Right Down to the REAL NITTY GRITTY

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

These are possibly the five best sentences you'll ever read:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I......

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government

from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
~Thomas Jefferson~

[Soonerjeepman]

unfortunately the ones that NEED to believe that don't...nor will they.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

unfortunately the ones that NEED to believe that don't...nor will they.That could be the 6th sentence.

[diverdog]

These are possibly the five best sentences you'll ever read:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I......

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government

from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
~Thomas Jefferson~


IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.

[okie52]

IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.

Oh God.....the revolution threat. Communist takeover can't be far behind.

[olevetonahill]

IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.

So tell me what you are trying to say here ?

[okie52]

So tell me what you are trying to say here ?

Give us your money or else!!!!

[olevetonahill]

Give us your money or else!!!!

Naw DD seems pretty level headed, thats why I asked politely
If it had of been one of those Screw loose Lefties I would have tore em a new one :watermelon:

[XingTheRubicon]

IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.

Heyzeus tap dancing christ, we have the richest poor people in the history of Earth. The only thing the "poor" in this country can or will ever revolt against, is if Hot Pockets gets taken off the food stamp list.

[okie52]

Naw DD seems pretty level headed, thats why I asked politely
If it had of been one of those Screw loose Lefties I would have tore em a new one :watermelon:

DD just says it more politely but that's still what he is saying:biggrin:

[cleller]

IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.


Naw DD seems pretty level headed, thats why I asked politely
If it had of been one of those Screw loose Lefties I would have tore em a new one :watermelon:

Kinda the same thoughts I had. Still, it is some the DNC-thing. "Give us what we want, or we'll take everyone down with us". Unfortunately the more we give, the more they want. I'm afraid we're almost over the tipping point.

That's what happens when you take responsibility away from people. They stop providing for themselves, and want someone else to do it for them. When it reaches 50% of your population laying back on their fat butts screaming "Give It"- things are screwed beyond repair.

The Chicago Public Schools -from Rahm and Barack's turf are a good example.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

So tell me what you are trying to say here ?
Wealth inequality leads down a road to political and social instability. Look at this map of GINI coefficients (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png), our contemporaries in the .45-.49 range aren't really what I would call stable. When you look at the oranges and reds, it gets even worse. Now I'm not calling for any sort of radical redistribution of wealth, or really much redistribution at all. But it would be a nice start to end corporate welfare and simplify the tax code to keep the uber-rich from finding loopholes wherever they can. Isn't that agreeable?

[okie52]

Wealth inequality leads down a road to political and social instability. Look at this map of GINI coefficients (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png), our contemporaries in the .45-.49 range aren't really what I would call stable. When you look at the oranges and reds, it gets even worse. Now I'm not calling for any sort of radical redistribution of wealth, or really much redistribution at all. But it would be a nice start to end corporate welfare and simplify the tax code to keep the uber-rich from finding loopholes wherever they can. Isn't that agreeable?

Corporate welfare like GM, Chrysler, AIG, Solyndra, Unions, etc...?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Corporate welfare like GM, Chrysler, AIG, Solyndra, Unions, etc...?
Yep

[Midtowner]

Corporate welfare like GM, Chrysler, AIG, Solyndra, Unions, etc...?

As well as Exxon, Chesapeake, General Electric, all defense contractors, etc.

Now, from time to time, as in the example of GM and Chrysler, a little corporate welfare, a managed bankruptcy or a government loan is in order. Subsidization to the point where a company actually is receiving money rather than paying taxes (as in GE's case), I can't abide that.

As to legislating the poor into prosperity, ultimately, yes, that can be done. If, for example, we were to spend billions on improving our schools in urban areas, following the KIPP model or something even bigger, six days per week, 8 AM to 7 PM. Can the schools raise these children out of poverty? Sure. If we allow the schools to have a bigger influence than on parents, absolutely. Yes, I'd get the money for this by raising taxes on the rich. Absolutely.

Is this fair to the wealthy? You bet it is. As we lower crime and increase our educated workforce, the wealthy are going to ultimately be the largest beneficiaries of such a program. As to 3-4, I've heard "a rising tide raises all boats" used with respect to tax cuts for the rich. Why does this not apply to anti-poverty programs for the poor?

