Does stupidity really skip a generation?

[songsmith]

Yeah, that sucks that if I exploited a thousand employees making minimum wage, I only get to keep 5 thousand times what they got, after taxes. I guess more mandatory overtime is in order. --->JMS

[Banned]

Yeah, that sucks that if I exploited a thousand employees making minimum wage, I only get to keep 5 thousand times what they got, after taxes. I guess more mandatory overtime is in order. --->JMS

Then you should stop "exploiting" them, and they lose their jobs. This administration is doing such a good job creating jobs, they would have no problems.

[songsmith]

No, you should stop making 5 thousand times what they do.
Perish the thought of upper management taking a pay cut before they lay workers off. Why would they do that? Everybody knows that one guy with a MBA is more important and valuable than a hands-on workforce. Mr. Big only has 2 kids, and the workforce has thousands, but his 2 kids are more important. Plus, he has a lavish lifestyle to support. He deserves it because he's smarter, right? Hell, he could easily go down on the factory floor and make those widgets all by himself, he's so cool.
Yep, flood-up, trickle-down. Works like a charm. So far... --->JMS

[lonewolf]

What does the top 2% ACTUALLY pay in taxes ? After they shelter and "off shore" their monies ?

First of all, pay attention. That's the top 1% on that page, not 2%.

Those charts reflect the percentage of actual money paid to the IRS after all tax deductions and shelters were taken into account. For every $100 collected by the IRS, $40 was paid by the top 1% and $40 was paid by the bottom 95%. By deduction, the other $20 was paid by the bracket between the top 2%-5%.

Had they shown the top 5% versus the bottom 95%, it would reflect that for every $100 paid in to the IRS, $60 was paid by the top 5% and $40 was paid by the bottom 95%.

If you look at the chart, this trend (higher share of actual taxes paid by the top 1%) started after the 1986 Reagan tax cuts. It continued until the internet bubble burst (March 2000) and then reversed briefly during the initial market downturn. The trend reversed back again in the summer of 2001 and continued until the lines crossed.

I would deduce that for 2008-2010, the trend probably went thru a reversal cycle similar to 2000-2001, since the market went thru a significant decline.

[Banned]

No, you should stop making 5 thousand times what they do.
Perish the thought of upper management taking a pay cut before they lay workers off. Why would they do that? Everybody knows that one guy with a MBA is more important and valuable than a hands-on workforce. Mr. Big only has 2 kids, and the workforce has thousands, but his 2 kids are more important. Plus, he has a lavish lifestyle to support. He deserves it because he's smarter, right? Hell, he could easily go down on the factory floor and make those widgets all by himself, he's so cool.
Yep, flood-up, trickle-down. Works like a charm. So far... --->JMS

Maybe 4999 of those workers appreciate that you invested your capital and created a business and jobs. You could still be rich and just keep that money and spend it, your kids will still be fine. But then 4999 workers will be out of work and not able to feed their kids.

I wonder who the one worker is that hates that you invested your capital and created these jobs?

Are you against capitalism? What would you prefer?

[THEM BONES]

To undercover, I usually don't read this ridiculous shit on here, but was tricked into to this one by the title of thread. I would have avoided it like aids had I know it was gonna be another extremist right wing Obama bashing line of shit. I WILL kindly take your advice and steer very clear of this kind of nonsense from here on in. Thank you for looking out for my mental well being.

[lonewolf]

I Here is a fact for you. Libertarians and Constitutionalists both hate what B. Hussein is doing to ruin this country. Fox and talk show hosts do not represent Libertarians or Constitutionalists

Libertarians and Constitutionalists hate all forms of govt unless they each personally have 100% control over every facet, which is horribly unrealistic and narcissistic, and your arguments are proof. If the Tear Party had started after his first term, or halfway through, or even a year in, I'd have agreed that it was a reaction to perceived failures of Big Bad O. But the first local event was less than 3 months in. The Tear Party is NOTHING more than malcontents who felt (and still feel) frustrated that the power they usurped as a result of 9/11 is no longer available to them. In a nutshell, they're angry and embarrassed at the results of the last presidential election, and the relative ease with which they were so soundly beaten. You can't blame the lefties for taking over, that's how the system laid out by the Founding Fathers of these great United States Of America, works. If you disagree, then I'll be copying and pasting your words when and if the GOP takes Congress back. (Note: the Libertaricons won't be sweeping any election anytime soon.)
As for divorcing the Tea Party from Fox News... pure nonsense. Beck went to Fox for one reason: money. Spewing rightwing effluvient is what Becky does for his substantial living, and the 'baggers belong to Beck. If you're telling me that Tea Partiers don't watch Fox or other extremism-for-cash outlets, it kind of speaks to your nearsightedness and state of denial.--->JMS

Which do you prefer?

