Why don't you actually think about it instead of shutting down because it sounds collectivist?

I don't really see how the ultimate reward for hard work would change. It may take away the incentive for those who don't have much drive and determination in the first place, but that might also open up positions for those who do. Save the jobs for those who *want* to work instead of having them occupied by people who are just getting by. I would think that would improve the quality of services across the board. I dunno, the more I think about this, the better it sounds.


That is of course an excellent question. I kind of wonder about that myself, which is why I qualified the viability as a possibility rather than a fact. And yes, I'm sure a lot of thought would have to go into what qualifies as living comfortably. My interpretation of comfort would be "free from pain", including the pain of hunger, not a stash of drugs and video games.


This is a part of the idea that runs close to a touchy subject for some. I don't know how you feel about this, but I am not adverse to the state providing birth control to the under classes, with the intention of reducing the rate of "oops another baby" incidents. I won't go as far as mandatory abortion, but I think if people intentionally have babies to increase their income, there should be some social services facility for taking the baby away with the idea in mind that anyone that produces babies for money can't really be all that good for the child.

Oh, I quite agree. I do actually take an interest in workable solutions but it seems you have to understand the problems these solutions are designed to fix and the discussions I have on these matters (at least on this forum) frequently degrade to that trivial banter you mention because that's all most people here are interested in.


I've spent a good deal of time reading about what the Church *doesn't* say about Jesus, whom I think is an amalgamation of many people *like* Jesus. Anyway, I have Netflix and an open mind - so I'll give it a view this weekend! :)

LOL - 'always good for a laugh.

I've tried to make that point many times... I might have been more successful in this forum had I not started by questioning an attack on Obama - now they all think I'm a fan. LOL. I *did* vote for him because I think he was the better option available but you know what they say... lesser of two evils.

I haven't see that series... but what you say makes sense to me. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the reference!

I understood rumatoids wording and it appears you did to. Within his context "we" clearly implies we as a nation. I also understood banjojacks divergence from that context to announce his personal standing and I think rumatoid was only clarifying the difference.

BTW, grammar is an imperfect exercise in explaining our language it's not the end all. Just thought I'd add to the pedantic sidebar. ;)

I'm glad you did. I opposed the PATRIOT Act too. Not sure where you're getting your information from but a majority of liberals were actually opposed to it as well. Maybe you're referring specifically to the members of Congress who were rushed into voting on the bill on the same day it was introduced as an emergency response to "clear and present danger" - which of course turned out to be a lie.

Yes, we did. I agree with your post entirely. I just wish more people would educate themselves on these realities but they are so preoccupied with hatred - which is *so* politically controllable.

That's all you got? Denial? Well, OK - run along then.

To Worried for Our Children, Sorry for the disappointment - It's disappointing for me too - I'd love to find a worthy opponent. I can usually find stronger arguments in the more Libertarian sites. Conservatives tend to be heavy on emotional outrage and lacking in intellect, which they humorously try to compensate with $10 words.

I was glad to have been able to do a bit on Winston Churchill though, truly a great man with great ideas.

Huh... very interesting. "A bailout for consumers". Actually, I don't see much wrong with the idea so long as the state can pay for it. I'd love to see someone run the numbers.

Now before all the "little people" start freaking out about my response, let me put forth two simple ideas...

1. When people fall to the bottom they incur a cost to the state. When out of desperation they turn to crime, the state pays the cost of their incarceration. When they get sick, the state covers the cost of their care. When they apply for welfare, there is the cost of assessment and then the benefit itself. There is a possibility that an unconditional basic income could be a cheaper alternative.

2. basic income, described in that article as "enough to to live comfortably on" means you have a roof over your head and food to eat. That level of income would certainly not be enough for my personal lifestyle and I would want to continue to work. When someone tells me that welfare handouts is incentive not to work, I can only assume that they are not familiar with the drive and determination that brings me and millions of other hard working Americans to work everyday. I can only imagine that he/she is a person who hates to work and resents anyone else who doesn't have to. So lame.

Well oldroy, you bring up a worthwhile point. Here's the thing... The Bonus Army incident occurred during the Great Depression. The WW1 vets were desperate for the bonuses they were promised because they were starving. But soon after that, FDR came in and accelerated the progressive movement. Now, I know you don't like to hear about this but try to keep your mind open for a moment (I promise I won't turn you into a communist). The Progressive movement essentially forced capitalists to compromise more with their workers, which resulted in a distribution of wealth that brought vast numbers of workers into the once small and merchant-exclusive middle-class. For the first time ever, working families were actually able to save money and their children didn't have to work anymore so were able to go to school. This is what I call the middle-generation. Now, despite what the capitalists might have thought earlier about sharing their wealth with workers, the fact is they benefited tremendously in the long run because this enriched middle-class eventually became the largest consumer market the world has ever seen.

