The face of the Democratic Party

The rich may pay the bulk of taxes, but they take almost all the money. This country is quickly turning into two classes, those with and those without.

Or as stated in the first post of this thread, two classes, those that do and those that don't.

You have to try in order to succeed. You have to make good choices in order to succeed.

Did you ever read Aesop's fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper?

rotor, you know that there are plenty of people in the USA who work really hard and make poverty wages - the group of the working poor is rapidly growing. Making a statement such as "those that do and those that don't" is inaccurate, at best. This is true without my making any sort of a political statement about it.

rotor, you know that there are plenty of people in the USA who work really hard and make poverty wages - the group of the working poor is rapidly growing. Making a statement such as "those that do and those that don't" is inaccurate, at best. This is true without my making any sort of a political statement about it.

I once had a boss who told me something that I will always remember. "Your goal should not be to work hard, your goal should be to work smart."

Yes. Someone can work very hard at an unskilled job and not make much money. But if you stay at that job and don't try to acquire additional marketable skills whose fault is that. If you went to school but didn't bother to learn how to read, write or arithmetic very well and this has limited your job opportunities, whose fault is that? If you had children at a very young age and this interfered with your schooling, whose fault is that?

I bet there are many people who work hard and make poverty wages and go home after work have a drink and watch TV. Why would they expect things to change? Compare that to those who work hard, make poverty wages, go home study and go to night school. I bet the two have very different outcomes. You say that the group of the working poor is growing, I say that the group of "it's someone else's fault that I'm not successful" is growing. I blame this mostly on democrats.

Not everyone can afford night school - the costs of education are increasing while real wages are decreasing. This is again a fact, not a political statement. Some people are the single parents of small children and cannot afford child care to attend classes. These are just two examples but there are many other factors. The world isn't so black and white, is all I'm saying - maybe it is to you because you were lucky enough to be born into the group that has it easiest to succeed. Just because you were able to find or make opportunities in your own life doesn't mean other people are able to do the same. Yes there are those who are lazy or game the system but there is another large group working hard and unable to go any farther. Show some compassion, empathy, and thoughtfulness in this, for someone as rational as yourself you sure don't seem to consider that there are as many situations as there are people.

And yes, it is a fact that number of the working poor is growing. This isn't an opinion of mine. I don't blame Democrats, I blame those who think it is perfectly fine to accumulate vast sums of wealth while squeezing every last penny of effort out of those that work for them, forcing many of them that do work for them onto public assistance, which you and I pay for, and should not. It's shameful behavior, Democrat, Republican, or any other party.

Not everyone can afford night school - the costs of education are increasing while real wages are decreasing. This is again a fact, not a political statement. Some people are the single parents of small children and cannot afford child care to attend classes. These are just two examples but there are many other factors. The world isn't so black and white, is all I'm saying - maybe it is to you because you were lucky enough to be born into the group that has it easiest to succeed. Just because you were able to find or make opportunities in your own life doesn't mean other people are able to do the same. Yes there are those who are lazy or game the system but there is another large group working hard and unable to go any farther. Show some compassion, empathy, and thoughtfulness in this, for someone as rational as yourself you sure don't seem to consider that there are as many situations as there are people.

Night classes are not expensive, this is BS. Here in the USVI fees are waived for financial hardship. I suspect they are in most parts of the US. Single parents with small children created their own problems, they need to think creatively to solve them. Maybe 3 or 4 could get together and take turns baby-sitting while the others went to night school. You seem to want to shift responsibility from the people who made poor decisions to the ones who made good decisions. Or do you not feel that having a child is a decision? And I reject your premise that because I am a white male that my views are not valid. I worked for years for minimum wage. During this time I had two roommates to share expenses with and went to school. I wasn't irresponsible enough to have children that I could not support. By trying to make the successful responsible for the poor decisions of the unsuccessful you are championing failure. In a free country people are allowed to make their own choices, good or bad. And decisions have consequences.

And yes, it is a fact that number of the working poor is growing. This isn't an opinion of mine. I don't blame Democrats, I blame those who think it is perfectly fine to accumulate vast sums of wealth while squeezing every last penny of effort out of those that work for them, forcing many of them that do work for them onto public assistance, which you and I pay for, and should not. It's shameful behavior, Democrat, Republican, or any other party.