As to 5, social spending doesn't have to = free money. The WPA or this would equate to HUGE social spending. All of that money would go to teachers, principles, coaches, school administrators, builders, school nurses, etc. In turn, we'd have lower crime, a better educated workforce, and over 20-30 years, we'd see a potential elimination or at least substantial reduction in generational poverty.

[okie52]

As well as Exxon, Chesapeake, General Electric, all defense contractors, etc.

Now, from time to time, as in the example of GM and Chrysler, a little corporate welfare, a managed bankruptcy or a government loan is in order. Subsidization to the point where a company actually is receiving money rather than paying taxes (as in GE's case), I can't abide that.

As to legislating the poor into prosperity, ultimately, yes, that can be done. If, for example, we were to spend billions on improving our schools in urban areas, following the KIPP model or something even bigger, six days per week, 8 AM to 7 PM. Can the schools raise these children out of poverty? Sure. If we allow the schools to have a bigger influence than on parents, absolutely. Yes, I'd get the money for this by raising taxes on the rich. Absolutely.

Is this fair to the wealthy? You bet it is. As we lower crime and increase our educated workforce, the wealthy are going to ultimately be the largest beneficiaries of such a program. As to 3-4, I've heard "a rising tide raises all boats" used with respect to tax cuts for the rich. Why does this not apply to anti-poverty programs for the poor?

As to 5, social spending doesn't have to = free money. The WPA or this would equate to HUGE social spending. All of that money would go to teachers, principles, coaches, school administrators, builders, school nurses, etc. In turn, we'd have lower crime, a better educated workforce, and over 20-30 years, we'd see a potential elimination or at least substantial reduction in generational poverty.

So tax deductions for business expenses is corporate welfare as in the case of Exxon and Chesapeake...the same deductions that are received by every manufacturer?


The prez’s oil-tax-break lies
By BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN
Last Updated: 12:41 AM, April 16, 2012
Posted: 10:57 PM, April 15, 2012

The next time you hear President Obama beating up on oil companies and crusading to wipe out what he calls the industry’s “tax breaks,” don’t be fooled: He’s telling a lie.
Recently at the White House, Obama unleashed some of his most aggressive rhetoric yet on the subject, telling Congress that it can “stand with big oil companies or . . . the American people.”
“I think it’s time [oil companies] got by without more help from taxpayers,” the president added.
Only days before that, Senate Democrats had introduced a measure to raise the tax burden on oil companies dramatically, while creating credits for so-called renewables. The legislation narrowly missed the 60 votes needed to advance. But it’s crystal clear that the Democratic Party, from the top down, is committed to turning anti-oil rhetoric into policy

But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.
A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.
But even these deductions aren’t unique to energy companies. Many provisions in the tax code seek to encourage certain kinds of behavior. Mortgage deductions reward home ownership. Special tax benefits promote savings in individual retirement accounts or 401(k)s.
Overall, the oil and natural-gas industries claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions. Yet that’s a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits the sector generates for the economy.
Over the last five years, through the thick of the recession, the oil and natural-gas industries have added 160,000 jobs. These firms now employ more than 9 million people. And 2011 saw higher domestic oil production for the third year in a row.

Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.
Initially, this vast government support was justified on the grounds that “clean tech” was an infant industry that needed help to start competing with traditional energy sources. But we’re now years into shelling out tens of billions in taxpayer dollars — in return for little in innovation or self-sustaining jobs.
Today, each solar-energy megawatt is produced with a stunning $776 in investment- and production-tax credits. For wind power, it’s $56 a megawatt. That’s a huge public expenditure for not much energy production. The tax incentives for fossil fuels amount to a mere 64 cents per megawatt.

Worse, despite the public largess, some clean-tech companies have such flawed business models that they’ve already gone under. Solyndra, the solar-panel manufacturer that went belly up last year, left US taxpayers on the hook for half a billion dollars in unpaid loans. Among other costly bankruptcies was Beacon Power, an electricity-grid utility company that folded in October.
Bottom line: Oil and natural gas companies aren’t subsidized — they’re merely benefiting from the same, reasonable cost-of-operation deductions afforded to all kinds of industries.
The real subsidies — and the real scandal — are to be found in “renewable” energy, which has taken in tens of billions in direct government payments over the last few years but has little to show for it.

Bernard L. Weinstein is associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business and a George W. Bush Institute fellow.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_prez_oil_tax_break_lies_Y2Yj6KCU9QIO0BKHs1Be7M #ixzz25nBhl7Y5

[FaninAma]

IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.