Glidden
Sherwin-Williams
Behr
Dulux

[lonewolf]

They also seem to think that the founding fathers wanted a small federal government. Not so with all of them. Alexander Hamilton realized that a strong federal government was necessary.

They also seem to think that most everything the federal government does is not in the constitution. It is. "Implied Powers" is in the constitution. Everyone form George Washington to Thomas Jefferson used "implied powers".

Implied Powers was written into the constitution because the founding fathers realized that they could not conceive all of the things that might come up in the future that would need to be done by the federal government. Implied Powers can be used by the federal government if the means to the end is for the general well being of the country. You may argue what they do IS or IS NOT for the general well being (which is what congress and the president do) but you cannot say it isn't in the constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to buy Louisiana. That was unconstitutional. Fortunately it turned out to be a good thing. What Is in the constitution that allowed Jefferson to buy Louisiana is "Implied Powers", which is exactly what allowed him to buy it. And that spending added a deficit to the country. And not everyone was for it.

To digress a little again. One (like me) sees the health insurance reform as being a good thing for the "general well being" of the country. The end does justify the means according to the Constitution. It IS in there.

I would like to see that list of what they will remove from the federal government in order to make it smaller. Thanks so much.

1st of all, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued that the federal government needed enough power to be more effective at the common defense than the prior Confederation which provided for a very weak central government. He never advocated a "strong" federal government beyond that necessity. Certainly not anywhere near as "strong" as in the neoprog context.

"Implied Powers" is not written into the Constitution--it is a concept of interpretation of the Constitution that can be subject to Supreme Court approval. Until FDR's extortion of the Supreme Court, "Implied Powers" was always a variation on one of the specific enumerated powers, not a carte blanche general statement of unlimited power.

As for your general welfare clause. It is contained in the paragraph that grants the federal government the power of taxation. The phrase in question was only included as the justification for the power of taxation. It did not grant or imply to grant any power of spending beyond the specific enumerated powers.

The paragraph:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Could just as well have been written like this, except that it would be out of order:

To pay for the execution of the powers granted to the Congress,
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Here is the most liberal view from the framers on this topic. It is from Hamilton, Federalist Papers #41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare. ‘’But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

[Dragan Kalasa]

This seems to be one of those subjects that knowing what happened throughout history doesn't mean anything for the future.

(sarcastically speaking) - How about we all ignore today and focus on the problems of yesterday instead of working toward a better tommorrow?

[lonewolf]

This seems to be one of those subjects that knowing what happened throughout history doesn't mean anything for the future.

(sarcastically speaking) - How about we all ignore today and focus on the problems of yesterday instead of working toward a better tommorrow?

This isn't about history, its about law and what Congress should or should not be allowed to do. The root of most our problems lies in Congress and all the power they have seized for their own corrupt ends.

I propose that the 1st thing on the agenda is to get the Supreme Court to eliminate this notion that "general welfare" is a carte blanche excuse for Congress to seize unlimited power.

[JackANSI]

I hate to say this, but the ideal way the government works and the way it works now are completely at odds. You want to change something you need to work within the confines of the current system.

No one from the ideal way has any real way to bridge the gap (ie win an election). No one from the current way it works wants to give up what they have.

The only possible ways out of what we are caught in is total collapse, or revolution.

[Banned]

I hate to say this, but the ideal way the government works and the way it works now are completely at odds. You want to change something you need to work within the confines of the current system.

No one from the ideal way has any real way to bridge the gap (ie win an election). No one from the current way it works wants to give up what they have.

The only possible ways out of what we are caught in is total collapse, or revolution.

I agree with all of this. As for revolution, Thomas Jefferson was in favor of it every generation or so. We are WAAAAYYYYY overdue.

[Jsun76]

O.K. dude we get it, you don't like Obama. I don't like oysters but you don't see me bitchin' every time I see them on T.V. Get over it...move on.

[Banned]

O.K. dude we get it, you don't like Obama. I don't like oysters but you don't see me bitchin' every time I see them on T.V. Get over it...move on.

Dude, try to get beyond everything in terms of loving or hating the messiah, I want to overturn the whole government by this stage. I really want to replace ALL of Congress too. If you cared about your children or grandchildren you should want revolution also.

[Hawk]

O.K. dude we get it, you don't like Obama. I don't like oysters but you don't see me bitchin' every time I see them on T.V. Get over it...move on.

Dude, try to get beyond everything in terms of loving or hating the messiah, I want to overturn the whole government by this stage. I really want to replace ALL of Congress too. If you cared about your children or grandchildren you should want revolution also.

