Class Warfare

Joey Bridges wrote:

Actually the real question is, who living outside of our laws do you think needs to be casting a vote  ???   I swear, the stuff...

Actually the real question is, who living outside of our laws do you think needs to be casting a vote  ???

 

I swear, the stuff you post is so seriously "screwed" up.

You're a classic example of the spoonfed comment I made earlier in another thread.

 

early wrote:

The "US is a Republic not a Democracy" line is usually trotted out when you don't like the results of an election and was the basis...

The "US is a Republic not a Democracy" line is usually trotted out when you don't like the results of an election and was the basis of denying certain adult citizens the right to vote at the founding of the country as well as later Jim Crow laws. It's also the basis of the "Independent State Legislature" theory that was just overturned by the Supreme Court and was the basis of the "alternate electors" scheme.

You don't always have to read what I write if it upsets you, it's a free country.

Zycki11 wrote:

Hi Rachel

TDeath21 wrote:

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on… So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are...

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on…

So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are only paying 40% of the overall taxes? Damn sounds like they’ve got a sweet ass deal to me.

People misconstrue what “fair share” means. That’s the idea behind tax brackets. If I make 20K yearly and I got 40% (I’m rounding up for easy math from the highest tax bracket), that 8K I paid in taxes is gonna hurt me tremendously. If I made 20 million and they took 8 million, yes that’s gonna suck, but I’ll be fine really. Nothing really hurt. So the “fair share” is why tax brackets need to continually increase and we need many more of them. If you make 560K, you are considered a top 1%er. You’re doing amazing. But to be in the same tax bracket as Musk and Bezos is just silly.

Wrapping back around to my point, those top 1% of people do not need tax cuts at the expense of the lower class. Some here believe everyone should get tax cuts and we should reduce spending drastically. That’s fine! I don’t disagree. But when one single party since 1980 has done all they can to give huge tax breaks to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, in the guise that it will trickle down … They’ve tricked you. And you’ve fallen for it. That doesn’t trickle down. They horde their wealth and it grows exponentially, which is why we are on track for the top 1% to control 95% of the stock market in the very near future if we continue at this current pace.

I agree monopolies suck and they need to be regulated to ensure that doesn’t happen. Establishment Democrats and all Republicans are perfectly fine with them though. Citizens United, a ruling that called corporations people and could therefore buy our politicians, set us back several years. I would think that terrible SCOTUS decision is something we could all agree on.

Zycki11 wrote:

Again, I would recommend reading further into economics with corporations and the government. You are looking at a small percentage of what really goes on. The...

Again, I would recommend reading further into economics with corporations and the government. You are looking at a small percentage of what really goes on. The government is not the one in charge. The corporations are. I am not saying to read into these things as a derogatory jester. I am saying that these areas are what drives the entire economy, country, and world. If it were all about fairness they could easily stop everything and say it’s all wrong and dumb. We are starting over. After all, who is to stop them any longer? 

TDeath21 wrote:

Yes I know they are in charge and there’s tons of other factors too. That’s why I laugh at people who blame Biden for inflation or...

Yes I know they are in charge and there’s tons of other factors too. That’s why I laugh at people who blame Biden for inflation or blame Trump for the recession. Believe me, I know the economics of it all. I brought up the Citizens United decision to further reiterate that I know the corporations are in charge. They own our politicians now more than they have in 100 years. I’m not really sure what your point here is though. It seems to be a moot point with regards to my opinion on the top 1% not paying their fair share and it being dumb that one party fights like hell to always give them huge tax breaks.

TDeath21 wrote:

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on… So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are...

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on…

So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are only paying 40% of the overall taxes? Damn sounds like they’ve got a sweet ass deal to me.

People misconstrue what “fair share” means. That’s the idea behind tax brackets. If I make 20K yearly and I got 40% (I’m rounding up for easy math from the highest tax bracket), that 8K I paid in taxes is gonna hurt me tremendously. If I made 20 million and they took 8 million, yes that’s gonna suck, but I’ll be fine really. Nothing really hurt. So the “fair share” is why tax brackets need to continually increase and we need many more of them. If you make 560K, you are considered a top 1%er. You’re doing amazing. But to be in the same tax bracket as Musk and Bezos is just silly.

