Many of you mention Democracy,, Like, do you want to lose it, we love it, whatever.
Here is what I think: Democracy is designed to collapse. Be careful what you wish for. If the majority can vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, the Treasury will go bankrupt. It is impossible to have a society where the majority of people contribute nothing and expect everything. Democracy creates unpopular minorities. Slavery was protected by the concept of democracy. Woodrow Wilson was grandfather of the progressive movement. He segregated federal workers. (Look it up, I am not much for linking. Didn't do it on the debate stage). Segregation. Turned the Nation backwards,. long after the Civil War. Oh, but now we have the 'new' Dem Party, it is all about Child Care, pre-K, free money...... You cannot promise the majority something for nothing , because once you do it, it will become popular, and the losers will want more, it will never be enough. At that magic moment, it will collapse.
@averagejoe1 saidEventually the government will run out of other people's money.
Many of you mention Democracy,, Like, do you want to lose it, we love it, whatever.
Here is what I think: Democracy is designed to collapse. Be careful what you wish for. If the majority can vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, the Treasury will go bankrupt. It is impossible to have a society where the majority of people contribute nothing and expect everything. ...[text shortened]... lar, and the losers will want more, it will never be enough. At that magic moment, it will collapse.
@averagejoe1 saidSo families that can't afford child care or pre-K so they can work are "losers".
Many of you mention Democracy,, Like, do you want to lose it, we love it, whatever.
Here is what I think: Democracy is designed to collapse. Be careful what you wish for. If the majority can vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, the Treasury will go bankrupt. It is impossible to have a society where the majority of people contribute nothing and expect everything. ...[text shortened]... lar, and the losers will want more, it will never be enough. At that magic moment, it will collapse.
Right wingers have been preaching against the People being able to rule themselves since they sat on the King's side in the French National Assembly. Nothing new here.
The Framers saw things differently; they established a representative democratic republic.
12 Oct 21
@quackquack saidThe People established the system that enables a relative few to control a significant majority of the nation's wealth. You think these aristocrats would be grateful.
Eventually the government will run out of other people's money.
12 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidThe richest people pay the overwhelming majority of taxes and then of course they are capped out based on their income from receiving benefits. You'd think liberals would be happy but all they think about is taking more and more and more for those who contribute the most.
The People established the system that enables a relative few to control a significant majority of the nation's wealth. You think these aristocrats would be grateful.
@quackquack saidNo they don't. The "richest people" get away with paying much lower taxes than the average American. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
The richest people pay the overwhelming majority of taxes and then of course they are capped out based on their income from receiving benefits. You'd think liberals would be happy but all they think about is taking more and more and more for those who contribute the most.
And corporate subsidies (and 10% own more than 80% of corporate stock) are far more than traditional social welfare programs. https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-vs-social-welfare/
@no1marauder saidThat is true, but both major political parties are to blame for it. Biden and Pelosi are part of that corruption.
The People established the system that enables a relative few to control a significant majority of the nation's wealth. You think these aristocrats would be grateful.
&t=19s
@no1marauder saidMarauder seems to feign the word loser. While he looks up feign, he can look up loser, though he already knows what AvJoe means.
So families that can't afford child care or pre-K so they can work are "losers".
Right wingers have been preaching against the People being able to rule themselves since they sat on the King's side in the French National Assembly. Nothing new here.
The Framers saw things differently; they established a representative democratic republic.
A better response? Tell us where this post is wrong. Dependence on government, until the those people number more than 50% of the population, will break the government.
Re your 'right wingers', quite curious, since the whole Constitution is the Bible of the right wingers. You link the Constitution all the time, but do you know that it was written FOR the citizens to rule themselves? No Kings? No tyranny? Geez 'O Petey.
Let me give an assist to the dictionary, Marauder. A person who can otherwise provide for himself, physically and mentally, but does not....chooses a different way, by being a parasite, is a loser. Start a thread on it if you'd like, but could you respond to the post?
@no1marauder saidThe richest 1% do literally pay 40%. Libs like to say, 'well, that depends', and go off on a tangent about how much their income is, blah blah, parse parse, but in the end, one will find that it is indeed true that the richest 1% pay 40%. Parse away.
No they don't. The "richest people" get away with paying much lower taxes than the average American. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
And corporate subsidies (and 10% own more than 80% of corporate stock) are far more than traditional social welfare programs. https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-vs-social-welfare/
Conservatives always ask libs, just how much more do you want the rich to pay? How much? What is the def of fair share? There is never an answer.
@averagejoe1 said"If the majority can vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, the Treasury will go bankrupt. It is impossible to have a society where the majority of people contribute nothing and expect everything."
Many of you mention Democracy,, Like, do you want to lose it, we love it, whatever.
Here is what I think: Democracy is designed to collapse. Be careful what you wish for. If the majority can vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, the Treasury will go bankrupt. It is impossible to have a society where the majority of people contribute nothing and expect everything. ...[text shortened]... lar, and the losers will want more, it will never be enough. At that magic moment, it will collapse.
The opposite is happening in the USA. That is how I know I don't live in a democracy. It is obvious I live in a plutocracy. The parasitic elites use propaganda to keep it that way.
12 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidIt does depend.
The richest 1% do literally pay 40%. Libs like to say, 'well, that depends', and go off on a tangent about how much their income is, blah blah, parse parse, but in the end, one will find that it is indeed true that the richest 1% pay 40%. Parse away.
Conservatives always ask libs, just how much more do you want the rich to pay? How much? What is the def of fair share? There is never an answer.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/amazon/2019/02/14/id/902824/
12 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidBut, are not the 'People' grateful to have jobs made available to them by those very aristocrats? If every person were a 'people', and there were no aristocrats, thus no jobs, what would your society look like?
The People established the system that enables a relative few to control a significant majority of the nation's wealth. You think these aristocrats would be grateful.
Rats, another question which will go unanswered!! sorry.
@metal-brain saidYes, but the article is about a corporation. My post is about people who (and they are prevailing) are taking advantage of every govt entitlement, and creating more. That, eventually, the scales will tip and there will be no entity to provide any more free stuff.
It does depend.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/amazon/2019/02/14/id/902824/
As you post this article, you may be thinking about that rich so-and-so Bezos..., but he is not a person who is demanding free
stuff. So, you article has no relevance to this post.
Don't get like them-there liberals, the old change-the-subject gambit!!
12 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidWhat if all wealth was divided equally and nobody wanted to work for one another?
But, are not the 'People' grateful to have jobs made available to them by those very aristocrats? If every person were a 'people', and there were no aristocrats, thus no jobs, what would your society look like?
Rats, another question which will go unanswered!! sorry.
Nobody would need money because everyone would already have it. Are you making the argument that wealth inequality is essential for an efficiently run society?
12 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 said"As you post this article, you may be thinking about that rich so-and-so Bezos..., but he is not a person who is demanding free
Yes, but the article is about a corporation. My post is about people who (and they are prevailing) are taking advantage of every govt entitlement, and creating more. That, eventually, the scales will tip and there will be no entity to provide any more free stuff.
As you post this article, you may be thinking about that rich so-and-so Bezos..., but he is not a person w ...[text shortened]... levance to this post.
Don't get like them-there liberals, the old change-the-subject gambit!!
stuff. So, you article has no relevance to this post."
Did you read the article? Not only did Amazon not pay any taxes for at least 2 years, he got a refund! He got free money out of it because of a tax loophole. I suppose he didn't demand it if he had no part in bribing congress to implement the loophole giving him corporate welfare, but the loophole got there for a reason. It benefits the wealthy.
My article is relevant. Try reading it.