Joe...we agree ! Congress is run by lobbyists. Lets kill lobbying (legalised bribes) and introduce term limits. We could use an all new congress and have them regularly recycled. Kind of a Jeffersonian bloodless revolution every term.

[JackANSI]

Anyone else ever think that these well referenced rockpage go-to historical figures would just do a ten second facepalm after reading these rockpage political threads...

Then lock the thread...

I do.

[Banned]

O.K. dude we get it, you don't like Obama. I don't like oysters but you don't see me bitchin' every time I see them on T.V. Get over it...move on.

Dude, try to get beyond everything in terms of loving or hating the messiah, I want to overturn the whole government by this stage. I really want to replace ALL of Congress too. If you cared about your children or grandchildren you should want revolution also.

Joe...we agree ! Congress is run by lobbyists. Lets kill lobbying (legalised bribes) and introduce term limits. We could use an all new congress and have them regularly recycled. Kind of a Jeffersonian bloodless revolution every term.

[lonewolf]

O.K. dude we get it, you don't like Obama. I don't like oysters but you don't see me bitchin' every time I see them on T.V. Get over it...move on.

Dude, try to get beyond everything in terms of loving or hating the messiah, I want to overturn the whole government by this stage. I really want to replace ALL of Congress too. If you cared about your children or grandchildren you should want revolution also.

Joe...we agree ! Congress is run by lobbyists. Lets kill lobbying (legalised bribes) and introduce term limits. We could use an all new congress and have them regularly recycled. Kind of a Jeffersonian bloodless revolution every term.

Ah, but who is the more corrupt, the one who offers the bribe or the one who accepts it?

Which would be easier: handling 536 politicians or thousands of special interests, corporations and unions, the latter having already been granted asylum by the courts?

[JackANSI]

First those who propose the laws would need to be forced to ignore all lobbyists. But the only people who can do that are the people being bought by lobbyists and possibly the supreme court, but as recent rulings have shown, they pretty much feel (meaning roughly) that companies can spend their money any way they want when it comes to politics.

So umm... never gonna happen no matter how much people bitch on rockpage

This one I'm gonna file under "will happen with: revolution only".

[Flaw]

vivre la révolution :throws brick through starbucks window:

[songsmith]

Which do you prefer?

Glidden
Sherwin-Williams
Behr
Dulux

I never used any of the listed paints other than SW (professionally, anyway), so I couldn't make a real distinction. I don't have a problem with SW, I know the product line pretty well, but my boss is a diehard SW fan, so that's what we use.
My Spidey-sense tells me you're speaking metaphorically, and my interest is definitely piqued. --->JMS

[songsmith]

Maybe 4999 of those workers appreciate that you invested your capital and created a business and jobs. You could still be rich and just keep that money and spend it, your kids will still be fine. But then 4999 workers will be out of work and not able to feed their kids.

I wonder who the one worker is that hates that you invested your capital and created these jobs?

Are you against capitalism? What would you prefer?

You assume much, grasshopper. You assume the CEO founded the company. You assume the founder invested his own capital, and not my 401k. You assume the main reason an entrepreneur starts a business is to create jobs (what a sweetheart of a human being!). You assume the 4999 make enough to feed their kids. You assume the 4999 are American, and not Chinese or Indonesian.
Perhaps most telling, you assume that capitalism can only exist as unfettered exploitation of workers, resources, and government. Laissez faire capitalism is every bit as dangerous as unbridled communism because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the end result: a very poor class and a very rich class who preys upon them. There's no real difference, because both philosophies share the same factor that renders them fatally flawed.
Greed.
Self-interest. The REAL reason why entrepreneurs start businesses, not a bogus desire to provide their employees with a living wage.
You're still working under the premise that the CEO DESERVES thousands of times more than the average worker, and that if nobody paid a thousand times more, nobody would want the job. Seems like a good capitalist would want to pay the CEO , say, ten times the average wage, then split the difference between the shareholders and the workers. Or drop the price of the widgets, and sell way more of them.--->JMS

[JackANSI]

I pity the fool that thinks their boss wouldn't rather pay a foreign individual half what he pays you. (and be completely happy about it since he is putting more in his pocket)

[lonewolf]

Which do you prefer?

Glidden
Sherwin-Williams
Behr
Dulux

I never used any of the listed paints other than SW (professionally, anyway), so I couldn't make a real distinction. I don't have a problem with SW, I know the product line pretty well, but my boss is a diehard SW fan, so that's what we use.
My Spidey-sense tells me you're speaking metaphorically, and my interest is definitely piqued. --->JMS

Nah, no metaphors. I just thought I'd ask you about a subject you were familiar with.

It is obvious that you are not very familiar with the Tea Party.

[RobTheDrummer]

I still think all politicians should have weekly drug tests.