Wrapping back around to my point, those top 1% of people do not need tax cuts at the expense of the lower class. Some here believe everyone should get tax cuts and we should reduce spending drastically. That’s fine! I don’t disagree. But when one single party since 1980 has done all they can to give huge tax breaks to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, in the guise that it will trickle down … They’ve tricked you. And you’ve fallen for it. That doesn’t trickle down. They horde their wealth and it grows exponentially, which is why we are on track for the top 1% to control 95% of the stock market in the very near future if we continue at this current pace.

I agree monopolies suck and they need to be regulated to ensure that doesn’t happen. Establishment Democrats and all Republicans are perfectly fine with them though. Citizens United, a ruling that called corporations people and could therefore buy our politicians, set us back several years. I would think that terrible SCOTUS decision is something we could all agree on.

Titan1 wrote:

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise...

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise your taxes so we can cut taxes on the 1%"...then you'd have a point...but, most of the lower class, especially if they have children-thanks to the child tax CREDIT-don't actually pay taxes anyway and often get tax returns larger than what they paid throughout the year in taxes to begin with). 

I also get the feeling you don't understand (or aren't clearly articulating in your posts) the difference between wealth and income. You seem to be using those terms interchangeably....Wealth = net worth, not income.  (Or do you want us all-excuse me, the top 1%- to be taxed on net worth rather than income?)

 

TDeath21 wrote:

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point. One party...

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

One party cuts aid to underprivileged, lower class Americans, and then gives huge tax breaks to the top 1%. They have tricked you into thinking they’re a small government low spending party and they never have been. You’ve been fooled. You keep trying to play the semantics game about the money and it truly is baffling. You keep saying THEY'RE JUST KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY! Which yes is true, but again when that party loses billions in income from the tax breaks they give the 1%, then says well looks like we need to cut some programs that help children not starve, or help our elderly not have huge out of pocket medical expenses, in order to reduce spending because our deficit is running up. We are sorry about all that! Yes it is essentially the same thing. So you can quit arguing semantics anytime.

I know the difference between the two. They aren’t the same but they are correlated and one directly impacts the other. Notice how I said their huge tax breaks on their income directly lead to them increasing their wealth gap? Because nothing trickles down. They keep the wealth, tax free, and pass it to their children, tax free. There should be a small wealth tax yes. 5-10% on any asset over 1 million or so would bring in tons of money we could use to fund programs to help people in need. The billionaires wouldn’t even notice that 10% at all.

early wrote:

The "US is a Republic not a Democracy" line is usually trotted out when you don't like the results of an election and was the basis...

The "US is a Republic not a Democracy" line is usually trotted out when you don't like the results of an election and was the basis of denying certain adult citizens the right to vote at the founding of the country as well as later Jim Crow laws. It's also the basis of the "Independent State Legislature" theory that was just overturned by the Supreme Court and was the basis of the "alternate electors" scheme.

You don't always have to read what I write if it upsets you, it's a free country.

Zycki11 wrote:

Hi Rachel

early wrote:

Are you implying I'm a Trans woman? Why would I be I'm not a weirdo.

Zycki11 wrote:

Hi Rachel

early wrote:

Are you implying I'm a Trans woman? Why would I be I'm not a weirdo.

Zycki11 wrote:

No, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. 

TDeath21 wrote:

This country is a democracy. I know you’re gonna come back with, “Oh but it’s a constitutional republic!” Which is literally the equivalent of saying, “That’s...

This country is a democracy.

I know you’re gonna come back with, “Oh but it’s a constitutional republic!”

Which is literally the equivalent of saying, “That’s not a dirt bike. That’s a YZ250F”.

It’s just a more specific terminology. A type of democracy. If you would have said we don’t live in a direct democracy, you’d have been correct, although if an issue has enough support, we do directly vote on them like a direct democracy would.

Titan1 wrote:

Well, pointing out the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic would actually be more like saying..."that's not a dirt bike, its a Kawasaki Ninja...

Well, pointing out the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic would actually be more like saying..."that's not a dirt bike, its a Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R".  Sure a democracy and a constitutional republic are both democratic forms of government (both motorcycles) but different enough that believing a ZX-6R is a dirt bike is still, technically, wrong.

 

TDeath21 wrote:

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try...

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try to argue otherwise, because you’d be wrong. 

Titan1 wrote:

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise...