The number of people making poor decisions in their lives is growing. Encouraged by democrats. People who make a profit are not the bad guys, they are the job creators, the innovators, the ones who drive a capitalistic society like the one in which we live.

Do you really think that wages are driven by what an employee needs to support his/her lifestyle. People make their own lifestyle choices. Wages are driven by what your employer has to pay in order to hire someone for a particular job. Do you think that if you have two people doing the same job and one of them has a family but the other doesn't, that the one with the family somehow deserves more money for the same work. Your employer offered a certain wage, you were not forced to take the job and you are always free to leave for a better job. You are free to get additional education to make yourself more valuable. Your value to an employer is not determined by YOUR needs it is determined by what you bring to the table.

Accumulating wealth is not a bad thing, unless you do it illegally. You are trying to say that someone who was successful and made a great deal of wealth legally is a bad person, but someone who dropped out of school to have children at 16 is someone who should be respected. I disagree. Many of the great parks and educational institutions in this country are the result of gifts from the very wealthy. I trust their judgment better than a bunch of politicians in Washington.

There is the story of my aunt... at 23 she divorced her husband, received wellfare, food stamps, and child support to live on while she got her GED, later her associates, then bachelors. After 4 1/2 years on welfare, she got a job and continued school for a masters. Now some 30 odd years later of paying taxes she is doing well.

If she had not had wellfare and food stamps she would not be where she is now.

Well I dunno, my father who owned a dozen businesses (that my brother and I owned one of that rented property to other businesses), had at least one new car a year (he had a car phone in 1986) five boats, two houses, etc never claimed to have made more than $38k a year to the IRS. I would do the same thing, but I don't think it was fair how the system was manipulated, even for my benefit.

That said, small business do have a hard time making money, where companies like GE pay nothing. That is unfair as well.

There is the story of my aunt... at 23 she divorced her husband, received wellfare, food stamps, and child support to live on while she got her GED, later her associates, then bachelors. After 4 1/2 years on welfare, she got a job and continued school for a masters. Now some 30 odd years later of paying taxes she is doing well.

If she had not had wellfare and food stamps she would not be where she is now.

Great story. But in all fairness the problem that she had to overcome, divorce, lack of education, single parent, we problems of her own creation. How does this justify forcing someone else to pay for her problems? Don't get me wrong, I support charity, but charity is voluntary giving. Taxation to support someone else's idea of charity is extortion. We all have our own charitable causes, why should my discretionary income be reduced to support someone else's charity.

To be fair, once your aunt was successful, she should have been required to repay all of the money that she received from the government in welfare and food stamps. Then her loan repayment could help others who also made poor choices in their lives.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have a life where they can make decisions in the direction of benefiting themselves.

That said, small business do have a hard time making money, where companies like GE pay nothing. That is unfair as well.

Big businesses like GE pay profits to shareholders via dividends, and those profits are taxed.
Small business pays profits to owners as pay, and those profits are taxed.

Why should big business be taxed twice?

Well I dunno, my father who owned a dozen businesses (that my brother and I owned one of that rented property to other businesses), had at least one new car a year (he had a car phone in 1986) five boats, two houses, etc never claimed to have made more than $38k a year to the IRS. I would do the same thing, but I don't think it was fair how the system was manipulated, even for my benefit.

That said, small business do have a hard time making money, where companies like GE pay nothing. That is unfair as well.

If you really feel this way then you should give everything that you inherited from you father to the charity of your choice.

But you need to get over this thing about GE. The only way that GE can get away with paying little or no taxes is by following all of the rules laid out in the tax codes. They use losses in one area to offset gains in others and zero them out. They locate their facilities in areas which have special tax treatment as enterprise zones. The government sets these up to encourage employment in otherwise depressed areas. In other words, GE is a good corporate citizen. If they are doing something illegal then charge them. Otherwise get over your corporation bigotry.

That said, small business do have a hard time making money, where companies like GE pay nothing. That is unfair as well.

Big businesses like GE pay profits to shareholders via dividends, and those profits are taxed.
Small business pays profits to owners as pay, and those profits are taxed.

