A dog will lick his balls because he can, and if you tell him not to he'll still do it whenever he thinks you're not looking...to really stop him from doing it you can either cut off his tongue, his balls, or both.
wells i'm convinced .... no idea what your getting at but I agree. and hell. if I could lick my balls I might, never know since I am not a yoga master. damn auto correct
There's a big dilemma. It's already a burden to pay American labor... I wonder (in comparison) how much of a burden it is to send those salaries overseas, reducing the money circulating within the U.S., depressing our economy, and reducing demand for the very goods they want to sell inside the U.S.? Either way, in the near term, labor will still be cheaper overseas. That ship has sailed. There's a bit of a no-win situation in regards to labor costs. If you buy domestic, you pay more. So your dollar goes less far, and you are more poor. If you buy foreign, you bleed money from the economy, and you become poor over time. (UNLESS you allow deflation to take place). Either way, quality of life is gonna sag. We rode the big wave for the beginning of free trade, where we had stacks of cash, and could spend a bunch overseas. Now the stacks are getting low, and it's time for prices to normalize. I.E., Globally, incomes will normalize, and our trade partners will start to resemble us more and more, and we will be able to afford less and less foreign goods. Until eventually, foreign and domestic goods will be in parity. It's kinda funny how people complain about 'trade imbalance' as a problem - but really it's a SYMPTOM. We can afford more foreign goods, than foreigners can afford of our domestic goods. We are relatively more wealthy - hence there is a trade imbalance. As our wealth drops, foreign wealth is relatively higher, so they can afford to buy more of our goods, and the trade imbalance reduces. The 'funny' part is : How many exporters do you know? Any? Those few people are who benefits from balancing trade in the near term. How many importers do you know? (Know anyone who'd bought a foreign made good? Yeah. Check who's at wal-mart. Lots.) What about the small companies that don't get the same tax shelters? Should the 'too big to fail' approach be extended to companies that are 'too big to tax'? -scheherazade
I'll solve all this issues real quick and easy like....a flat tax...everyone pays the same % and there would be no loopholes for you all to complain about for the rich. Everyone would pay their "fair share", you make more you pay more. Of course we can't do that because the 50% that pay zero federal income taxes want representation without taxation.
How about an exception-free tax curve. Rises from 0 to 33%. 0% at $20k or less, and hits 33% at 100k+ income (and stays there). That way the people working 2 jobs 16 hours a day for 20k a year total can still buy food and stay off the street, and the rest of us can go about life like normal. note : I pay about a third of my income in taxes already, so this wouldn't help me one bit - but it would get the rich to pitch in their share. -scheherazade
How about everyone pays the same %, people who make more money will pay more taxes. That percent should be low enough not to be unjustly burdensome on the lower classes. If the government can't operate its current size on that amount, then government should be smaller. Lets phase out SS and Medicare and let people keep more of their money to plan for their future as they see fit. They are unsustainable anyways.
hahaha. I prefer to call it, the "sons of the empire" syndrome (not just USA but any empire). But it is pretty much what you said.
You make me sad for the state of humanity. People like you are the reason why western society is declining, the selfish self serving attitude of massing as much personal wealth as possible really makes me sad. I wonder what kind of family you come from? are you rich? I have no idea how you can support such outlandish positions when we have all seen the collapse of an entire system based on the "top down" neoconservative theory. I mean it blew up all over your face and you still defend it?
I"ll tell you who's selfish the poor who pay nothing yet still freakin complain. I'm not even rich yet I can see it's unfair. Why is it so acceptable to demean those who DO pay taxes? And you say the entire system collapsed...well there are other "systems" that have clearly collapsed too so there goes that arguement.
Likewise, western society didn't start declining until personal responsibility was replaced with socialist policy's. Middle/poor Yeah, not an outlandish claim there at all... This system we are in is designed to fail. You mistake that I support anything done to the economy as far as government is concerned, in the last 100 years.