But how do you really get people out of poverty? You provide them with the opportrunity to get themselves out of poverty.

I don't think the GOP is against equal rights for education and employment opportunity. I think they differ on how it should be done. Suffice it to say that I do not think everything has to flow through the federal government to make it a legitimate endeavor. Also, when you subsidize a detrimental behavior with direct handouts/benefits you damn well better expect more of that behavior.

But the 800 lb gorilla in the room remains the fact that we are broke. We have tried the great social experiment of having the federal government play a central role in managing all the areas of out lives from education, to healthcare to retirement. And if you reallyconsider that most of the government involvement by the government took place after the 1940's and FDR it is stunning to note it took the politicians only 70 years to take this country to the precipice of bankruptcy. And I acknowledge some of the deficit is due to military spending and I am an advocate of controlling our spending in that area , too.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

IF you have a lot of poor people you will eventually have no rich people. See every revolution since the beginning of time where wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few. Eventually the poor rise up and take the wealth. To bad you guys can't figure this out.I took you off iggy again...sorry. The rich people are those in govt. absconding the wealth of the nation, and spending it to reward their contributors, and throwing money at green energy and other bottomless pits that are unaffordable, and have gone broke or are in the red financially, and would fail if not propped up.

[KantoSooner]

Wealth inequality in itself is not necessarily productive of social unrest. Rome, afterall, was extremely unequal and yet persisted for over 500 years.
What produces unrest is:
1. Unfairness. Heriditary aristocracy. Nepotism. Institutionalized racism or religious, or ethnic legal bias. Unfair regional taxation or trade preferences and the like.
2. Corruption.
3. Easily visible external examples of things being 'better' in a neighboring country with a different system.
4. Socio-economic rigidity. If you don't think you can ever better your lot, why play the game?

In our country, the hand wringing of many social critics notwithstanding, we have not reached anything close to a critical point on any of the above.

Could we improve? Certainly, we could. And I'd favor investing in better preparing ALL kids in this country through better public health programs (yes, NATIONAL health programs to provide a minimum level for all; and probably a catastrophic cost ceiling) and education. And I'd redo the tax system to make it simple, remove ALL write offs and thus remove the impression and reality of those with greater means 'gaming' the system.

But is our system fundamentally broken to the point where we risk the 'proles' coming into the streets? Not hardly. You'd have to pry the video game controllers and pizza slices out of their hands and get them to put down their beers and pipes long enough to stage an effective revolt. And we haven't seen that strong a leader for a long time.

[KABOOKIE]

So a bunch of anti gun democrats are going to start a revolution? Yeah, I'm real scared.

[BigTip]

So a bunch of anti gun democrats are going to start a revolution? Yeah, I'm real scared.

I think there is more of chance of the haves starting a revolt. They will tire of working and having the government take their stuff to give to someone else. What do you do when there are more takers/voters than there are giver/voters? The takers will just keep voting to take more. The giver/workers will have to revolt to survive.
The good news is that the workers will have enough ambition to beat the takers that won't get off the couch to go out and fight.

Perhaps there are others in the country that feel like I do that are causing record gun sales.

[Midtowner]

I think there is more of chance of the haves starting a revolt. They will tire of working and having the government take their stuff to give to someone else. What do you do when there are more takers/voters than there are giver/voters? The takers will just keep voting to take more. The giver/workers will have to revolt to survive.
The good news is that the workers will have enough ambition to beat the takers that won't get off the couch to go out and fight.

Perhaps there are others in the country that feel like I do that are causing record gun sales.

Hate to break it to you, but in the course of human history, the haves always lose these sorts of squabbles.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think there is more of chance of the haves starting a revolt. They will tire of working and having the government take their stuff to give to someone else. The good news is that the workers will have enough ambition to beat the takers that won't get off the couch to go out and fight.

Perhaps there are others in the country that feel like I do that are causing record gun sales.You are talking about what might happen if Obeary is reelected. If Romney wins, and does what he says he'll do, it will be the takers who revolt. in either case, we will have some difficulties ahead, and prolly pretty soon.

[soonercruiser]

There are lots of ways for a big crowd or the government to kill people without guns.
The gov has legalized the deaths of 55 million babies since RVW.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There are lots of ways for a big crowd or the government to kill people without guns.
The gov has legalized the deaths of 55 million babies since RVW.The big question is what the police and military will do.