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise your taxes so we can cut taxes on the 1%"...then you'd have a point...but, most of the lower class, especially if they have children-thanks to the child tax CREDIT-don't actually pay taxes anyway and often get tax returns larger than what they paid throughout the year in taxes to begin with). 

I also get the feeling you don't understand (or aren't clearly articulating in your posts) the difference between wealth and income. You seem to be using those terms interchangeably....Wealth = net worth, not income.  (Or do you want us all-excuse me, the top 1%- to be taxed on net worth rather than income?)

 

TDeath21 wrote:

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point. One party...

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

One party cuts aid to underprivileged, lower class Americans, and then gives huge tax breaks to the top 1%. They have tricked you into thinking they’re a small government low spending party and they never have been. You’ve been fooled. You keep trying to play the semantics game about the money and it truly is baffling. You keep saying THEY'RE JUST KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY! Which yes is true, but again when that party loses billions in income from the tax breaks they give the 1%, then says well looks like we need to cut some programs that help children not starve, or help our elderly not have huge out of pocket medical expenses, in order to reduce spending because our deficit is running up. We are sorry about all that! Yes it is essentially the same thing. So you can quit arguing semantics anytime.

I know the difference between the two. They aren’t the same but they are correlated and one directly impacts the other. Notice how I said their huge tax breaks on their income directly lead to them increasing their wealth gap? Because nothing trickles down. They keep the wealth, tax free, and pass it to their children, tax free. There should be a small wealth tax yes. 5-10% on any asset over 1 million or so would bring in tons of money we could use to fund programs to help people in need. The billionaires wouldn’t even notice that 10% at all.

Spoonguy wrote:

You can give all the aid you want to the poor, and this country is more generous to poor people world wide than any nation in...

You can give all the aid you want to the poor, and this country is more generous to poor people world wide than any nation in history, and it will not make them not poor. That had to come from themselves. Likewise you can confiscate all the money from the 1%ers, and redistribute it, and it will make no difference either. An ugly truth is a lifetime of poverty is often due to poor life choices an individual makes for themselves. We all know people who have received plenty of breaks in life that still destroy themselves repeatedly.

Zycki11 wrote:

Again, I would recommend reading further into economics with corporations and the government. You are looking at a small percentage of what really goes on. The...

Again, I would recommend reading further into economics with corporations and the government. You are looking at a small percentage of what really goes on. The government is not the one in charge. The corporations are. I am not saying to read into these things as a derogatory jester. I am saying that these areas are what drives the entire economy, country, and world. If it were all about fairness they could easily stop everything and say it’s all wrong and dumb. We are starting over. After all, who is to stop them any longer? 

TDeath21 wrote:

Yes I know they are in charge and there’s tons of other factors too. That’s why I laugh at people who blame Biden for inflation or...

Yes I know they are in charge and there’s tons of other factors too. That’s why I laugh at people who blame Biden for inflation or blame Trump for the recession. Believe me, I know the economics of it all. I brought up the Citizens United decision to further reiterate that I know the corporations are in charge. They own our politicians now more than they have in 100 years. I’m not really sure what your point here is though. It seems to be a moot point with regards to my opinion on the top 1% not paying their fair share and it being dumb that one party fights like hell to always give them huge tax breaks.

Zycki11 wrote:

You still do not see it correctly and that is what you are missing.  If it was "one" party giving tax incentives only, then how would...

You still do not see it correctly and that is what you are missing.  If it was "one" party giving tax incentives only, then how would you explain say.... tech valley? The likes of Google, Microsoft, former Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc? I will tell you this, those EACH had contracts with our government and have been rewarded massive amounts of incentives and they are all "blue".  Just like a similar reason as to why particular "republicans" are called Rino's. There are two parties F and U and then us.    

TDeath21 wrote:

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on… So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are...

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on…

So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are only paying 40% of the overall taxes? Damn sounds like they’ve got a sweet ass deal to me.

People misconstrue what “fair share” means. That’s the idea behind tax brackets. If I make 20K yearly and I got 40% (I’m rounding up for easy math from the highest tax bracket), that 8K I paid in taxes is gonna hurt me tremendously. If I made 20 million and they took 8 million, yes that’s gonna suck, but I’ll be fine really. Nothing really hurt. So the “fair share” is why tax brackets need to continually increase and we need many more of them. If you make 560K, you are considered a top 1%er. You’re doing amazing. But to be in the same tax bracket as Musk and Bezos is just silly.

