Little Factoids and why America is in Trouble

[smilesammich 10,727]

Of course it is important and yeah it should be fixed.. Like many other problems its political and personal will that can fix it.

It makes no difference if we are in a no win position.

i think that's why we need to overhaul healthcare and campaign finance (and stop giving the pentagon every little toy they ask for). we're not going to elect someone that can even make a dent in the deficit until the causes of our debt are removed. and i'm not talking about obama phones.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

i didn't tell him what he thought. anyone who reads varied sources of media knows that the word socialism scares the bejeezus out of a particular percentage of the american population.

are you offering to make nb a sandwich? poor fella

I like the fact Bern is going to try to de wall street Washington and stop big Pharmas rape of America. All the free stuff , relaxed immigration and sky rocket debt not so much

[OriZ 3,157]

sounds like ya'll need to do some research on bernie. he's not a 'commie hippie marxist', but if you want to parrot what your media tells you to think, i mean, by all means..

oh and also this website..http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Look, anyone who believes that if you make more than 10 million a year you need to give more than half of it to the government is a commie to me. No one, I repeat no one, whether making 10 million or 100 million, should give 52% of it to the government. Come on, you can't tell me the government can't settle for the 48% instead(although that's too high too). You work for it and then give more than half of your money to someone else? give me a break.

I do like that he supports this though:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/265556-sanders-to-back-audit-the-fed-bill

Only thing I would change is the "audit" to "abolish"

I like the fact Bern is going to try to de wall street Washington and stop big Pharmas rape of America. All the free stuff , relaxed immigration and sky rocket debt not so much

See above. It's obvious that these elections to most people are not about who is going to do a better job, they all suck. It's about who's going to cause less damage and well we all have our own perspectives on that one.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If it comes to Trump or Bern it's Trump. If it comes to Bern or Rubio or Cruz it's Bern.

Bought and Paid for politicians are now my number one issue

I think Hillary will be indicted before it's all over

[smilesammich 10,727]

Look, anyone who believes that if you make more than 10 million a year you need to give more than half of it to the government is a commie to me. No one, I repeat no one, whether making 10 million or 100 million, should give 52% of it to the government. Come on, you can't tell me the government can't settle for the 48% instead(although that's too high too). You work for it and then give more than half of your money to someone else? give me a break.

I do like that he supports this though:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/265556-sanders-to-back-audit-the-fed-bill

Only thing I would change is the "audit" to "abolish"

.

we're not going to cut the deficit by taxing the poor and cutting social services.

[OriZ 3,157]

we're not going to cut the deficit by taxing the poor and cutting social services.

Where did I say we should do that?

Does that mean anyone should pay more than half their income to the government? That's ridiculous.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Where did I say we should do that?

Does that mean anyone should pay more than half their income to the government? That's ridiculous.

that's the flipside. anyway, i believe any one making ten million or a hundred million in straight income annually should be taxed at a much higher rate. attempting to squeeze off the bottom isn't sustainable.

[OriZ 3,157]

that's the flipside. anyway, i believe any one making ten million or a hundred million in straight income annually should be taxed at a much higher rate. attempting to squeeze off the bottom isn't sustainable.

No it's not the flipside although that's what Bernie would have you believe. You're telling me the only alternative to taxing rich people at over half their income, is to tax the poor and cut social services? populist baloney.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than someone making 30,000 at all...question is how much higher. More than half their income is out of the question.

Edited February 5, 2016 by OriZ

[TBoneTX 45,284]

The core of the matter is that the people's money is not the government's money, and few if any politicians adhere to this reality or even acknowledge it.

[OriZ 3,157]

The core of the matter is that the people's money is not the government's money, and few if any politicians adhere to this reality or even acknowledge it.

Exactly. I can't comprehend why anyone would believe that anybody should give more than half of their money to the government, for any reason.

[smilesammich 10,727]

No it's not the flipside although that's what Bernie would have you believe.

seriously? bernie has fooled me. yep you nailed it.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Exactly. I can't comprehend why anyone would believe that anybody should give more than half of their money to the government, for any reason.

i can't comprehend anyone who believes a 'person' who 'earns' 10 million dollars a year should not have a significantly greater tax burden than a family of three earning 100,000 a year. SIGNIFICANTLY greater because 200,000.00 is a different figure to the family of three than it is the 'person' whose pulling in obscene amounts of money. same as a dollar has significantly greater value to a bum on the street, compared to a middle income earner, compared to a corporation or extremely wealthy individual. when you have the waltons, with so much money it's disgusting, and yet a massive portion of their workforce is on government assistance - there is no balance.

have you read this? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/books/review/robert-reichs-saving-capitalism.html?_r=0

[Teddy B 17,252]

i can't comprehend anyone who believes a 'person' who 'earns' 10 million dollars a year should not have a significantly greater tax burden than a family of three earning 100,000 a year. SIGNIFICANTLY greater because 200,000.00 is a different figure to the family of three than it is the 'person' whose pulling in obscene amounts of money. same as a dollar has significantly greater value to a bum on the street, compared to a middle income earner, compared to a corporation or extremely wealthy individual. when you have the waltons, with so much money it's disgusting, and yet a massive portion of their workforce is on government assistance - there is no balance.

have you read this? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/books/review/robert-reichs-saving-capitalism.html?_r=0

The part in bold is what drives me nuts. The scales are tipped so unevenly against the average Joe middle class family. The more money one makes the easier it becomes for them to "hide it" in places where they don't have to pay taxes. And when big corporations are lining their pockets with millions all the while the blood and sweat of their business, the average Joe is barely scraping by, something is wrong with that system. There should be a percentage cap on salary that business owners and CEO's can collect to make sure the people on the bottom get their fair share of the profits. Trickle down is a joke.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The part in bold is what drives me nuts. The scales are tipped so unevenly against the average Joe middle class family. The more money one makes the easier it becomes for them to "hide it" in places where they don't have to pay taxes. And when big corporations are lining their pockets with millions all the while the blood and sweat of their business, the average Joe is barely scraping by, something is wrong with that system. There should be a percentage cap on salary that business owners and CEO's can collect to make sure the people on the bottom get their fair share of the profits. Trickle down is a joke.

i totally agree.

the problem with lumping professionals who make a million a year or whatever with the extremely wealthy is that it's the professionals that pay the higher percentage of income tax. our current setup has the middle paying the majority of income tax and trickle downers want us to believe that the issue is with the poor paying no income tax. anyone with a brain knows that poor people's money doesn't stay with them, it doesn't generate them new income. it goes right back out into the economy, where the rich (i'm talking extremely rich) have the luxury of not only keeping their money, but there's a multitude of ways to have their money go on to make them even more money..it's trickle UP economics we're stuck in right now.

[OriZ 3,157]

i can't comprehend anyone who believes a 'person' who 'earns' 10 million dollars a year should not have a significantly greater tax burden than a family of three earning 100,000 a year. SIGNIFICANTLY greater because 200,000.00 is a different figure to the family of three than it is the 'person' whose pulling in obscene amounts of money. same as a dollar has significantly greater value to a bum on the street, compared to a middle income earner, compared to a corporation or extremely wealthy individual. when you have the waltons, with so much money it's disgusting, and yet a massive portion of their workforce is on government assistance - there is no balance.

have you read this? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/books/review/robert-reichs-saving-capitalism.html?_r=0

How significant? Answer that question. Do you believe in over half? I don't.