[diverdog]

Naw DD seems pretty level headed, thats why I asked politely
If it had of been one of those Screw loose Lefties I would have tore em a new one :watermelon:

When I was at OU I had a Sociology teacher I had made the case that welfare was a way to buy peace with the poor. You have to remember that this was in the late 70's and the great marches and riots of the 60's were a thing of recent memory. So I suspect he was right.

The fact is that societies that have great inequalities between the halves and halve nots will eventually have social unrest. There has never been a time that this was not true. The best thing that our nation can do is make sure we have a robust and growing middle class and that the poor have a reasonable chance of gaining access to the middle class. Right now that is not happening. If we want to reduce the number of poor in this nation then we have start rebuilding and growing our middle class and the way we do that is we start valuing labor over speculation.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When I was at OU I had a Sociology teacher I had made the case that welfare was a way to buy peace with the poor. You have to remember that this was in the late 70's and the great marches and riots of the 60's were a thing of recent memory. So I suspect he was right.

The fact is that societies that have great inequalities between the halves and halve nots will eventually have social unrest. There has never been a time that this was not true. The best thing that our nation can do is make sure we have a robust and growing middle class and that the poor have a reasonable chance of gaining access to the middle class. Right now that is not happening. If we want to reduce the number of poor in this nation then we have start rebuilding and growing our middle class and the way we do that is we start valuing labor over speculation.You were doing oh, so well until that last sentence. Citizens need to feel unencumbered by government, to invest their money into endeavors that can potentially produce revenue and profit. That is the only motivation that will allow people the comfort and courage to make financial investments. If help is needed to make the investments be realized, then people get hired. It is not the business of government to tell us where we have to invest. It is not their right to do that.

[diverdog]

You were doing oh, so well until that last sentence. Citizens need to feel unencumbered by government, to invest their money into endeavors that can potentially produce revenue and profit. That is the only motivation that will allow people the comfort and courage to make financial investments. If help is needed to make the investments be realized, then people get hired. It is not the business of government to tell us where we have to invest. It is not their right to do that.

I am referring to market speculation and money made out of thin air and not through labor.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am referring to market speculation and money made out of thin air and not through labor.It is still not the govt.'s right to prohibit investment like that.

[KABOOKIE]

Hate to break it to you, but in the course of human history, the haves always lose these sorts of squabbles.

Only if the halves are a very small minority. You're dismissing the millions of the givers that will grow tired of the 'have nots' taking more and in effect becoming the 'haves' and as long as a few began to drive down the whole your precious little revolution is going to be a pitiful one. More like a revolt that is squashed in a matter of days.

[BigTip]

You are talking about what might happen if Obeary is reelected. If Romney wins, and does what he says he'll do, it will be the takers who revolt. in either case, we will have some difficulties ahead, and prolly pretty soon.

Yes, I was predicting what might happen if Obama is re-elected. What other recourse will there be to stop the end of the United States as an entity?

[BigTip]

I am referring to market speculation and money made out of thin air and not through labor.

I tend to agree with this. But it is more and more difficult to create hard goods here in the United States when the U.N. following administration wants to share our wealth with the world and create jobs in foreign countries. The EPA and other regulations make it unprofitable to do business here. This creates opportunities in other countries. This does NOT help the USA.

[Midtowner]

Only if the halves are a very small minority. You're dismissing the millions of the givers that will grow tired of the 'have nots' taking more and in effect becoming the 'haves' and as long as a few began to drive down the whole your precious little revolution is going to be a pitiful one. More like a revolt that is squashed in a matter of days.

Our wealth distribution is currently worse than it was in pre-revolutionary France.

Of course the middle is a lot higher, but the top 1% compared to everyone else is MUCH richer.

If all that happened was folks voted in their own self-interest, the "halves" (not sure what you think they're half of) would go down in flames. Right now, we're dealing with a huge amount of money being spent to make the have nots vote against their self-interest. That probably won't go on forever.

[BigTip]

Citizens need to feel unencumbered by government, to invest their money into endeavors that can potentially produce revenue and profit. That is the only motivation that will allow people the comfort and courage to make financial investments. If help is needed to make the investments be realized, then people get hired. It is not the business of government to tell us where we have to invest. It is not their right to do that.