Wrapping back around to my point, those top 1% of people do not need tax cuts at the expense of the lower class. Some here believe everyone should get tax cuts and we should reduce spending drastically. That’s fine! I don’t disagree. But when one single party since 1980 has done all they can to give huge tax breaks to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, in the guise that it will trickle down … They’ve tricked you. And you’ve fallen for it. That doesn’t trickle down. They horde their wealth and it grows exponentially, which is why we are on track for the top 1% to control 95% of the stock market in the very near future if we continue at this current pace.

I agree monopolies suck and they need to be regulated to ensure that doesn’t happen. Establishment Democrats and all Republicans are perfectly fine with them though. Citizens United, a ruling that called corporations people and could therefore buy our politicians, set us back several years. I would think that terrible SCOTUS decision is something we could all agree on.

Titan1 wrote:

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise...

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise your taxes so we can cut taxes on the 1%"...then you'd have a point...but, most of the lower class, especially if they have children-thanks to the child tax CREDIT-don't actually pay taxes anyway and often get tax returns larger than what they paid throughout the year in taxes to begin with). 

I also get the feeling you don't understand (or aren't clearly articulating in your posts) the difference between wealth and income. You seem to be using those terms interchangeably....Wealth = net worth, not income.  (Or do you want us all-excuse me, the top 1%- to be taxed on net worth rather than income?)

 

TDeath21 wrote:

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point. One party...

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

One party cuts aid to underprivileged, lower class Americans, and then gives huge tax breaks to the top 1%. They have tricked you into thinking they’re a small government low spending party and they never have been. You’ve been fooled. You keep trying to play the semantics game about the money and it truly is baffling. You keep saying THEY'RE JUST KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY! Which yes is true, but again when that party loses billions in income from the tax breaks they give the 1%, then says well looks like we need to cut some programs that help children not starve, or help our elderly not have huge out of pocket medical expenses, in order to reduce spending because our deficit is running up. We are sorry about all that! Yes it is essentially the same thing. So you can quit arguing semantics anytime.

I know the difference between the two. They aren’t the same but they are correlated and one directly impacts the other. Notice how I said their huge tax breaks on their income directly lead to them increasing their wealth gap? Because nothing trickles down. They keep the wealth, tax free, and pass it to their children, tax free. There should be a small wealth tax yes. 5-10% on any asset over 1 million or so would bring in tons of money we could use to fund programs to help people in need. The billionaires wouldn’t even notice that 10% at all.

Spoonguy wrote:

Historically if you look at any government program to "help" the poor, it is actually a sponsorship of the poor, promoting people stay just at the...

Historically if you look at any government program to "help" the poor, it is actually a sponsorship of the poor, promoting people stay just at the poverty level to sustain the government benefits they are receiving. One can see the growth of poverty just by driving through any large city in this nation, it is burgeoning. Our government does not want an empowered, self sufficient majority of the population, people like that do not need big government, they do not need governed, they most generally will not go to a fruitless war as willingly. For a government to grow, be needed, to be "successful" it needs the type of people who need it and it's intrusion in every day life.

TDeath21 wrote:

Poverty grows as the top fraction of 1% expand their wealth to rates not seen since the Gilded Age, aided by their massive tax cuts in...

Poverty grows as the top fraction of 1% expand their wealth to rates not seen since the Gilded Age, aided by their massive tax cuts in the guise that it will trickle down. Poverty programs are cut in the mirage that they’re all fraudulent users aka “welfare queens”. Middle class shrinks at an alarming rate. Who knew this would be the result of such policies!?

Titan1 wrote:

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise...

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise your taxes so we can cut taxes on the 1%"...then you'd have a point...but, most of the lower class, especially if they have children-thanks to the child tax CREDIT-don't actually pay taxes anyway and often get tax returns larger than what they paid throughout the year in taxes to begin with). 

I also get the feeling you don't understand (or aren't clearly articulating in your posts) the difference between wealth and income. You seem to be using those terms interchangeably....Wealth = net worth, not income.  (Or do you want us all-excuse me, the top 1%- to be taxed on net worth rather than income?)

 

TDeath21 wrote:

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point. One party...

