Bill Maher Croseed the line again

the credit says that you can't marry a person of the same sex...you did not know that? :) Hermin Cain wants to add that you have to say your not a Muslim to get it as well.

I take the earned income credit, I have never read anyplace any questions about the sex of the person you are married to

is that new this year or are you just joking?
 
Werbung:
I take the earned income credit, I have never read anyplace any questions about the sex of the person you are married to

is that new this year or are you just joking?

I was joking...making a point about how Republicans ( not saying you) think government should not push what it wants...yet they support it when its pushing what they want.
 
Its not Mindless,,Look at the classy comedians in history. Take Johnny Carson for example.. Not once he ever used a sexest joke. If that was the case why didnt he say any negitive joke about Sandra Day OConner? Wanna know why he couldnt? Cause the F.C.C had restrictions back in those days. Samething back in the 50s that Newscasts couldnt be negitive. Back in the 50s there were no liberal biased media. The F.C.C was very strict about that too. Ever since deregulation took place TV has been biased all around. You see what happens when you give too much freedom to the press? Its time to go back to 1950s regulations you know the good old televison code where you have board of censors to approve before the show gets aired.
OK, I'm going to guess you are too young to have actually watched the Carson show. I watched it every night-loved it. While it was not considered so at the time, much of the humor Johnny brought would indeed be considered antifeminist, antigay, or inappropiate today. The Smothers Brothers, Laugh In and even the Beverly Hillbillies would be politically incorrect today in many ways according to your "standards". FOX would be off the air. There was less sex then, however.
 
A redistribution of wealth is exactly what it is.


Every money transaction is a redistribution of wealth. For some reason it seems like "redistribution of wealth" is now a dirty word. Why?

History teaches us that wealth tends to be redistributed to the hands of a very few, and if left unchallenged, will result in revolution with a loss of wealth, a loss of power, and generally a loss of heads.

England realized that centuries ago and instituted some draconian inheritance laws designed to break up the great estates. We in America realized this was happening here in America in the late 19th century and we elected a Republican, TR Roosevelt, to deal with it. It ended with America having progressive income taxes and hefty inheritance taxes.

Now, for some bizarro reasoning that is unclear, we are facing a large and fierce minority who wish to return America to the cruel and hard times of the late 19th century.

Its sad,
 
Every money transaction is a redistribution of wealth. For some reason it seems like "redistribution of wealth" is now a dirty word. Why?

Just looking at the words you would be correct. However the phrase almost always refers to a a government act of moving money from people with more money to people with less money in contradiction to the stated intent of the founders. Hence it is a "dirty word."

From wiki:

In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[13] James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure that would have provided $10,000 of federal aid to drought-stricken Texas farmers. When explaining to Congress why such an appropriation of taxpayer money was inappropriate, he stated:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.[14]

In contrast when two people make a mutually beneficial transaction such as a thirsty man trading eggs to a hungry man for water that is not generally called a redistribution of wealth it is just trade.
 
Just looking at the words you would be correct. However the phrase almost always refers to a a government act of moving money from people with more money to people with less money in contradiction to the stated intent of the founders. Hence it is a "dirty word."

From wiki:

In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[13] James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure that would have provided $10,000 of federal aid to drought-stricken Texas farmers. When explaining to Congress why such an appropriation of taxpayer money was inappropriate, he stated:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.[14]

In contrast when two people make a mutually beneficial transaction such as a thirsty man trading eggs to a hungry man for water that is not generally called a redistribution of wealth it is just trade.

When it takes government money and hands it out to the rich its called...Tax loophole, tax breaks, "investment" giving it to "Job Creators" ...or just what sometimes it is...Bribery.
 
When it takes government money and hands it out to the rich its called...Tax loophole, tax breaks, "investment" giving it to "Job Creators" ...or just what sometimes it is...Bribery.

or a return on investment. Sometimes, a Congressperson, or even a president, can be a wise purchase. It does take a lot of capital, however, so it isn't for the middle class.
 
or a return on investment. Sometimes, a Congressperson, or even a president, can be a wise purchase. It does take a lot of capital, however, so it isn't for the middle class.
Very good point!

And, of course it is doubly expensive because I have to bribe both the winner and the loser because I never can tell for sure which one will win, and after all, its not like its my own money I'm using, right? I'll just add 1% to our selling price and give a 1/4% to each candidate.

Oooops! there's 1/2% left over. Oh well, aren't I brilliant! I need a bonus, and my gracious there's the money for it. What good planning by me, eh? I deserve another bonus. Gosh I work sooo hard... I deserve this. .
 
Werbung:
Very good point!

And, of course it is doubly expensive because I have to bribe both the winner and the loser because I never can tell for sure which one will win, and after all, its not like its my own money I'm using, right? I'll just add 1% to our selling price and give a 1/4% to each candidate.

Oooops! there's 1/2% left over. Oh well, aren't I brilliant! I need a bonus, and my gracious there's the money for it. What good planning by me, eh? I deserve another bonus. Gosh I work sooo hard... I deserve this. .

Oh, at least ten million. The company can't afford to lose you, after all.
 
Back
Top