Well said. Some economists say that the Great Depression finally ended when the government stopped introducing programs. Business was waiting for government to stop interfering with business. They were too nervous to invest. Investment creates economic activity that benefits everyone, regardless of class.

[BigTip]

Of course the middle is a lot higher, but the top 1% compared to everyone else is MUCH richer.


But the poor are much better off now too. Most "poor" eople aren't really starving and living in the street. Maybe a very small minority.
The definition of "poor people" now is much hirer.
"I can only afford basic cable TV"
"Oh, you are a poor person."

[KABOOKIE]

Our wealth distribution is currently worse than it was in pre-revolutionary France.

Of course the middle is a lot higher, but the top 1% compared to everyone else is MUCH richer.

If all that happened was folks voted in their own self-interest, the "halves" (not sure what you think they're half of) would go down in flames. Right now, we're dealing with a huge amount of money being spent to make the have nots vote against their self-interest. That probably won't go on forever.

Sorry, like the minions that follow the democratic party, your drivel has reached a new ****ing low and it's time for you guys to realize it. The French ****ing revolution? You may want to actually read and see how people lived in those days compared to now before you make another baseless comparison. Go ahead an revolt.

[Midtowner]

But the poor are much better off now too. Most "poor" eople aren't really starving and living in the street. Maybe a very small minority.
The definition of "poor people" now is much hirer.
"I can only afford basic cable TV"
"Oh, you are a poor person."

Hirer?

Are all of you 'pubs retards?

Halves? Hirer?

Jesus.

[KABOOKIE]

Well said. Some economists say that the Great Depression finally ended when the government stopped introducing programs. Business was waiting for government to stop interfering with business. They were too nervous to invest. Investment creates economic activity that benefits everyone, regardless of class.


This 100%.

The malcontents are just that. Poor? I don't think so. As long as the dems control the white house, and either congress or senat then business will not feel inclined to invest in America. Right now it's losing proposition. And even if you do, then your good intentions of investment will be ruined by some greedy scum sucking lawyer that convinces 12 other idiots that big industry is evil and their client despite their own stupid negligence was harmed and someone needs to pay.

[KABOOKIE]

Hirer?

Are all of you 'pubs retards?

Halves? Hirer?

Jesus.

Jesus are you dums this stupid you could spot 'eople' in your edit? Never fails. No facts resort to editorial comments and name calling. What's next? Probably call us racist.. Typical.

[BigTip]

Hirer?

Are all of you 'pubs retards?

Halves? Hirer?

Jesus.

Seriously?

I type "eople" too. Why no comment on that?

[BigTip]

I am sure everyone has noticed how the lefties over react and start name calling after having logic and reason used in discussions. They just don't know what to do.

[BigTip]

Jesus are you dums this stupid you could spot 'eople' in your edit? Never fails. No facts resort to editorial comments and name calling. What's next? Probably call us racist.. Typical.

Great minds think alike! I didn't see this before I posted my last two.

LOL

[Midtowner]

Seriously?

I type "eople" too. Why no comment on that?

"eople" would be a typo. "Hirer" vs. higher shows you're **** poor at writing your own language. No way that's a typo.

I figure if you can't write or spell your own language, You are a poorly educated troglodyte. You are not to be taken seriously.

[BigTip]

"eople" would be a typo. "Hirer" vs. higher shows you're **** poor at writing your own language. No way that's a typo.

I figure if you can't write or spell your own language, You are a poorly educated troglodyte. You are not to be taken seriously.

lol, amazing. Your tactic is called "deflection". It usually means the debater has run out of bullets.

I stopped taking you seriously after your first ad hominem attack.

[Midtowner]

lol, amazing. Your tactic is called "deflection". It usually means the debater has run out of bullets.

I stopped taking you seriously after your first ad hominem attack.

