By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

I was thinking about last nights debate a little, and it saddened me a great deal.

A little history about the US for those in other countries, and those living here that need a refresher.

America is supposed to be the land of the free. The constitution gives us these freedoms. What does being free mean? In the context of the constitution, it is the opposite of indentured. Indentured means to be in the service of others. For example, a peasant must work for his king. In the US, the government is supposed to protect you from being in the service of others. Your time is your time.

Now, this does not mean you don't pay taxes, it just means that the taxes you must pay are to service the country for your good. The money (time) the government takes from you is to support you. I have no problem with that.

What happened last night troubled me a great deal. McCain attacked Obama with a claim that he want's to "spread the wealth". A very socialistic concept. When it was time for Obama to respond, he did a very surprising thing. he did not refute it, he agreed with it. He said the rich can afford it.

Never in american history have I seen a candidate publicly announce that redistribution of wealth was part of there platform. When you take money (someone's time) from one group of people, for the sole purpose of giving it to another, you make that group indentured servants. This goes against everything the constitution stands for. The most liberal Democrat of 30 years ago would have never wanted this. They would have wanted you to pay more taxes, so you can get more benefit from the government, not to take it away from you and give it to someone else. John F. Kennedy would have been disgusted by what's happening today.

I am not that concerned about Obama. What I am concerned about, is that no one cares that he said it. This country does not care that a segment of it is having there freedoms taken away. There seems to be a majority population that feels taking money from one group of people, solely for the betterment of another is OK.

This is this single biggest issue that our forefathers created the United States to combat, and no one cares to protect it anymore.

It's a very saddening reality.



Around the Network

good post. what you state is the core of the reason I support McCain.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

This reminds me of the South Park episode where all the music artists were complaining that there money was being taken from people downloading their music, and how they had to buy "nice" stuff rather than "really nice" stuff.

What would the founding fathers say if we allowed 50% of the country to suffer so that 1% of the country could keep a slightly higher percent of their income? Do you think that is government by the people for the people?

Really you don't have to redistribute wealth in the form of handing them a check, but more in that they are taken care of if shit hits the fan, specifically when they need healthcare and what little retirement they had has run out.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

The rich are almost always rich because they pick the pocket of their workers. No single man does 500 million dollars worth of work. I would contend that the most anyone can make individually is a few million at the absolute most (if they are a brilliant lawyer/doctor or author). Even in those cases they're not really doing it alone...

Where is the millionaire lawyer without the bailiff, the police, the judge, the county clerks, the paralegal, the law firm janitor ect ect ect.

Where is the millionaire doctor without the nurses, the receptionist, the resident med students (who do a lot of the crap work), the insurance adjustors ect ect.

Where is the CEO who pulls in 300 million dollars without the 50,000 workers underneath him? How much would he be making on his own?

When someone at the top of a company pulls in 300 million or more it is often because he is paying his workers really bad wages, especially in the middle and at the bottom of the corporate chain. Having worked in such an enviornment I can tell you at 3 out of 3 businesses I worked at (mid size 100-500 person businesses) the CEO and President were almost always among the first to go home, then the SR VPs left, then the middle mangers, the last people to leave in a lot of cases? Surprise! the people doing the actual work! That means the inventory analysts, the accountants, the design people ect. Yes, in part, they are working hard to advance to higher paying jobs further up the chain, but even still, it is certainly not the case that the CEO is the workhorse and all the rest are hangers on, often it is quite the contrary.

That is not to say CEOs should not be rewarded at all, but making 20 times more then the median worker seems enough. A million dollars seems like plenty to do just about anything, even after 35% taxes. What can't you do with 650k? That is enough for a 3 million dollar house mortgage, a boat, 2 luxury cars, sending 2 kids to college and a month trip to the french riviera staying in 5 star hotels. Is it really more important to give one guy who already has millions 500 million more then to give people scraping by at 30k a 10k raise? Should one man make 300 million or should 3,000 employees that make the company work make 10,000 dollars more?

