposits.
Perhaps they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
No wonder the 1% hang out with each other.
 
Got to say this post, and the fact that it's this sort of reasoning is how republican leaders use in decision making, reminds me of why here in the state of California we removed Republicans from positions of power in state government. And also it reminds me of how much better the state is doing since we did so...
U-Haul tells a different story.
 
Don't mistake my comments about Capitalism needing to be regulated, as a criticism of Capitalism. My point was Capitalism alone, with no controls, is what leads to horrible abuses born of greed. Yes, greed as a basic driver is what pushes us to excel, but it's also what pushes us to commit abuses against other men. Capitalism did not create the SEC, OSHA, DOL, FDA, EPA, etc., these protective agencies were created to curb the abuses created by greed.
Do you think that that SEC, OSHA, DOL, FDA, EPA, etc. would have existed in the absence of Capitalism?
 
The Washington Post's Fact Checkers awarded Hillary Clinton four "Pinocchios" -- their worst rating -- after the former Secretary of State defended her use of a private email server in an interview Sunday by claiming the FBI director said she had been "truthful" about the subject.
"As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public–which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements."
"And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting."

This is far from the first time Clinton has been caught lying about this issue. Nearly everything she said in her first press conference was a lie and she continues to lie egregiously about this to this day.
 
Strange, you seem unconcerned with the mountain of bullshit out of Trump everyday...

Oh I'm not unconcerned about Trump, just more concerned about Mrs. Clinton.

Strange, you seem unconcerned with the mountain range of bullshit and 30 plus years of lies from Hillary.....

If you got 30 plus years of "bullshit & lies and four Pinocchio's on Trump...post em.
 
Oh I'm not unconcerned about Trump, just more concerned about Mrs. Clinton.

Strange, you seem unconcerned with the mountain range of bullshit and 30 plus years of lies from Hillary.....

If you got 30 plus years of "bullshit & lies and four Pinocchio's on Trump...post em.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/

And a "pants on fire" bonus --

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/
 
Good job espola...
"If you got 30 plus years of "bullshit & lies and four Pinocchio's on Trump...post em."
Well you got the easy part e, the four Pinocchio's.... now how bout thirty years of documented bullshit & lies?

30 years ago the only people who cared about Trump were the businessmen he was cheating.
 
Strange, you seem unconcerned with the mountain of bullshit out of Trump everyday...
Has he sent 8 Top Secret e-mails and 30 plus secret e-mails on an unsecured server yet? Has he shown "extreme carelessness" in the handling of sensitive and classified material? We can talk about Hillary's mountain of lies as a trusted government employee all day long.
 
Back
Top