Not at all. I'm pointing out the fact that you aren't conversant in your own language and therefore are not to be taken seriously.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Only if the halves are a very small minority. You're dismissing the millions of the givers that will grow tired of the 'have nots' taking more and in effect becoming the 'haves' and as long as a few began to drive down the whole your precious little revolution is going to be a pitiful one. More like a revolt that is squashed in a matter of days.The USA, with it's capitalism, has produced more wealth for more people, and with the largest % of the population than any other system could have. Consequently, there's LOTS of haves, and they are repulsed at what the democrats have done to the country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I tend to agree with this. But it is more and more difficult to create hard goods here in the United States when the U.N. following administration wants to share our wealth with the world and create jobs in foreign countries. The EPA and other regulations make it unprofitable to do business here. This creates opportunities in other countries. This does NOT help the USA.Not to mention the unions and their monopoly in states where there are no right to work laws. The main thing our Lefties here won't address is that they want a controlling authority (government) over how people can invest and spend their monefy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If all that happened was folks voted in their own self-interest, the "halves" (not sure what you think they're half of) would go down in flames. Right now, we're dealing with a huge amount of money being spent to make the have nots vote against their self-interest. That probably won't go on forever.The haves voting in their own self interest vote for the constitution and govt. that is limited by the laws of the country. you think the have-nots voting for welfare, handouts of various kinds and out of control govt. spending is "their self interest" and the haves are trying to convince them not to do that. Well, yeah, of course. It is not fiscally responsible and will bankrupt the country. Also, it IS against the laws of the country. Where did you learn to believe in govt. controlled economy, and nannystate run amock?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sorry, like the minions that follow the democratic party, your drivel has reached a new ****ing low and it's time for you guys to realize it. The French ****ing revolution? You may want to actually read and see how people lived in those days compared to now before you make another baseless comparison. Go ahead an revolt.That guy(Midtowner)is a lawyer, too. One would like to respect the escrows for being academically astute. But, when they reduce themselves to being collectivists, as many of them do, it's one of the reasons the law profession has a spoiled and stinky reputation.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am sure everyone has noticed how the lefties over react and start name calling after having logic and reason used in discussions. They just don't know what to do.They first go for the stupid accusation. Crazy is next. They don't usually start out with the homophobe charge, except maybe when gays are in the conversation. When really frustrated or angered by someone calling them collectivists or socialists or the like, they squeeze in the race card. This, they expect, will shut you up, since nobody likes to be called racist. It's often used against someone condemning Obama when they point out His marxist behavior and associates.

[diverdog]

The haves voting in their own self interest vote for the constitution and govt. that is limited by the laws of the country. you think the have-nots voting for welfare, handouts of various kinds and out of control govt. spending is "their self interest" and the haves are trying to convince them not to do that. Well, yeah, of course. It is not fiscally responsible and will bankrupt the country. Also, it IS against the laws of the country. Where did you learn to believe in govt. controlled economy, and nannystate run amock?

The haves do not vote for the constitution. That is why they have lobbiest that get them taxpayer bailouts.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The haves do not vote for the constitution. That is why they have lobbiest that get them taxpayer bailouts.They do vote for the constitution. That's how(one of the ways)they are different from democrats. They vote to retain America as it was designed, with limited government, which allows people to keep most of their maney and invest and grow, while still providing taxes to keep the necessary functions of govt. going.

[diverdog]

It is still not the govt.'s right to prohibit investment like that.
No but labor should not be taxed more than speculation. In effect the laborer is subsidizing speculation.

[diverdog]

They do vote for the constitution. That's how(one of the ways)they are different from democrats. They vote to retain America as it was designed, with limited government, which allows people to keep most of their maney and invest and grow, while still providing taxes to keep the necessary functions of govt. going.

There are tons of hard working democrats who make a lot of money. To say this is not the case flies in the face of a lot of evidence.

There is really no proof that a smaller government is necessarily a better government.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There are tons of hard working democrats who make a lot of money. To say this is not the case flies in the face of a lot of evidence.

There is really no proof that a smaller government is necessarily a better government.Some folks make unbelievable amounts of money(W. Buffett, Stephen Spielberg, many hollyweird actors and entertainers), and they openly support the democrats, for 2 reasons, I believe. One is they make so much money their lifestyles won't be drastically affected if they have to give more, and two, by siding with the collectivists, they innoculate themselves from the kind of persecution that republicans get.

We get it that you're going to vote democrat again, and hope there are much fewer of you guys in this election.

[Midtowner]

Wealth inequality in itself is not necessarily productive of social unrest. Rome, afterall, was extremely unequal and yet persisted for over 500 years.

Would you like to have lived in ancient Rome?

[Skysooner]

Some folks make unbelievable amounts of money(W. Buffett, Stephen Spielberg, many hollyweird actors and entertainers), and they openly support the democrats, for 2 reasons, I believe. One is they make so much money their lifestyles won't be drastically affected if they have to give more, and two, by siding with the collectivists, they innoculate themselves from the kind of persecution that republicans get.

