Obama announces that the **GOP** will 'cripple' America

[Openmind]

The "rich" don't have some special right that the rest of us don't also have, that's what you don't seem to comprehend. Granting government permission to violate the rights of ANY individual, grants government the ability to violate the rights of ALL individuals. Just because they are only targeting the top 1% today, doesn't mean they don't have the ability to target YOU tomorrow.

I stand up for the rights of the individual and since we're all individuals, I draw no distinctions between rich or poor, black or white, theist or atheist, the individual is always the smallest minority and must be protected. Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, support policies of discrimination against ANY minority.

And I stand for the rights of the individual also. . .I just prioritize those rights to assure that those who are the most disenfranchised, and therefore have the less resources and influence, see THEIR BASIC RIGHTs TO LIVE, EAT, WORK, AND GET EDUCATED survive. I find those rights more important than the right to buy a new yacht, to go on a world wide cruise, or to spend $200,000 at Cartier. I am not proposing to take away the rights of the wealthy to buy that 5 carat perfect diamond. I just want to assure that that 5 carat perfect diamon doesn't mean that a child will go without food, or wihtout medical care, or will live with his/her family under a bridge.

What would we gain if they too were also losing their shirts? You might "feel" better if they too were to lose everything but the country would be even worse off than it is already without that top 1% to shoulder 40% of the tax burden.

We are NOT talking about taxing people 100% (not even the top .01%!). We are talking about their FAIR participation in paying back some of the huge profit they have accumulated BECAUSE of our resources, because of their workers' work, and because of our public funding for so many elements that entered into making them successful (like public education, like the judicial system that allowed them to get patents for their product and protect it from being copied by others, like the infrastructure they are able to use to ship their product, to build their factory, etc. . . ). NO wealthy man is a "self-made" man. We all stand on the shoulders of MANY people. . .some of us prefer not to forget that, and when we reach the top because of those shoulders that have bolstered us, we choose to look back and give a hand to help the next person to get up.

 

[GenSeneca]

And I stand for the rights of the individual also. . .THEIR BASIC RIGHTs TO LIVE, EAT, WORK, AND GET EDUCATED survive.

You do not have a right to live, eat, work or be educated at someone elses expense. Such a "right" violates the rights of the people who are forced to foot the bill.

We are NOT talking about taxing people 100%

Is that supposed to make it better? Whether I violate your rights just a little bit or a whole lot is still a violation of rights.

We are talking about their FAIR participation in paying back some of the huge profit they have accumulated...

The top 1% already pays 40% of the tax bill. The top 5% already pays 60% of the tax bill... The top 10% already pays 70% of the tax bill... The top 25% already pays 85% of the tax bill.... Exactly what % should each of them have to pay before you FINALLY consider their contribution to be "FAIR"?

BECAUSE of our resources, because of their workers' work, and because of our public funding for so many elements that entered into making them successful (like public education, like the judicial system that allowed them to get patents for their product and protect it from being copied by others, like the infrastructure they are able to use to ship their product, to build their factory, etc. . . ). NO wealthy man is a "self-made" man. We all stand on the shoulders of MANY people. . .some of us prefer not to forget that, and when we reach the top because of those shoulders that have bolstered us, we choose to look back and give a hand to help the next person to get up.

I'm getting tired of refuting this silly talking point about how the "rich" don't contribute to society... I've heard the audio of whoever that woman is that originally said it and it's not any more convincing, or realistic, coming from you.

 

[Openmind]

You do not have a right to live, eat, work or be educated at someone elses expense. Such a "right" violates the rights of the people who are forced to foot the bill.


Is that supposed to make it better? Whether I violate your rights just a little bit or a whole lot is still a violation of rights.


The top 1% already pays 40% of the tax bill. The top 5% already pays 60% of the tax bill... The top 10% already pays 70% of the tax bill... The top 25% already pays 85% of the tax bill.... Exactly what % should each of them have to pay before you FINALLY consider their contribution to be "FAIR"?



I'm getting tired of refuting this silly talking point about how the "rich" don't contribute to society... I've heard the audio of whoever that woman is that originally said it and it's not any more convincing, or realistic, coming from you.

I believe that the right to live is above EVERY OTHER RIGHT.
I do not believe that one has the right to keep an extra $100,000 in his saving or spend it for a yacht, but a person who has kids to feed doesn't have the right to food, because he/she doesn't have money in his pocket.

I have said it many times before, and I will continue to say it: I do not believe that "fairness" is based on how much tax one pays, but more on how much disposable money one has, and how much the basic needs are met by the money one has.

I do not believe that one person has more right to fullfill his desire for luxury, than the other person has the right to meet his basic needs.

And, I didn't hear "that audio." What I express are my own thoughts, gathered over 61 years of living in several countries, of raising children mostly in upper class neighborhood, of participating in "performance clubs" for the rich and famous of Silicon Valley all over the world (from Thailand, to Hawaii, to Greece, to Italy, to Singapour, and to Tokyo). And also from my studies in a liberal (THE most liberal) university, and from my work with disenfranchised populations, and from my experience with retiring in a wealthy community in the South.

