History Repeats Itself

Does anyone see history repeating itself? The rich are getting richer, the poor are geting poorer and the politicians are oblivious to the whole situation.


Why cut taxes on the rich? As they complain abouit the deficit, they forego revenue and make cuts that will cost jobs thus further cutting revenue.
Our roads are a mess. Our infrastructure is shot.


We give aid to everyone and fight everyone's wars--when will we wake up and see that we need help.

We must put our selves first or we will fall. Who will help us?

No one! It is hightime we help ourselves, before it is too late.

Helping others probably would not be a problem if our richest 1% did not help themselves to so much of this country's money.

Ann

Ann,

True Why do we allow them to do it? We are even thinking of putting Donald Trump in charge

alice wrote:

Ann,

True Why do we allow them to do it? We are even thinking of putting Donald Trump in charge

MOI??

Ann

Not me. My fellow Americans!
That he would even be considered is sad.

Sad and scary - "we" not only considered Goerge W, "we" elected him - twice, although whether or not he was actually elected in 2000 is debatable - and that is even scarier.

Ann

Blame me for George W, Bush, but at least I learned from my stupidity.

[youtube][/youtube]


Forget George Bush, we can only move forward, not backward. But speaking of history. This clip from The Salton Sea is historical, sort of. It reenacts the Kennedy Assisination with pigeons. Al might like it. I do, at any rate. LMAO.

I am not against the rich. It is the rich who build businesses, and give the poor jobs. The problem is the poor working class want to make the same as a doctor...who went to school for 12 years.
Jobs went overseas because some dumb ass sticking in a bolt at a car factory wanted $40 an hour plus...when he/she was only worth $2.00.

It's no different than someone who wants to be a writer...does not take the time to learn how to write, and blames agents, and publishers.

If you take the money away from the rich, why would they want to build a business?
Poor people are living better than they did 100 years ago. Matter of fact, many are lazy, and living off my taxe money.
The poor in this country are give me, give me people.
I believe in Gods word (in the bible) "He who will not work, neither let him eat."
To those who say, "I can't find a job...BS. Poor people who do not know English come here from Mexico, and find work.

People have to learn to live based on what they can give back. Obama wants to spread the wealth. He wants to take money away from those who earned it, and give it to those who have not. That is how you build a third world Country.

There is a pile of stones to your left. I won't move when you throw them. It won't change the truth.

LOL, Domenic, don't try confusing anyone here with the facts.

For the first time, Congress is now talking about means testing for Medicare and Social Security. Which is what some on this board have been wanting. Great idea. Punish people for working and saving. Give it to the stupid, lazy and shiftless -which is what the poor in America largely are. I don't mind giving it to the stupid, because they can't help it. I don't feel I need to subsidize the lazy and shiftless, though, and the deliberate makers of poor decisions year after year after year.

Excuse me, I am hardly against the rich people We worked and saved and because of the tax laws are now counted as rich folks. If we were required to pay more taxes we would hardly starve.

I don't see where we are helping the economy by creating any jobs. We are tying to hang onto our money. If we were taxed higher, we would pay more. Trickle down economics is a real piece of work.

A sick, very sick joke.

The idea that a billionaire is being punished because he has to pay a higher tax is ridiculous.
Look at what is left over. Not what is paid out.

Bill Gates can afford to pay 99 percent of his income in taxes and still be better off than most people.
He is smarter than most, but works no harder than most.

Then Alice, feel free to pay more taxes! You're allowed to do that! There's a box on the income tax form asking if you want to do just that (the donate box)! Do you check it each year?

What I object to, and what I think Domenic is objecting to, is when we're told we need to donate more. Means testing for Medicare? You've got to be kidding. That's a de facto tax on the "rich" (which means what? Over $80K/year? A lifetime of frugality?) and another entitlement to the "poor" (aka lazy, shiftless, poor decision makers, profligate spenders when they had it).

You don't get it. Rich people do not part with their brass willingly.
If I gave to every cause, What would I have left?

LC wrote:

Then Alice, feel free to pay more taxes! You're allowed to do that! There's a box on the income tax form asking if you want to do just that (the donate box)! Do you check it each year?

What I object to, and what I think Domenic is objecting to, is when we're told we need to donate more. Means testing for Medicare? You've got to be kidding. That's a de facto tax on the "rich" (which means what? Over $80K/year? A lifetime of frugality?) and another entitlement to the "poor" (aka lazy, shiftless, poor decision makers, profligate spenders when they had it).

Why would I do that?

Without assurances that others would do the same, I would simply add myself to the poor peoples ranks.
Not stupid!

Why do you need assurances that others would do the same? Do you contribute to charity only when you're assured others will do the same? Either you feel something is right or you don't -sorry, but your last post sounds awfully like a "wet finger in the wind" politician.

It does sound like you acknowledge that taxing the rich to death to pay for the poor's entitlements does nothing but add the rich to the poor's rolls.

Quote :

You don't get it. Rich people do not part with their brass willingly.
If I gave to every cause, What would I have left?

I get it very well. You want to posture about how much the rich should be taxed, but when it comes down to it, you won't part with your brass any more willingly than me or Domenic. And we weren't talking about causes, we were talking about taxes.

To expand on my idea--used to be foks paid high rates of taxes.
Would you prefer everyone to pay the same rate?
Here is what you would have :

$250,000.00 @ 50% = 125,000.00 $125,000 left over.

$50,000.00 @50%= 25,000.00 $25,000.00 left over.
Assuming they both work just as hard --not quite fair.

LC

Quite frankly, in the absence of a united effort-- law I wouldn't donate an extra penny,. No reason to.

I fully believe that the hugher incomes should be charged higher taxes. I have stated why.

One final thought--The IRS has 300 billion dollars in uncollected taxes annually. I doubt those are from the poor folks.

I like the flat tax idea. It's completely fair. Poor people would contribute less then rich people. Looking at what both have "left over" is irrelevant; poor people have less "left over" under a progressive tax, too.

Right now poor people contribute NOTHING. In fact, they even get back taxes they never paid via the EIC.

Looking at what is left over is important. They need enough to eat. You don't want them to have health care, so they need enough to pay the doctor and hospital at the billed rate.
You don't care about the price of gas, etc.,

LC wrote:

Why do you need assurances that others would do the same? Do you contribute to charity only when you're assured others will do the same? Either you feel something is right or you don't -sorry, but your last post sounds awfully like a "wet finger in the wind" politician.

It does sound like you acknowledge that taxing the rich to death to pay for the poor's entitlements does nothing but add the rich to the poor's rolls.

I already answered this.

Whew! I think I won that one!

I will give the victory to myself!

I think I've told this story before ...

Many years ago, during a visit to Australia, I met a young graduate who had applied for a grant to do a Master's degree. He was waiting to hear if he had been successful. He was also very anti-capitalism and thought the world would be a much fairer place if those with the most money shared their wealth with those with the least. I let him rattle on about the evils of the bourgeoisie. Then I asked him if he would be willing to share his grant (if awarded) with all the students who failed in their bid for a grant. Suddenly, being fair lost its attraction.