The majority of the US socialist legislation was passed after the great depression by FDR due to massive amounts of poverty and squalor present at the time (The first time the speculators ripped everyone off). After the war the US was booming for another 20 years in which most of the social apparatus was retained, this era known for the baby boomers, economic growth and general prosperity. When Nixon came around he started dismantling the social net (first with medical care) and after successive decades we end ended up in the mess we are today. If anything it was the reversal of social laws which lead to decline and not the other way around. Social democracy in Europe lifted a continent in rubble to a place where people live longer, better and healthier then the nation which thankfully offered the money and which designed most the new governments institutions (with advisers from FDR). Your best president was a socialist, I find it amusing that I am here having to teach american political history to an american. If you go further and read the constitution in the preamble you will find the following words; what do you think the general welfare is? Do you not feel that had your family had healthcare taken care of that your quality of life would have improved? Do you feel that if you were offered higher education at a reasonable cost or free that maybe you would have been more successful? Access to education and access to healthcare are tools which enable SOCIAL MOBILITY which is the ability to move up the social ladder. Without these tools (as evident by the statistics) you end up with in a game which is skewed towards to rich (because they ALWAYS have access) making the rich, richer while low to medium income families are faced with ever insurmountable hurdles. Social democracy is alive and well thanks, just look at the statistics on general quality of life in such countries and you will see people are happier and live longer.
No. Western society started to decline because of the cold war and defense spending. Think about it. Prior to WW2, the US had 20,000 troops. The build-up took place, and we went right into the cold war. Russians. Nuclear threat. Paranoia. Since then, we have been a war machine. We are the police of the world. I truly find it hard to envision pre-WWII America. We were very isolated, we did not interfere in global affairs Peace and trade with all Nations, entangling Alliances with none. Just like our Constitution Dictates. We were also in a depression pre WWII. Everyone seems to think that the war stopped our economic depression. Kind of... Post-war stopped the depression. We bombed the competition, Japan and Germany, and the rest of Europe was in shambles. We were the number 1 automaker in the world. We made almost everything for ourselves and for the world. The Breadbasket of America could produce enough food to feed the world 5 times over. Now? That food has been replaced by massive GMO corn fields. We burn our food and put it in our gas tanks. For the first time in US History, a farmer can actually starve, because the crop he grows is not edible. Our auto industry almost collapsed, we continue to build gas guzzlers. We make nothing for ourselves anymore, almost everything sold is made in China. AND. We are in a depression. Go ahead, predict our next move.
Its nice to hear your version of history, certainly not whom I'd call the best president. lol yeah that clause doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Yeah and if I was given $1000 a week my quality of life would have improved too. Its not my money. No one should be forced to pay my way and I certainly don't want the government making decisions on those issues. Such is life, stop being jealous and work hard/smart to be successful. So?
50% of America lives paycheck to paycheck. They make rent, food, gas, and that's it. Any expense beyond that means they have to skip out on rent, food, or gas. 25% of American households make under $25K a year. All working family members combined... Taking into account that you're lucky to find rent under $1000 a month + food is about $500 a head per month + gas is gonna be $150+ per car per month + car payments + clothes/misc, and you're right up against your budget. NO room to spare for anything incidental - like an injury. (technically, that's close to 25K a year in expenses, so most of the 25% of Americans in the "~25k and under" bracket can't afford even that) What can you ask them to contribute? Show me their greed. Are you ready to tax them, and either put them through hunger, or homelessness? Do you want a swath of homeless people everywhere? If you don't want to look at homeless people, but you still want to tax the poor, then what else do you do? Execute 1/4 of America? Just get rid of the problem? Even if you're willing to go to that extreme, who will provide you all the cheap labor that businesses thrive on? Someone has to do those jobs... Only way you'll entice higher earners to replace the missing [dead and gone] low income people, is to pay them their higher wage for the vacated low income positions. In which case, why the heck not just [avoid bloodshed and] increase minimum wage, and solve the problem right there? Oh, but no one wants to pay more for daily goods and services - because that drives up prices and makes us all less wealthy. Obviously we WANT poor people, so that we can get cheap goods and services. We WANT to pay them so little that they can barely scrape by. But then we take issue if they don't have money