signalmankenneth
Verified User
What's wrong with these pictures? Is what's wrong with America today?!!
The Bottom Line?
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
What's wrong with these pictures? Is what's wrong with America today?!!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
they're dishonest?.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i support letting tax cuts on millionaires go and think the repubs were dumb to stick to it....but the cartoons, are just that, cartoons, eg, not real
No Yurt, these were the special "real" cartoons. You must have been thinking of those other "fake" ones.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the world is so much better off with this post ^
SmarterthanYou
rebel
or space jam
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Because you are fucking retarded and don't get it! Why don't you just take one more acid trip and become a Liberal? You're right there on the threshold!
The mentality of taxing "THE RICH" more, is from the Socialist mindset that wealth must be REDISTRIBUTED, you goofy moron! Don't you get that? You are playing right into their hand, ceding that argument to them, and providing their basis to refute and reject conservative principles... but you are too pathetically stupid to understand that! It's nothing more than another in a long line of class warfare scenarios they've set up, and you have emotively fallen for, like some kind of starstruck teenage girl. Pull your fucking head out of your ass, and understand, "THE RICH" is an undefined group of people who happen to be slightly more successful than you, nothing more! There is no rational or legitimate reason for taxing their income any more than anyone else's income.
apple0154
MEOW
"There is no rational or legitimate reason for taxing their income any more than anyone else's income."
Yes, there is a rational reason and that reason is to help support programs for the poor.
Why do Conservatives claim to support family and communities but when it comes to implementing policies/practices that families and communities employ, such as helping each other, Conservatives fight against that?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Speaking of starstruck teenage girls... hello apple!
Apple, it is not written in the Constitution that some men are more responsible for the poor than others. Sorry... just ain't there! You're supposed to be giving me a rationale for why one person should have to pay 39% of their income and another person shouldn't have to pay any percentage of their income, to do the same thing, help the poor. What makes it "okay" to take a larger chunk of one man's earnings, than another?
apple0154
MEOW
Gee, Dix. I didn't know you were.....well.... like "that".
What makes it "okay" to take a larger chunk of one man's earnings, than another?
Some people can afford to give more and while it's not written in the Constitution that some men are more responsible for the poor than others the Preamble, which the "courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve", make it clear the government is obliged to "promote the general Welfare" and "insure domestic Tranquility". (Wikipedia)
If there's one thing history has taught us it's that wildly differing economic circumstances ensure anything but domestic tranquility and when large groups of citizens suffer, such as the elderly or ill, that affects the general welfare of all.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Gee, Dix. I didn't know you were.....well.... like "that".
What makes it "okay" to take a larger chunk of one man's earnings, than another?
Some people can afford to give more and while it's not written in the Constitution that some men are more responsible for the poor than others the Preamble, which the "courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve", make it clear the government is obliged to "promote the general Welfare" and "insure domestic Tranquility". (Wikipedia)
If there's one thing history has taught us it's that wildly differing economic circumstances ensure anything but domestic tranquility and when large groups of citizens suffer, such as the elderly or ill, that affects the general welfare of all.
Apple, If I make more money than you, and we both give 25%, I will have given MORE MONEY than you. Do you comprehend that? You are supposed to be explaining why I should give a larger percentage than you, not why I should give more money... I get that part, I make more, so I should give more...I already am, because I make more... but why should I give a larger percentage? That's the part you are supposed to explain, and you can't, because there is no rationalization for it.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The wealthy pay most of the federal income taxes currently. There are, however, many other forms of taxation which the middle class and poor must pay.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
allowing or forcing people to rely on a government handout does not HELP people. It only makes them dependent upon another entity to survive.
Topspin
Verified User
I'll tell you what's wrong, gaykenneth. That dumbass liberals can have the road map to riches stapled too thier heads and they will still find a way to make dog shit money.
Here is a tip for you clown, the more education the less hard you have to work and the more you get paid.
Is that fair? Go see your mommy if your looking for life to be fair.
Here is a tip for you clown, the more education the less hard you have to work and the more you get paid.
Is that fair? Go see your mommy if your looking for life to be fair.
"the less hard you have to work and the more you get paid."
"the less you have to work" etc...would have been sufficient ... less hard, sounds like it came from a semi moron...(ged type).
apple0154
MEOW
The rationalization is the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on necessities resulting in having a smaller percentage to give. If a person makes $500/wk ($25,000/yr) and spends $100 on food for the family that's 20%. If a person makes $5,000/wk ($250,000/yr) they won't spend $1,000/wk on food.
Canceled13
Canceled
Are you in the top 10% of wage earners in the US as well? If you aren't how can you seriously type that you support them in their horrible plight. They don't give a crap about you unless you're one of them.
apple0154
MEOW
It helps them if they don't have food or shelter. It helps them if training is provided so they can upgrade their skills and get a job.
What logic is employed if, for example, a factory closes and all the government does is give the employees a subsistence allowance? All the employees know is the job they were doing for the last 10 or 15 years and there aren't any jobs like that left. The governemnt will either continue to pay those people forever or they will become destitute.
The logical alternative is to provide training. Not just a poverty level handout but organize classes at a vocational school. Mechanics. Welding. Basic office work. Computers. The possible list is endless.
Spend money at the very beginning, as soon as they lose their jobs, while they're still used to getting up in the morning and going to work and optimistic about the future. The waste is to watch them slowly lose everything they've worked for, including their home, while continuing to pay them year after year as they become accustomed to a lifestyle of poverty and depression.
Some people are always thinking someone else is getting something for nothing. Why should they get free training? Some people would rather watch others fall not realizing it will cost society more in the long run. More people on welfare. Fewer people working and paying taxes. All because some people are so jealous or envious or selfish or just miserable.
I remember, years ago, being on unemployment.The government offered free courses for welfare recipients so I asked if I could take a course. No, I was not allowed to take courses while collecting unemployment. When I asked why I was told businesses contributed to unemployment and business people were not going to pay others to go to school.
If I recall correctly I think it is North Carolina that has started to allow people collecting unemployment to attend classes. Finally someone has used common sense and realized it's better to have a person learning something rather than sitting at home or in the bar all day.
What is wrong with people? Has the entrepreneurial spirit, the idea of getting ahead and having a good life devolved to the point where the goal to getting ahead is to keep others down? People and communities used to work together. Times have changed and people don't stay in the same community so while they don't physically participate they should contribute through taxes but the main change has to be to properly help the newly unemployed. That's where the government can and should step in for the general welfare of the country.
Training. Sufficient money to at least keep their home and feed their family for a reasonable period of time. The slackers and abusers of the system will be found out soon enough and the majority will find work and start paying taxes again. It's a win-win for everyone.
(Steps off soap box.)