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

One party cuts aid to underprivileged, lower class Americans, and then gives huge tax breaks to the top 1%. They have tricked you into thinking they’re a small government low spending party and they never have been. You’ve been fooled. You keep trying to play the semantics game about the money and it truly is baffling. You keep saying THEY'RE JUST KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY! Which yes is true, but again when that party loses billions in income from the tax breaks they give the 1%, then says well looks like we need to cut some programs that help children not starve, or help our elderly not have huge out of pocket medical expenses, in order to reduce spending because our deficit is running up. We are sorry about all that! Yes it is essentially the same thing. So you can quit arguing semantics anytime.

I know the difference between the two. They aren’t the same but they are correlated and one directly impacts the other. Notice how I said their huge tax breaks on their income directly lead to them increasing their wealth gap? Because nothing trickles down. They keep the wealth, tax free, and pass it to their children, tax free. There should be a small wealth tax yes. 5-10% on any asset over 1 million or so would bring in tons of money we could use to fund programs to help people in need. The billionaires wouldn’t even notice that 10% at all.

Titan1 wrote:

Its not semantics... 2+2=4 2x2=4 Same outcome...but entirely different! Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to...

Its not semantics...

2+2=4

2x2=4

Same outcome...but entirely different!

Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to get an entirely different outcome. That makes my point completely...though tax cuts (keeping money you earn), and student loan forgiveness-for example-(taking from one American to give to another) might equal the same thing on a government balance sheet some place, when applied to the "equation of government" they are, fundamentally, as different as addition and multiplication, and therefore, not semantics.

TDeath21 wrote:

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point. One party...

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

One party cuts aid to underprivileged, lower class Americans, and then gives huge tax breaks to the top 1%. They have tricked you into thinking they’re a small government low spending party and they never have been. You’ve been fooled. You keep trying to play the semantics game about the money and it truly is baffling. You keep saying THEY'RE JUST KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY! Which yes is true, but again when that party loses billions in income from the tax breaks they give the 1%, then says well looks like we need to cut some programs that help children not starve, or help our elderly not have huge out of pocket medical expenses, in order to reduce spending because our deficit is running up. We are sorry about all that! Yes it is essentially the same thing. So you can quit arguing semantics anytime.

I know the difference between the two. They aren’t the same but they are correlated and one directly impacts the other. Notice how I said their huge tax breaks on their income directly lead to them increasing their wealth gap? Because nothing trickles down. They keep the wealth, tax free, and pass it to their children, tax free. There should be a small wealth tax yes. 5-10% on any asset over 1 million or so would bring in tons of money we could use to fund programs to help people in need. The billionaires wouldn’t even notice that 10% at all.

Titan1 wrote:

Its not semantics... 2+2=4 2x2=4 Same outcome...but entirely different! Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to...

Its not semantics...

2+2=4

2x2=4

Same outcome...but entirely different!

Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to get an entirely different outcome. That makes my point completely...though tax cuts (keeping money you earn), and student loan forgiveness-for example-(taking from one American to give to another) might equal the same thing on a government balance sheet some place, when applied to the "equation of government" they are, fundamentally, as different as addition and multiplication, and therefore, not semantics.

TDeath21 wrote:

🤦‍♂️

Titan1 wrote:

Its not semantics... 2+2=4 2x2=4 Same outcome...but entirely different! Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to...

Its not semantics...

2+2=4

2x2=4

Same outcome...but entirely different!

Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to get an entirely different outcome. That makes my point completely...though tax cuts (keeping money you earn), and student loan forgiveness-for example-(taking from one American to give to another) might equal the same thing on a government balance sheet some place, when applied to the "equation of government" they are, fundamentally, as different as addition and multiplication, and therefore, not semantics.

TDeath21 wrote:

🤦‍♂️

Titan1 wrote:

That's pretty much the response I expected... 

early wrote:

Are you implying I'm a Trans woman? Why would I be I'm not a weirdo.

Zycki11 wrote:

No, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. 

early wrote:

Oh you meant Rachel Maddow, now I get it.

What did I say that's wrong?

Zycki11 wrote:

So let me get this straight, the 1% who pay the majority of the US taxes and employ millions of people and provide jobs, 401k, benefits...

So let me get this straight, the 1% who pay the majority of the US taxes and employ millions of people and provide jobs, 401k, benefits, etc are at fault for? 
 

I always get interested when someone takes the view pint you just typed. If I’m fact what you say is “true” then why is the government allowing corporations to become monopolies again? Start looking into corporations and what they own. Then after you do that, learn how economics and government function. Ask yourself why they want wage increases, and how our economy can handle the pressure. Along with the lovely special checks written for everyone during mandates and why they wrote said checks. 
 