Did you know what the republican hero, Reagan, set taxes to at the top millionaire bracket? about 50%. That's right Reagan agreed we should tax the super rich at a 13% HIGHER rate then they are being taxed right now. Even Mr. Trickle down wasn't that fiscally irresponsible.

I don't know what you're talking about with JFK or any post 80s politician. In the first 3 quarters of this century after world war two taxes on the richest were above 50%, often well above 50%, which is why we had so much shared prosperity for so long.

The very rich, multimilionaires, they tend not to spend money, not to drive the economy. They invest, sure, but usually overseas or on foreign goods. The middle class guy making 40k, give him a few thousand more, he will go buy a TV, a car, some food...all the things that make the economy run.

They have even done studies and found that under democrats, with more progressive tax policies, in fact ALL boats rise. Even the rich do better since the middle class has more money to buy the things the companies of the rich CEOs make. Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, in fact says quite plainly that the super rich should be taxed at a higher rate. Look it up, he says it without hesitation.

The idea that somehow the rich are victims is just ridiculous propaganda. Someone has to pay for the police, the roads, the schools and all the rest; the rich, with their huge salaries, are clearly getting a very large benefit from the public infrastructure and the public order, more so then the guy making a few thousand a month as a janitor for sure, and it is very fair they pay a bigger share since they are using a much bigger share of public goods.

My parents started out as teachers and worked their way up to the top income bracket, they realize they have been blessed and are not greedy sons of bitches who think they should have everything and be given even more, I respect that as I respect Warren Buffet and his creed of even the richest living to reasonable means (he drives a Lincoln Town car, 40k, and lives in a nice 4 bedroom house in Omaha, 500k current value....he is worth over 60 billion dollars)

Fat cat millionaires who think they need even more money at the expense of their workers to buy a 2nd yacht or what have you are about as rational as McCain, who is calling Obama a terrorist, crying about being called out as the dishonorable man he has become. Those crocodile tears about being reprimanded for being a douche by congressman Lewis were disgusting.




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

akuma587 said:
This reminds me of the South Park episode where all the music artists were complaining that there money was being taken from people downloading their music, and one of them could only buy a toilet made of silver rather than a toilet made of gold.

What would the founding fathers say if we allowed 50% of the country to suffer so that 1% of the country could keep a slightly higher percent of their income? Do you think that is government by the people for the people?

Really you don't have to redistribute wealth in the form of handing them a check, but more in that they are taken care of if shit hits the fan, specifically when they need healthcare and what little retirement they had has run out.

 

I do understand why you think it's ok you take away there rights. They are rich and it makes them an easy target. None the less, it's wrong.

The time when you need to stand behind what's right, is when it's hard to do so. Not when it's easy.

Also, I would understand if the poor are poor because of the rich, but that's not the case. The rich are not holding anyone down.

Oh, and the bailout that I was adamantly against was the opposite. Talking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy. Equally wrong. 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
This reminds me of the South Park episode where all the music artists were complaining that there money was being taken from people downloading their music, and one of them could only buy a toilet made of silver rather than a toilet made of gold.

What would the founding fathers say if we allowed 50% of the country to suffer so that 1% of the country could keep a slightly higher percent of their income? Do you think that is government by the people for the people?

Really you don't have to redistribute wealth in the form of handing them a check, but more in that they are taken care of if shit hits the fan, specifically when they need healthcare and what little retirement they had has run out.

 

I do understand why you think it's ok you take away there rights. They are rich and it makes them an easy target. None the less, it's wrong.

The time when you need to stand behind what's right, is when it's hard to do so. Not when it's easy.

Also, I would understand if the poor are poor because of the rich, but that's not the case. The rich are not holding anyone down.

Oh, and the bailout that I was adamantly against was the opposite. Talking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy. Equally wrong. 

So what is a more important right to protect?  That someone gets to keep a little bit more of their money, or that someone gets to keep their life?

