Chad,
You defend the Union way then you are part of the union problem..Defend the unions action vs the member I presented.You can't and conveniently omit that union garbage..
You have the time to type out long protracted exhausted defenses of your belief.Talk about kicking a dead horse...
My points are concise and per the usual correct!
Trash,
Can't miss the point when you never have one! Pity Really!
Bledout,
Another lemming. Notice I never respond to you as you are Insignificant in any sense of value!
Enjoy the Holiday Ladies!!
Love Ya!
Richard Trumka
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
More BS. You have to wonder what these guys would do if they didn't have others to tell them how to think.
Coming from a construction background,I do support the union.My family also comes from a union upbringing.
The only part I don't agree with is paying the dues while layed off unless the benefits are still active ,which I'm unsure of.If they continue your benefits im good with it.
The only part I don't agree with is paying the dues while layed off unless the benefits are still active ,which I'm unsure of.If they continue your benefits im good with it.
Greed comes from insecurity?
Jealousy from insecurity is more likely. But not greed.
Income tax is by its nature a redistribution of wealth. Whenever anything - government or thieves - take money from one entity and give it to another, it is a redistribution.
Yes - there have been corporate bailouts and the things you list. However, you forget to mention the entitlement programs in the US - those are also redistribution programs - however 'fair' you think those are, they ARE a redistribution as well.
Jealousy from insecurity is more likely. But not greed.
Income tax is by its nature a redistribution of wealth. Whenever anything - government or thieves - take money from one entity and give it to another, it is a redistribution.
Yes - there have been corporate bailouts and the things you list. However, you forget to mention the entitlement programs in the US - those are also redistribution programs - however 'fair' you think those are, they ARE a redistribution as well.
It seems there are people who think redistribution of wealth is somehow a bad thing.
Nonsense.
A society in which it's everyone for themselves, share nothing, cannot exist. As a species, we cannot exist without sharing work and wealth.
You can argue forever as to how those things should be shared, but to argue against any redistribution at all makes no sense.
We are not solitary predators, although some on Wall Street seem to think so.
I love discussing things with people who end up so frustrated and just rip others - then pat themselves on the back.
There are things about unions that I do value, and things about them that I don't. Not all of them are the same, and to paintbrush them all as being the same is shortsighted (or blind) and wrong. But, you don't care about that - it's easier to label things and dismiss them if you don't agree with them for whatever reason. Not sure what you want me to say about the individual things you know about with people that I have no knowledge of. Sounds like it was a bad deal for the person as you describe it. Does that make you feel better? That's one person. Do you think unions have helped more than one person in this country? You want to address that issue? I think most objective people can at least see some value in what unions do for their members. Do their representatives act in the best interest of their members or the companies in all cases? No. In fact, some are quite wrong in what they try to accomplish. That's realistic, and I can admit that. Will you ever admit anything against your rants? Have yet to see it. Don't expect it, but don't expect all of us to worship your "conciseness" and self-measured "rightness" simply because you are your own fan club.
Sorry if this was too protracted and exhausting for you. I know how difficult reasoned responses containing more than simplistic thoughts and more than five words can be for some to endure...
Enjoy spending time in front of your mirror this holiday weekend... good times, eh? :SIB
Didn't u ever notice this is one of the biggest weapons the rightwing uses for weak minded people? U look at dogs thread yesterday about the blacks in the Donut joint. Now in dogs mind all blacks are doing this in every store in America. U look at the teachers crisis in Wisky? Fox shows a tape of a riot which had nothing to do with the unions in Wisky but it was to make it out that all unions have gangs and thugs if u go up against them. It goes on and on. Take a small percentage of one faction and make it out like the whole faction is bad or corrupt. Plant parenthood. All the good they do but the right shows the one thing they do that is controversial and they paint it like everything they do is wrong. You see Dogs showing this handful of protesters slamming our troops and Dogs wants us to believe every democrat is slamming the troops . It goes on and on and somebody who is about 3 sandwiches short of a picnic will falll for it every time. It fuels the greedy, the racist, and the bible pushers, and basically the people with no common sense like this clown who started this post.
Muff:
Not sure if you are addressing me but I never labeled redistribution as 'bad'.
Personally, i would prefer to choose my own method of redistribution through charity than forced redistribution through taxes.
Sponge: You think weak-minded right-wingers are the only group that paints others with a broad, generalized brush?
:mj07:
Not sure if you are addressing me but I never labeled redistribution as 'bad'.
Personally, i would prefer to choose my own method of redistribution through charity than forced redistribution through taxes.
Sponge: You think weak-minded right-wingers are the only group that paints others with a broad, generalized brush?
:mj07:
i don't see Trench or Muff posting videos like DTB does for the purpose of one tthing and one thing only. Are u telling me the likes of rightwing radio and Fox News doesn't do this at an alarming rate? Im trying to think of what the Dems do that is similar to this and i can't think of one. It is why rightwingers will stoop to any levels to win an election and for some reason the Dems have never learned this despicable routine and get beat most elections. Republicans do this to get that big nitwit vote in this country. Not all Republicans. Just the neocon type.
Sponge:
I am interested in why you believe that Democrats lose most elections?