The result was an expansion of wealth across the board. It's BECAUSE of this expansion of wealth across a giant middle-class, which WAS initially jump-started by the progressive movement that we don't see desperate people marching on Washington anymore and because of THAT we haven't seen any examples of military assaults on American people either. (and no, I don't consider hippies with signs and drum circles desperate.)

Now, the reason why I called that generation, the "middle-generation" is because the younger generations, starting with the baby-boomers, are heading back the other way, mostly because unlike their parents they tend to take a lot of things for granted, including the struggles their parents went through to escape economic slavery. In fact, you can say they are the generation with a sheltered childhood.

Truth is... if you REALLY want to thank someone for your freedom... thank those workers for liberating your family from the oppressive capitalism of the 19th century.

So yeah, decades of consumer living has conditioned the baby-boomers and younger to live beyond their means and more of them are accepting a state of debt which was exactly what kept the working class down years ago, but THEY didn't have a choice. The younger generations divide themselves senselessly into "conservatives" and "liberals" with conservatives refusing to acknowledge the value of what the progressive movement did and liberals refusing to acknowledge that without the capitalists, there would have been nothing for the progressives to distribute. Many on both sides refuse to acknowledge that an expansion of wealth requires fuel and that that globalization (boggles my mind how this word is never mentioned in this forum) is allowing capitalists to find new sources outside the country. All of these things are putting the new American generations in a really bad position.

So... the point of saying all this is that I think we are heading for more desperate times, the powers know this and are preparing the government. Being that this is a democracy, the government can't really be upfront about this, which makes what I am suggesting a conspiracy and my suggestion a conspiracy theory, though not quite as sensational as what Alex Jones has to say.

Sorry, the the long answer.


Well, Super Bowl crowds is what that MORON in the video was talking about, but that video is about as stupid as they come. Seriously, I know there's the emotional element to your reactions to Obama and it's hard to put down but try to look at this logically. The only thing Obama could possibly accomplish by deploying Russian troops at the SuperBowl is to infuriate the American people. The idiot narrator was just trying to get people riled up. The agreement between FEMA and EmerCom is to share expertise applied to states of emergency not sporting events.


OK... That was almost 60 years ago and the Cold War is over. So what were you going to say about the labor disputes 100 years ago? Property damage - yes there was. Sorry old man, your ammo is ineffective because I have the same opinion about the labor disputes. In my opinion a labor union today is low and residual compared to what is was then and that's how I feel about our suspicions toward the Russians, not without *some* warrant but low value and residual nevertheless.

I've worked with a LOT of Russians in the last few years since many of them in the IT field are here now. They are designing software for our banks and even creating new service companies such as one that I did some work for a few years back that provides screening for new hires at over 100 US corporations. And what about all those satellites that our communication companies are building and depending on Russian boosters to get them into orbit?

I don't deny that politically, the Russians are at the opposing side of many international disputes but with so much commercial integration it's silly to sit there in your foxhole shaking your fist at them.

Well, duh... Isn't that what you folks are whining and bitching about? The safety nets that the progressives put in place? That's WHY people aren't starving in the streets... in this country.

This is a perfect example of political comedy...

1. Progressives put up safety nets so people don't starve.
2. Retards bitch about them.
3. Progressive says "but they're there so people don't starve"
4. Retard says "but people aren't starving, we have safety nets."

ROFL


Oh, I know you are. ;)


I'm not the one who's crying... I'm perfectly fine with the wealth that I have. Rush is the one crying about having to pay taxes.


No, that's a part of my response to YOUR bitch line. Nice try.


No, I'm not.


What you don't understand is that I'm proud to give away my 30%. I actually LIKE the idea of providing for others and contributing to a better society. LOL - I bet that just blows your mind.


LOL - you're so lost.

The government doesn't hold money in their hands while looking for ways to spend it. The government decides what needs to be done first then they collect taxes (or take out loans) to meet the need.


You probably wouldn't feel so worried if it didn't happen so much.

of course :roll:


Ok... So how does that change anything I've said? Or are you just... reacting.


And how exactly does that constitute a change?


Who doesn't? Don't you want what you want, the exact way you want it? And whether or not the conservatives want to compromise is up to them, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. So what it is exactly that you think the "libs/progressives/socialists" don't want to hear? So far... you aren't really saying much.


Ah... yes, of course. The famous bitch line. Every conservative sheep in the flock tosses that one out. There's lot's of unqualified bitch lines out there... "all men are pigs", "conservatives are stupid"... these derogatory stereotypes come in handy when your arguments can't keep up with your emotions. Just don't expect me to be impressed.


That's the only problem? Well, my friend you have nothing to worry about then, because satisfying the poor with stolen cash isn't the objective of progressives OR socialists. All the progressives want is a safety net to prevent people from starving in the streets and the socialists are more concerned about workers sharing ownership of what they produce.