TDeath21 wrote:

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on… So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are...

Telling me to learn about government function and economics. Laughable. Anyway, moving on…

So the people who have over 80% of the wealth (and counting) are only paying 40% of the overall taxes? Damn sounds like they’ve got a sweet ass deal to me.

People misconstrue what “fair share” means. That’s the idea behind tax brackets. If I make 20K yearly and I got 40% (I’m rounding up for easy math from the highest tax bracket), that 8K I paid in taxes is gonna hurt me tremendously. If I made 20 million and they took 8 million, yes that’s gonna suck, but I’ll be fine really. Nothing really hurt. So the “fair share” is why tax brackets need to continually increase and we need many more of them. If you make 560K, you are considered a top 1%er. You’re doing amazing. But to be in the same tax bracket as Musk and Bezos is just silly.

Wrapping back around to my point, those top 1% of people do not need tax cuts at the expense of the lower class. Some here believe everyone should get tax cuts and we should reduce spending drastically. That’s fine! I don’t disagree. But when one single party since 1980 has done all they can to give huge tax breaks to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, in the guise that it will trickle down … They’ve tricked you. And you’ve fallen for it. That doesn’t trickle down. They horde their wealth and it grows exponentially, which is why we are on track for the top 1% to control 95% of the stock market in the very near future if we continue at this current pace.

I agree monopolies suck and they need to be regulated to ensure that doesn’t happen. Establishment Democrats and all Republicans are perfectly fine with them though. Citizens United, a ruling that called corporations people and could therefore buy our politicians, set us back several years. I would think that terrible SCOTUS decision is something we could all agree on.

Titan1 wrote:

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise...

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise your taxes so we can cut taxes on the 1%"...then you'd have a point...but, most of the lower class, especially if they have children-thanks to the child tax CREDIT-don't actually pay taxes anyway and often get tax returns larger than what they paid throughout the year in taxes to begin with). 

I also get the feeling you don't understand (or aren't clearly articulating in your posts) the difference between wealth and income. You seem to be using those terms interchangeably....Wealth = net worth, not income.  (Or do you want us all-excuse me, the top 1%- to be taxed on net worth rather than income?)

 

Titan1 wrote:

Well, pointing out the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic would actually be more like saying..."that's not a dirt bike, its a Kawasaki Ninja...

Well, pointing out the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic would actually be more like saying..."that's not a dirt bike, its a Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R".  Sure a democracy and a constitutional republic are both democratic forms of government (both motorcycles) but different enough that believing a ZX-6R is a dirt bike is still, technically, wrong.

 

TDeath21 wrote:

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try...

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try to argue otherwise, because you’d be wrong. 

Titan1 wrote:

🤦‍♂️ "By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government...

🤦‍♂️

"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority."

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/John%20C%20Aldieri.pdf

A republic and a democracy are both democratic forms of government, but aren't the same thing.

 

(Edited to add source)

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

TDeath21 wrote:

Yes I know they are in charge and there’s tons of other factors too. That’s why I laugh at people who blame Biden for inflation or...

Yes I know they are in charge and there’s tons of other factors too. That’s why I laugh at people who blame Biden for inflation or blame Trump for the recession. Believe me, I know the economics of it all. I brought up the Citizens United decision to further reiterate that I know the corporations are in charge. They own our politicians now more than they have in 100 years. I’m not really sure what your point here is though. It seems to be a moot point with regards to my opinion on the top 1% not paying their fair share and it being dumb that one party fights like hell to always give them huge tax breaks.

Zycki11 wrote:

You still do not see it correctly and that is what you are missing.  If it was "one" party giving tax incentives only, then how would...

You still do not see it correctly and that is what you are missing.  If it was "one" party giving tax incentives only, then how would you explain say.... tech valley? The likes of Google, Microsoft, former Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc? I will tell you this, those EACH had contracts with our government and have been rewarded massive amounts of incentives and they are all "blue".  Just like a similar reason as to why particular "republicans" are called Rino's. There are two parties F and U and then us.    

TDeath21 wrote:

Yes for sure they give incentives to create high paying jobs here. That’s what the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act were all about. Otherwise, in...