Why should big business be taxed twice?

Corporations are taxed twice, sort of. Corporations pay corporate income taxes on profits, then a portion of these profits are distributed as dividends and the recipient has to pay taxes on the dividends as regular income.

Dumb and Dumber.
Bill O'Reilly and Monique Davis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCwEfd6fL9k

If you really feel this way then you should give everything that you inherited from you father to the charity of your choice.

I would but, well, its hard to explain. My father left me nothing, but that really didn't matter since the courts and government took most of everything. The only thing I have is a diamond/platinum/gold tie stickpin my grandfather won gambling (he was a big poker player) that I took before my father died, which is good since his girlfriend sold everything in the house including my brother's and my book collections (mostly from Dockside, if that matters)...

Chomsky: Obama ‘Determined To Demolish The Foundations Of Our Civil Liberties’

Progressive hero Noam Chomsky is terrified of the surveillance state that has developed during the tenure of President Barack Obama, calling it a grave threat to our fundamental civil liberties.

In a column published Monday, Chomsky writes that the documents revealed to the public by Edward Snowden show a system that is flagrantly violating the principles of the Constitution.

noone, your aunt did it the right way. she went on welfare and did something with her life. that is exactly what it was meant for. she worked hard and achieved her goal, if only more people would do that but you have people who chose that as their living.
welfare reform needs to happen

let people who are able to work be on it 4 years-long enough for them to get an education or learn a trade. drug test all welfare recipients ( which when they were going to do this i think in florida, thousands voluntarily chose not to sign up for benefits )

Well, the supreme court has turned down looking at Florida's struck down drug testing law...

So you're cool with stuff like this:

As you work on your taxes this month, here’s something to raise your hackles: Some of the world’s biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do–that is, if they pay taxes at all.

.

NO business pays taxes.
Why cannot so many understand this simple fact?

]

NO business pays taxes.
Why cannot so many understand this simple fact?

Clearly you have no idea how taxes actually work and have never owned a business.

]

NO business pays taxes.
Why cannot so many understand this simple fact?

Clearly you have no idea how taxes actually work and have never owned a business.

Speak for yourself.

Taxes are simply part of the cost of doing business and I simply collect them for the gvt.

When I "pay" taxes where do you think that money originates?

Since a business simply raises prices to the consumer to pay the taxes, it makes sense that a business should operate tax free and only the paychecks of the consumer be taxed. Using a flat tax system.

interesting series of conversations with a die hard dem. blame bush, blame reagan, dont blame obama. when it was pointed out that obama had control of both the house and senate, they said well " it must be that a lot of the dems lean republican" WTF. really. never willing to take any blame for any problem AT ALL

interesting series of conversations with a die hard dem. blame bush, blame reagan, dont blame obama. when it was pointed out that obama had control of both the house and senate, they said well " it must be that a lot of the dems lean republican" WTF. really. never willing to take any blame for any problem AT ALL

Jonathan Haidt explains the right can understand the left but the reverse is not true.

Civics 101
Obama never had control of Congress. He only had control of the White House and veto power with congress. He never had influence over red state or conservative blue dog democrats.
History 101
The democrats controlled both houses only for the first two years of Obama's presidency. The other four years was almost a bare majority in the senate and tight republican control of the house. (With gerrymandering).
Politics 101
The senate and the presidency better reflect the popular will of the American people. A majority in each state if you will. The house reflects segregated districts cut to ensure the victory of a political ideal.

see, again taking no responsibility the dems had control whether by a small margin or not from 2007-2013 or was it until 2011. either way a long time for him to accept responsibility and to actually do something

Politics 101
The senate and the presidency better reflect the popular will of the American people. A majority in each state if you will. The house reflects segregated districts cut to ensure the victory of a political ideal.

Hmm, the Senate represents the States, not the people of the states, the people are represented by Congress "the house".

"segregated districts cut to ensure the victory of a political ideal" sounds like a nice talking point handed out by the right or the left (I guess it would depend on who's in charge of the house eh?).

another way to say it is: Congress is a representation of the will of the people. (or suppose to be anyway, I'd say all of them are representative of the will of their corporate donors)