to pay taxes with. Well no crap, they're broke. If you have a low wage job position, someone has to fill that spot, and that someone is going to earn that low wage. (Duh) Does the employer not factor into this? Making a job where the employee can't afford to pay taxes? Even if the low income earner "moved up in life" and got a better job, you STILL would need someone to work that low income position. If you want the poor paying taxes, just bump minimum wage up some percentage, and give them an equivalent percentage in taxes. So their wealth doesn't change, but they just have a tax withholding that goes to the government. Basically, roll their income tax into the price of goods and services. Then you can get the bottom of America to "contribute". If you're willing to do what it takes to get them paying taxes without being homeless or starving. Note : This is an income tax debate. They still pay state sales tax, county property tax, federal (and state) gasoline tax. As far as phasing out SS and medicare. My local taxes pay for my community services, and local roads. My state taxes pay for byways, schools, commerce. I damn well know federal highways don't cost as much as my federal withholding. I pay federal taxes, and I damn well better get something for them. The government is playing with "our" money, and it needs to be spent on "us". Not flushed down the contract toilet for government golf buddies. -scheherazade
Stop arguing with them. They are wrong and they know it. Either that, or they are so full of themselves/brainwashed they think they are right. On a positive note... In the past 10 years alone, Americans have given Israel the equivalent of approximately $200,000 per Israeli family of five. Israel’s Jerusalem Post newspaper recently published an article calling Israel “The New Golden Country” for young people from around the world. It reports that Israel boasts an ever-increasing GDP, a strong currency, and “a lower unemployment rate than the U.S.” The article fails to mention the well over $3 billion a year that American taxpayers have given Israel for years, nor the fact that some of this money has been used to develop industries that compete with U.S. companies, costing thousands of American jobs and adding to the American unemployment rate. The story also omits the fact that Israel has periodically stolen U.S. technology, hurting the U.S. economy still more, and fails to note that support for Israel has cost Americans in the range of $3-$6 trillion and that these costs continue to escalate. On top of this, a multitude of organizations contributing money and assistance to Israel have been given tax-deductible status in the U.S., removing still more money from the American economy. For example, donations to the “Birthright Israel” program that takes Jewish American students on fun-filled holidays to Israel, convincing many to then “ascend” to Israeli citizenship, are deducted from taxes owed to the U.S. http://original.antiwar.com/alison-weir/2011/08/31/american-taxpayers-subsidize-israels-prosperity/ Man, I know quite a few AMERICANS that could use that help! Thick-headed sheep.
lol, and now you're going to jump on the antisemitism bandwagon? i wish you didn't have the internet so you could not communicate this dribble to other people and have them even associate it with this country.
That's a bit besides the point. He clearly doesn't like that we're dumping money overseas. The fact that gobs of money goes to Israel [versus elsewhere] is history. -scheherazade
here a link for you guys, http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/31/region.aid/index.html and a map egypt got a whole lot, so did many other countries. aid is good and necessary.
you can't distinguish between a handout and basic human rights? The handout is non productive, education and healthcare are basic necessities. article 22 of the universal human rights You just do not get it when its relatively simple. take a sample of 4 people. 2 of them from the US and 2 of them from Malta (my country) from the pair in the US 1 of them is poor while the other is rich, however these kids are equally capable and have the same potential. The rich kid has access to healthcare and education while the poor one does not. Why should the poor not be offered a minimum of opportunity guaranteed by the state? because he didn't work hard enough? why should poor children be relegated to a life of health insecurity and low educational prospects? is it morally justifiable to waste human resources just because of social class? the 2 other kids from Malta have the same dilemma, however here the government says the poor kids life is just as important as the rich kids life and is guaranteed health from the state, the state also recognizes that education is a necessary condition for people to realize their full potential and as such guarantees education ALL the way to a first undergraduate course. As you can see the game is fair in Malta while skewed in the US, because education and healthcare are distributed by class and not universally as is right. Yeah being born into riches really means you've worked hard... come on man get a grip. Just to add a personal experience, If I lived in the US I probably would have never afforded to finish collage and enter university or if by some miracle I did manage would have a large amount of debt already on my shoulders. Are you saying that I am lazy? That I got handouts and that I didn't deserve to be where I am because my mom and dad weren't showered in cash?