Democrats controlled the House of Representatives (which I will use as it has the most members in Congress and also which are elected to a shorter term than Senators - so more elections) from 1954 - 1995 - 40+ years of Democratic control yet Dems lose most elections?
I am interested in why you believe that Democrats lose most elections?
Democrats controlled the House of Representatives (which I will use as it has the most members in Congress and also which are elected to a shorter term than Senators - so more elections) from 1954 - 1995 - 40+ years of Democratic control yet Dems lose most elections?
I guess you have a special and limited understanding of "redistribution" if you think it is equivalent to charity.
Tax money is redistributed when roads are built, schools operated, law enforcement paid, libraries built, Social Security checks written, the military funded, the FDA, CDC, USDA and all other public agencies paid for.
However you are free to redistribute some of your money voluntarily to uses you consider worthwhile. I choose to redistribute some of mine to the local soup kitchen, animal shelter, PBS, and the occasional panhandler on the street. I call that "charity".
Nope - no special understanding.
Giving my hard earned cash to charities or individuals of my choice would be construed as 'redistribution' - me distributing my wealth to others of MY choosing vs allowing a government official to choose where to allocate MY funds.
http://www.goodcitizen.org/wwla%20book/Chapters/1-Issues/Economic%20Issues%20-%20List%20of%20Taxes%20email.htm
interesting list. Take a look at how many of these 'taxes' we pay with after-tax dollars as well.
If you are happy with this arrangement, bully for you. Personally, I am not.
Giving my hard earned cash to charities or individuals of my choice would be construed as 'redistribution' - me distributing my wealth to others of MY choosing vs allowing a government official to choose where to allocate MY funds.
http://www.goodcitizen.org/wwla%20book/Chapters/1-Issues/Economic%20Issues%20-%20List%20of%20Taxes%20email.htm
interesting list. Take a look at how many of these 'taxes' we pay with after-tax dollars as well.
If you are happy with this arrangement, bully for you. Personally, I am not.
If the g'mint collects no taxes, it ceases to exist.
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.
Does the shoe fit?
Last edited:
I am not an anarchist. I stated that I am fine with paying a fair share of tax.
I am not fine with paying too much tax.
A certain level of government is necessary. The amount that we have NOW is onerous.
I am not fine with paying too much tax.
A certain level of government is necessary. The amount that we have NOW is onerous.
Okay. I'm interested in hearing from you what you think a "fair share" is. You see, I know some right-wing-teapartier types who also claim that taxes are too high, but when asked what they would cut out, they can't come up with any specifics which would make even a 2% difference in government spending.
Seriously, if you have any thoughts about making meaningful cuts in g'mint spending, I'd like to know what they are. The right-wing-teapartiers want to cut $5 million for NPR and another $5 million for Michelle Obama's staff, dust off their hands and pronounce the job done, having saved $.06 per citizen.
The FY 2011 Federal budget is $3.83 trillion, and the deficit is $1.3 trillion.
Where would you cut, say $1.3 trillion, just to balance the budget so your taxes can remain unchanged?
While you're at it, thinking income tax rates are too high, look at the historical top marginal tax rates and 'splain how we had so much prosperity increase in the 50s and 60s -
You can also, while you're at it, 'splain why massive tax cuts in the 1930s did not cure the Depression.
I'll understand if you choke up on that. The teapartiers do too.
Just so you don't feel too bad, remember that neither the President nor the Congress has come up with any answers either. So if your answer is "Duh", you're in good company.
Just to prove that I'm not a mean guy, I'll give you a hint. Sweden has a balanced budget and the 6th highest standard of living. The USA has a massive deficit and ranks 10th.
Last edited:
We had prosperity in the 50's and 60's because we were not a debtor nation. We still had capital flows of money coming into the US - much like China has now.
Massive tax cuts did not get us of of the Great Depression - neither did massive government spending on the New Deal - WWII got us out of the Great Depression. (Many do not know this but there was a depression in the 20's before the Great Depression. Amazingly, the government did not intervene and the economy righted itself on it own.)
I would cut the size of the federal government. Dept of Energy would be gone. Early retirement would be offered and those positions who took it would not be re-hired.
I would cut the military budget and start closing some of our bases in foreign lands.
I would have the US leave the UN.
I would seriously look at all the foreign funding we dish out and dramatically reduce or eliminate it all and start using that in the US.
I would look to cut entitlement spending as well as increase the cap on SS above $106k.
I would look to institute a flat tax - hereby eliminating or drastically reducing the IRS and adding a VAT tax on luxury items.
There's a start for you.
Massive tax cuts did not get us of of the Great Depression - neither did massive government spending on the New Deal - WWII got us out of the Great Depression. (Many do not know this but there was a depression in the 20's before the Great Depression. Amazingly, the government did not intervene and the economy righted itself on it own.)
I would cut the size of the federal government. Dept of Energy would be gone. Early retirement would be offered and those positions who took it would not be re-hired.
I would cut the military budget and start closing some of our bases in foreign lands.
I would have the US leave the UN.
I would seriously look at all the foreign funding we dish out and dramatically reduce or eliminate it all and start using that in the US.
I would look to cut entitlement spending as well as increase the cap on SS above $106k.
I would look to institute a flat tax - hereby eliminating or drastically reducing the IRS and adding a VAT tax on luxury items.
There's a start for you.