Yes for sure they give incentives to create high paying jobs here. That’s what the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act were all about. Otherwise, in a true capitalistic society with no regulations, they’d create jobs in third world countries to maximize profits. Again this is straying from my original point. That doing everything you can to give the top 1% the most tax breaks possible does not work and we have seen the trends that have occurred, starting in the early 1980s. They are not good.

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

Zycki11 wrote:

I am saying this as politely as I possibly can. You can not be serious right? Those bills while labeled “infrastructure” are a joke. If you...

I am saying this as politely as I possibly can. You can not be serious right? Those bills while labeled “infrastructure” are a joke. If you start doing some math on what is being spent, where at, and why you will see we got a big ole butt plugging compared to the rest of the world and our tax payer dollars. 
 

I am going to keep saying this because you are only seeing what you want to see. Read more books and stay off of the internet and tv. I promise you, when you really start to learn how the economy is driven, the markets, labor, government incentives/ties you will start to see a much larger picture that really shows you just how dumb everyday people are when it comes to the people “we vote in”.  I am not talking about Alex Jones BS or some dumb talk show host with conspiracy theories.

I am referring to the money spent, where it is actually going, where your everyday hard income is “sitting” and how it is used against you.  

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

ToolMaker wrote:

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse)...

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse) choices than you would. Very different outcome.

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

ToolMaker wrote:

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse)...

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse) choices than you would. Very different outcome.

TDeath21 wrote:

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we...

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we live in a democracy.

TDeath21 wrote:

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try...

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try to argue otherwise, because you’d be wrong. 

Titan1 wrote:

🤦‍♂️ "By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government...

🤦‍♂️

"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority."

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/John%20C%20Aldieri.pdf

A republic and a democracy are both democratic forms of government, but aren't the same thing.

 

(Edited to add source)

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

TDeath21 wrote:

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try...

Already covered that. You’re thinking of a direct democracy. A constitutional republic is a democracy. This is plain as day and there’s no need to try to argue otherwise, because you’d be wrong. 

Titan1 wrote:

🤦‍♂️ "By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government...

🤦‍♂️

"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority."

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/John%20C%20Aldieri.pdf

A republic and a democracy are both democratic forms of government, but aren't the same thing.

 

(Edited to add source)

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

TDeath21 wrote:

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm. Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are...

Oh shit we have an edit! It was originally just the face palm.

Yes a representative form of government. How are those representatives appointed? They are elected by the people, which makes it a democracy. What is a democracy? A form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

So again, a constitutional republic is a democracy. A subset of representative democracy. Just a far more specific terminology of a democracy. Like I said several posts back, we do live in a democracy. Just not a direct democracy, again, like I already stated.

Jesus Christ it’s insane this needed to be explained, but I hope this helps you sound a little smarter to people you interact with in real life, if this is in fact something you’ve been telling people. This is my last post on the subject. 

ToolMaker wrote:

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse)...

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse) choices than you would. Very different outcome.

TDeath21 wrote:

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we...

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we live in a democracy.

Titan1 wrote:

You keep overlooking one major difference...in a democracy the majority always rules and can trample the rights of the minority...but in a republic (in the case...

You keep overlooking one major difference...in a democracy the majority always rules and can trample the rights of the minority...but in a republic (in the case of the USA, a constitutional republic) the constitution prevents the will of the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.

Again, both are democratic forms of government, but their differences are worth pointing out and distinguishing...and to say one is the same as the other is incorrect....just like a YZ450F and a Kawasaki Ninja are both motorcycles, but are different enough that its worth pointing out and distinguishing their differences...and to say they are the same thing is also incorrect. 

Titan1 wrote:

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise...

Tax cuts-for anyone-aren't at the expense of the lower class.  Not how it works (unless the government said, "hey lower class people...we are going to raise your taxes so we can cut taxes on the 1%"...then you'd have a point...but, most of the lower class, especially if they have children-thanks to the child tax CREDIT-don't actually pay taxes anyway and often get tax returns larger than what they paid throughout the year in taxes to begin with). 

I also get the feeling you don't understand (or aren't clearly articulating in your posts) the difference between wealth and income. You seem to be using those terms interchangeably....Wealth = net worth, not income.  (Or do you want us all-excuse me, the top 1%- to be taxed on net worth rather than income?)

 

TDeath21 wrote:

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point. One party...