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
This reminds me of the South Park episode where all the music artists were complaining that there money was being taken from people downloading their music, and one of them could only buy a toilet made of silver rather than a toilet made of gold.

What would the founding fathers say if we allowed 50% of the country to suffer so that 1% of the country could keep a slightly higher percent of their income? Do you think that is government by the people for the people?

Really you don't have to redistribute wealth in the form of handing them a check, but more in that they are taken care of if shit hits the fan, specifically when they need healthcare and what little retirement they had has run out.

 

I do understand why you think it's ok you take away there rights. They are rich and it makes them an easy target. None the less, it's wrong.

The time when you need to stand behind what's right, is when it's hard to do so. Not when it's easy.

Also, I would understand if the poor are poor because of the rich, but that's not the case. The rich are not holding anyone down.

Oh, and the bailout that I was adamantly against was the opposite. Talking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy. Equally wrong. 

So what is a more important right to protect?  That someone gets to keep a little bit more of their money, or that someone gets to keep their life?

 

 

Every dollar of mine you take, is time of my life you take away from me, as it took time to earn it. Why is my life worth less to you?



They are taking money from the middle class, that is why they're rich! If they are drawing millions in profit from their business by cutting salaries and having less workers work more hours to enrich themselves how is that not them doing what you accuse the government of doing? They shouldn't have equal wages, but asking a bit more then 35% of a guy making 5 million dollars or more a year doesn't seem at all excessive. If he wants to be taxed less he can give to charity or give his workers better wages or invest in expanding his business. All those actions are 100% tax free. The only thing taxed is money drawn out of the business for personal aggrandizement. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear that someone pulling millions of dollars out to spend on excessive aggrandizement (there is no way to spend millions that isn't more or less excessive aggrandizement).




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
This reminds me of the South Park episode where all the music artists were complaining that there money was being taken from people downloading their music, and one of them could only buy a toilet made of silver rather than a toilet made of gold.

What would the founding fathers say if we allowed 50% of the country to suffer so that 1% of the country could keep a slightly higher percent of their income? Do you think that is government by the people for the people?

Really you don't have to redistribute wealth in the form of handing them a check, but more in that they are taken care of if shit hits the fan, specifically when they need healthcare and what little retirement they had has run out.

 

I do understand why you think it's ok you take away there rights. They are rich and it makes them an easy target. None the less, it's wrong.

The time when you need to stand behind what's right, is when it's hard to do so. Not when it's easy.

Also, I would understand if the poor are poor because of the rich, but that's not the case. The rich are not holding anyone down.

Oh, and the bailout that I was adamantly against was the opposite. Talking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy. Equally wrong. 

So what is a more important right to protect?  That someone gets to keep a little bit more of their money, or that someone gets to keep their life?

 

 

Every dollar of mine you take, is time of my life you take away from me, as it took time to earn it. Why is my life worth less to you?

 

   Why are the lives of the thousands of workers that make up the pyramid that is the modern corporation worth less then 1/300th the life of the CEO at the top (the average American CEO now makes over 300 times the median workers wages)?  How much would a CEO be making with no workforce?




 PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me

wow mafoo didn't you say this
"it just means that the taxes you must pay are to service the country for your good."
Umm, yeah rich people pay more taxes and those taxes go to roads and schools and stuff.
Obama isn't going to redistribute money to people. But he has to agree with that because otherwise he would be saying he doesn't support welfare.
That taxes is going to other things that this country needs very badly, and he outlined what those purchases would be.
weren't you listening?

EDIT: what the rich people don't realize, and maybe you don't either, is that other people having money benefits you. It benefits you not being robbed at gunpoint, it benefits you by giving a proper education to people so they can do their jobs better, it benefits you by keeping kids off the streets. it benefits you by keeping stress levels low to avoid accidents through rushing. There are so many benefits that people either like you, or people that disagree with a tax increase for the rich, simply do not want to look into because you don't want to be wrong.