We get it that you're going to vote democrat again, and hope there are much fewer of you guys in this election.

I make quite a bit of money, and I would be affected if the rates went up. I also vote Democrat and sometimes Republican. What I don't agree with is your vision for America. I don't want a nanny state, but there has to be some protection. Do you think 2008 would have happened if ultimately it wasn't Wall Street and other banks that got greedy with mortgages? What I want for America is lower spending, lower entitlements, etc. I am willing to pay more taxes for a time if it went right to reduction and not a new program (unless said program would add to the tax base but that is very rare). I'm tired of both sides having their sacred cows (i.e. defense, no tax increases, etc.). I don't like hard-core left wingers any better than you do (see the environmentalists arguing about fracking about which they have no clue). America needs to be a place where most have equal opportunities to get ahead but not equal outcomes. To think otherwise would be stupid. Let's leverage the best parts of this country and try to get rid of the bad parts. One of the best parts is religion helping others. One of the bad parts is attempting to legislate the morality of a select few. One of the best parts was civil rights. One of the worst is to go and rally against fracking when it is one of the main reasons this country is going to come back into its own and have manufacturing jobs again.

There is so much more and calling people libs, neocons, socialists, racists, etc. adds nothing to the discussion. Now time to take my wife out for her birthday, or I'm going to be in trouble.

[LiveLaughLove]

There are tons of hard working democrats who make a lot of money. To say this is not the case flies in the face of a lot of evidence.

There is really no proof that a smaller government is necessarily a better government.

Outside of the fact, that the smaller the government the more free the individual, and the larger the government the less free. I guess if you are looking at it from strictly the government's side of things you are correct.

If you love your freedom, then it's not possible for you to be correct.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I make quite a bit of money, and I would be affected if the rates went up. I also vote Democrat and sometimes Republican. What I don't agree with is your vision for America. I don't want a nanny state, but there has to be some protection. Do you think 2008 would have happened if ultimately it wasn't Wall Street and other banks that got greedy with mortgages? What I want for America is lower spending, lower entitlements, etc. I am willing to pay more taxes for a time if it went right to reduction and not a new program (unless said program would add to the tax base but that is very rare). I'm tired of both sides having their sacred cows (i.e. defense, no tax increases, etc.). I don't like hard-core left wingers any better than you do (see the environmentalists arguing about fracking about which they have no clue). America needs to be a place where most have equal opportunities to get ahead but not equal outcomes. To think otherwise would be stupid. Let's leverage the best parts of this country and try to get rid of the bad parts. One of the best parts is religion helping others. One of the bad parts is attempting to legislate the morality of a select few. One of the best parts was civil rights. One of the worst is to go and rally against fracking when it is one of the main reasons this country is going to come back into its own and have manufacturing jobs again.

There is so much more and calling people libs, neocons, socialists, racists, etc. adds nothing to the discussion. Now time to take my wife out for her birthday, or I'm going to be in trouble.You seem like a nice, sincere person, but are a Leftist koolaid drinker of the hightst magnitude. The economic collapse was STARTED by the dems in govt. requiring that lending institutions make unsound(subprime) mortgages. The Wall street guys and others who passed those loans along were just getting rid of what they knew would fail. if you were in their shoes, you would have been wise to do the same, instead of being the fall guys. The whole subprime thing is democrat crap. If you vote for democrats to retain any part of govt., you are compounding our dire fiscal state.

Work on keeping the republicans feet to the lawful government fire, and vote out RINOS in the primaries.

[Skysooner]

You seem like a nice, sincere person, but are a Leftist koolaid drinker of the hightst magnitude. The economic collapse was STARTED by the dems in govt. requiring that lending institutions make unsound(subprime) mortgages. The Wall street guys and others who passed those loans along were just getting rid of what they knew would fail. if you were in their shoes, you would have been wise to do the same, instead of being the fall guys. The whole subprime thing is democrat crap. If you vote for democrats to retain any part of govt., you are compounding our dire fiscal state.

Work on keeping the republicans feet to the lawful government fire, and vote out RINOS in the primaries.