I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sticks inside your brain. But it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

One party cuts aid to underprivileged, lower class Americans, and then gives huge tax breaks to the top 1%. They have tricked you into thinking they’re a small government low spending party and they never have been. You’ve been fooled. You keep trying to play the semantics game about the money and it truly is baffling. You keep saying THEY'RE JUST KEEPING THEIR OWN MONEY! Which yes is true, but again when that party loses billions in income from the tax breaks they give the 1%, then says well looks like we need to cut some programs that help children not starve, or help our elderly not have huge out of pocket medical expenses, in order to reduce spending because our deficit is running up. We are sorry about all that! Yes it is essentially the same thing. So you can quit arguing semantics anytime.

I know the difference between the two. They aren’t the same but they are correlated and one directly impacts the other. Notice how I said their huge tax breaks on their income directly lead to them increasing their wealth gap? Because nothing trickles down. They keep the wealth, tax free, and pass it to their children, tax free. There should be a small wealth tax yes. 5-10% on any asset over 1 million or so would bring in tons of money we could use to fund programs to help people in need. The billionaires wouldn’t even notice that 10% at all.

Titan1 wrote:

Its not semantics... 2+2=4 2x2=4 Same outcome...but entirely different! Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to...

Its not semantics...

2+2=4

2x2=4

Same outcome...but entirely different!

Put those same two problems in an equation and apply the order of operations...you are going to get an entirely different outcome. That makes my point completely...though tax cuts (keeping money you earn), and student loan forgiveness-for example-(taking from one American to give to another) might equal the same thing on a government balance sheet some place, when applied to the "equation of government" they are, fundamentally, as different as addition and multiplication, and therefore, not semantics.

ToolMaker wrote:

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse)...

The difference is, one, you make a direct vote, the other, you vote for a representative, to either forward your wishes or make better (or worse) choices than you would. Very different outcome.

TDeath21 wrote:

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we...

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we live in a democracy.

ToolMaker wrote:

Maybe people should not use words that actually mean things if that's "not" what they mean?

Zycki11 wrote:

You still do not see it correctly and that is what you are missing.  If it was "one" party giving tax incentives only, then how would...

You still do not see it correctly and that is what you are missing.  If it was "one" party giving tax incentives only, then how would you explain say.... tech valley? The likes of Google, Microsoft, former Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc? I will tell you this, those EACH had contracts with our government and have been rewarded massive amounts of incentives and they are all "blue".  Just like a similar reason as to why particular "republicans" are called Rino's. There are two parties F and U and then us.    

TDeath21 wrote:

Yes for sure they give incentives to create high paying jobs here. That’s what the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act were all about. Otherwise, in...

Yes for sure they give incentives to create high paying jobs here. That’s what the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act were all about. Otherwise, in a true capitalistic society with no regulations, they’d create jobs in third world countries to maximize profits. Again this is straying from my original point. That doing everything you can to give the top 1% the most tax breaks possible does not work and we have seen the trends that have occurred, starting in the early 1980s. They are not good.

Zycki11 wrote:

I am saying this as politely as I possibly can. You can not be serious right? Those bills while labeled “infrastructure” are a joke. If you...

I am saying this as politely as I possibly can. You can not be serious right? Those bills while labeled “infrastructure” are a joke. If you start doing some math on what is being spent, where at, and why you will see we got a big ole butt plugging compared to the rest of the world and our tax payer dollars. 
 

I am going to keep saying this because you are only seeing what you want to see. Read more books and stay off of the internet and tv. I promise you, when you really start to learn how the economy is driven, the markets, labor, government incentives/ties you will start to see a much larger picture that really shows you just how dumb everyday people are when it comes to the people “we vote in”.  I am not talking about Alex Jones BS or some dumb talk show host with conspiracy theories.

I am referring to the money spent, where it is actually going, where your everyday hard income is “sitting” and how it is used against you.  

TDeath21 wrote:

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we...

No. Once again, like Titan, you have your mind dead set on a 100% direct democracy. Which is not what people mean when they say we live in a democracy.

ToolMaker wrote:

Maybe people should not use words that actually mean things if that's "not" what they mean?

TDeath21 wrote:

You really think people saying we live in a democracy think we directly vote on every single issue? We do live in a democracy. Democracy, more...

You really think people saying we live in a democracy think we directly vote on every single issue? We do live in a democracy.

Democracy, more specifically, representative democracy, more specifically, constitutional republic.