That's pretty much the idea... seems your not so different from a progressive after all. ;)


That's a fallacy. I laugh every time I see a 53% bumper sticker and think "what an idiot". That 53% figure represents the percentage of people who didn't pay enough tax during the year so they owe at the end. The remaining 47% percent are the people who paid the right amount during the year and break even or overpaid during the year and get a refund.

It's funny as hell to watch people who don't pay enough taxes during the year declaring themselves as part of the 53% who pay taxes while insisting that those who overpaid their taxes don't pay any at all. It's even funnier when people who DO overpay their taxes and get the difference refunded think that because they had to pay taxes they are part of the 53%.


LOL - if you actually tried to understand how taxes work instead of parroting the bitch lines, you would know that they don't.


Well, after your 47% fallacy, I'm a little wary of accepting more numbers from you as having any basis in truth and I can't remember what the actual numbers are. I'd have to look. But I know that the higher up the income ladder you go the more you pay and that results in a small percentage of people with the highest income paying the largest percentage of tax. But no one pays more than 30% of his/her own income; that is the ceiling on the tax brackets. I currently pay 28%, which I'm guessing based on your rough demeanor is more than you pay. A few years back during my peak I was paying 30%, but even then I didn't pay nearly as much as let's say Rush Limbaugh, one of the biggest cry-babies in the top 5% who's annual income is in the multi-millions. I was paying the same percentage that he did, but I was very close to the bottom of that bracket. So 30% of what I made was a tiny speck compared to 30% of what he made. But conversely, the 70% that I got to keep was also a tiny speck compared to the 70% he was keeping. According to the conservatives that scream for a flat tax there isn't anything wrong with that.

Again, I gotta laugh at how people like Rush get poor people like you to sympathize with their plight having the burden of paying "70%" of the taxes. Aw, boo-hoo.


If you're still referring to the top 1%, probably not. That's because the common reference to the "1%" is based on wealth and your 100% is based on income tax... tax on wages. The top 1% of the wealthiest people don't even need wages. According to Romney's excuses for hardly paying any income tax, his income in 2011 was actually less than mine. So no, I wouldn't expect the top 1% to have much income to tax. But wealth is a whole different story. As Churchill made quite clear.

With more than 80% of the wealth in this country crammed into the top 5% you could probably tax their wealth at 10% and have enough money not only to "waste on entitlement programs" but also pay off our national debt.


LOL... well, the term is very ambiguous, but profit doesn't always lead to wealth. When I was running a small business most of my profits went to supporting a family. I was only able to save a small fraction of it and that was the extent of my wealth. My definition of "wealthy" is any accumulation of wealth that is self-sustainable... in other words enough money that if invested wisely could yield enough returns that additional income from wages is no longer necessary.


Yeah, the people that *I* consider wealthy can hardly be expected to work hard unless it's what they like to do. I personally don't expect much of anything from them. It's nice when they use their money to build companies and provide jobs, but people in the middle-class can do that too, you don't need self-sustaining wealth to start a company, that's what business loans are for.

I guess *some* people might "expect" the "haves" to work their asses off and give free stuff to the "have-nots". I personally don't know any... don't remember actually meeting any. It's certainly not tenant of progressive or socialist thought. But your welcome to your delusions, they certainly amuse me. Although I do feel a slight pang of discomfort at seeing people like you bent over the table with your pants down, profusely defending those who are screwing you.


I think a more accurate analogy is that the government does what Jesse's gun used to do and it's the people that control the government that does what Jesse used to do.

...and seriously, if there is any robbing going on it's the rich robbing the poor not the other way around. It's just that the rich tend to be smarter and seem to have no trouble confusing the poor about what's really happening. So... how is your ass feeling?

Pretentious? So by suggesting that there is a deeper level of understanding I am pretending to be smarter than I am? How do you know I'm pretending?

Peremptory? Is that such a rare occasion on this or any other political forum? Your response is peremptory.

Supercilious? Maybe I come off that way. What do you suggest? Should I drop down to a third grade level of writing? Should I toss out a few really stupid ideas? ...pretend to be less intelligent than I am?

Look, I don't call people names and I don't say things just to insult people. I say things that I think are worth pointing out, sometimes at the risk of insulting people. I also tend to acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong and this statement that you think is so peremptory is no exception, starting off the the words "you probably".

Tasine said that US troops attacking US citizens is UNHEARED of and seemed to imply that the very idea was preposterous. And yet it has been done... she also said she's been following politics for half a century. So from there I made the reasonable deduction that her interest in politics was superficial, which I am sure you know means "on the surface" which is about the extent of coverage provided by typical news channels.

If I think their is a deeper level of understanding then how you propose I make that suggestion?