You also seem like a nice person, but there was much more to that subprime mess than that law you are talking about. Government can only mandate so much. These institutions took huge risks and many more should have gone under. Also I don't think you really get what I'm saying in my post which is far, far, far from a leftist. I hate to say this but you and your kind are dinosaurs. Republicans were never this totally right. You and I both know that if Rs hold all power they will overstep, and it will swing way back the other way and maybe for good. I would much prefer there to be compromise on most of this, but you and your oxycontin snorting clone are just going to make that impossible. Oh well.

That last shot was a jab at Rush and not you. I used to listen to him up until about 2004 when I just couldn't stomach it anymore. Always thought it kind of funny (in an ironic way) that he lost his hearing through drug overdose. That is tongue in cheek too. I have relatives that have been substance abusers. Generally they come out of it more compassionate. Instead he became even more of a blowhard.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...Government can only mandate so much. These institutions took huge risks and many more should have gone under. Also I don't think you really get what I'm saying in my post which is far, far, far from a leftist. I hate to say this but you and your kind are dinosaurs. Republicans were never this totally right. You and I both know that if Rs hold all power they will overstep, and it will swing way back the other way and maybe for good. I would much prefer there to be compromise on most of this, but you and your oxycontin snorting clone are just going to make that impossible. Oh well.

That last shot was a jab at Rush and not you. I used to listen to him up until about 2004 when I just couldn't stomach it anymore. Always thought it kind of funny (in an ironic way) that he lost his hearing through drug overdose. That is tongue in cheek too. I have relatives that have been substance abusers. Generally they come out of it more compassionate. Instead he became even more of a blowhard.If you listened to him, it doesn't show. you paid no attention to what I said about the dems that started the subprime mess. The dems REQUIRED lending institutions to make those bad loans, with sanctions put upon them by govt. if they didn't make then. Think about it. Why would ANYONE actually WANT to make braindead loans. The answer is they didn't want to, and never would, if not by force. IOW, you're another one of the hopeless democrat drones, it seems, and have no intention to wise up.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Another way for you to know you're off base is asking that the govt. be a compromise(of ideals, and adherance to our constitution)The repubs who believe that are known as RINOS for good reason, and they should be voted out in the primaries. The democrats who believe that are, unfortunately, true to their country-gouging MO. You can't vote them out in the primaries, since virtually democrat politicians belive in compromise with our laws. And those are the BEST of the democrats. Heck, if you can't see that, you are NOT paying attention.

[Skysooner]

If you listened to him, it doesn't show. you paid no attention to what I said about the dems that started the subprime mess. The dems REQUIRED lending institutions to make those bad loans, with sanctions put upon them by govt. if they didn't make then. Think about it. Why would ANYONE actually WANT to make braindead loans. The answer is they didn't want to, and never would, if not by force. IOW, you're another one of the hopeless democrat drones, it seems, and have no intention to wise up.

No. I saw and discounted it, because it way oversimplifies the problem. The government mandated loans yet. Still banks and mortgage loan institutions went way beyond this threshold. They went way beyond what was mandated or required and left themselves overexposed. This was also exacerbated by no incentives to save on most people, and their homes became their banks. No, it doesn't show as Rush is an idiot of the highest magnitude. He is a blowhard that panders to his audience to gain ratings and money. Most of these talking heads are like this. Unlike you I went beyond what he was telling me and did my own research. There are idiots on both sides of this government but simply blaming everyone the way he does is no help at all. Unfortunately drone only describes you as all you do is spout talking points while I try and discuss. Things are never as simple as you want or make them out to be.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No. I saw and discounted it, because it way oversimplifies the problem. The government mandated loans yet. Still banks and mortgage loan institutions went way beyond this threshold. They went way beyond what was mandated or required and left themselves overexposed. This was also exacerbated by no incentives to save on most people, and their homes became their banks. No, it doesn't show as Rush is an idiot of the highest magnitude. He is a blowhard that panders to his audience to gain ratings and money. Most of these talking heads are like this. Unlike you I went beyond what he was telling me and did my own research. There are idiots on both sides of this government but simply blaming everyone the way he does is no help at all. Unfortunately drone only describes you as all you do is spout talking points while I try and discuss. Things are never as simple as you want or make them out to be.Unfortunately for our beloved country, the simple truth is that present-day democrat politicians(and RINOS too, of course) STINK TO HIGH HEAVENS...Far too many of them are pushing down our wonderful country, and you either accept it or don't, I guess, and continue to vote for them to kneecap us.