I do not need someone to tell me what I think. I appreciate hearing what other people think, and I can appreciate some of the points you make, or other people make, even if I don't agree with them.

But in the end, I am guided by my own life experience, and my own conscience, and my own spiritual belief. And I respect that you are also.

However, if you could post a link to "that audio," I would be happy to listen to it. I have always been hungry to learn more, to explore different ways people think, to learn about what makes someone choose one direction or ideology rather than another, one religion rather than another. I certainly have a lot more to learn. But it is still my inner compass that will guide me.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe that the right to live is above EVERY OTHER RIGHT.

The right to life is not a right to be given all the necessities of life at the expense of someone else. I think deep down you know that.

And, I didn't hear "that audio." What I express are my own thoughts...

I suppose it could just be a coincidence...

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” - Elizabeth Warren​

Now your comments...

We are talking about their FAIR participation in paying back some of the huge profit they have accumulated BECAUSE of our resources, because of their workers' work, and because of our public funding for so many elements that entered into making them successful (like public education, like the judicial system that allowed them to get patents for their product and protect it from being copied by others, like the infrastructure they are able to use to ship their product, to build their factory, etc. . . ). NO wealthy man is a "self-made" man. We all stand on the shoulders of MANY people. . .some of us prefer not to forget that, and when we reach the top because of those shoulders that have bolstered us, we choose to look back and give a hand to help the next person to get up. - Openmind​

That sure is one hell of a coincidence that Elizabeth Warren has gone viral saying the exact same thing...

 

[Openmind]

The right to life is not a right to be given all the necessities of life at the expense of someone else. I think deep down you know that.


I suppose it could just be a coincidence...

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” - Elizabeth Warren​

Now your comments...

We are talking about their FAIR participation in paying back some of the huge profit they have accumulated BECAUSE of our resources, because of their workers' work, and because of our public funding for so many elements that entered into making them successful (like public education, like the judicial system that allowed them to get patents for their product and protect it from being copied by others, like the infrastructure they are able to use to ship their product, to build their factory, etc. . . ). NO wealthy man is a "self-made" man. We all stand on the shoulders of MANY people. . .some of us prefer not to forget that, and when we reach the top because of those shoulders that have bolstered us, we choose to look back and give a hand to help the next person to get up. - Openmind​

That sure is one hell of a coincidence that Elizabeth Warren has gone viral saying the exact same thing...

Well, you can believe what you want. I know that I have not listened to Warren since her testimony in congress a fe months ago, I believe. But I do like her, and I am glad she seems to see the world the same way I do.

This concept (wether expressed by her or by me, or by anyone else is not new, it is not "just" a political ideology, it is a way of life, a human concept, that has driven many generations, even in antique times. It is not related to religion, but I believe it is related to spirituality.

And I think it is funny that I mentioned my "inner compass,". Because that may be it, some of us may be, although w don't even know we exist, oriented toward one goal, that is far different from the overwhelming reach in this country for fame, power, and/or money.

So. . .you think what you wish. It won't make any difference for me.

 

[GenSeneca]

So. . .you think what you wish. It won't make any difference for me.

You skipped the most important sentence of my post...

The right to life is not a right to be given all the necessities of life at the expense of someone else.

Do you agree or disagree with that statment?

 

[BigRob]

We are NOT talking about taxing people 100% (not even the top .01%!). We are talking about their FAIR participation in paying back some of the huge profit they have accumulated BECAUSE of our resources, because of their workers' work, and because of our public funding for so many elements that entered into making them successful (like public education, like the judicial system that allowed them to get patents for their product and protect it from being copied by others, like the infrastructure they are able to use to ship their product, to build their factory, etc. . . ). NO wealthy man is a "self-made" man. We all stand on the shoulders of MANY people. . .some of us prefer not to forget that, and when we reach the top because of those shoulders that have bolstered us, we choose to look back and give a hand to help the next person to get up.

Good response from Wall Street Journal on this whole concept:

"And of course it's state and local governments—and not Washington—that primarily fund police, fire and education, so it's a bit strange to ask the rich to pay their fair share of federal income taxes because they enjoy police protection."

"Ms. Warren implies that the rich aren't paying their fair share. I'm not sure what that is, but they're already paying a lot of taxes. In the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office, from 2007, the top 1% of households paid 28.1% of all federal tax revenue—income taxes, payroll taxes and so on—for a total of $722 billion. That would buy plenty of roads, police and fire protection—and plenty of education, too.

But perhaps Ms. Warren shouldn't mention education. Government does such a bad job educating workers in the public school system that businesses have to spend a lot of money training their work forces in basic skills. Does that mean entrepreneurs and factory owners can get a partial refund on their taxes?

The other part that's missing from Ms. Warren's narrative is that all Americans, rich and poor, benefit from the public spending she mentions. It isn't just Steve Jobs who benefits because Apple iPads come to the Apple Store on public roads. All of Apple's customers benefit too. If her argument is that taxes should be related to benefit, should we raise taxes on the poor and the middle class? Sergey Brin and Larry Page became billionaires by creating Google, but the gains to the rest of us are much larger. Messrs. Brin and Page aren't able to capture anything close to the benefits they've created for the rest of society. So should the rest of us pay a bigger share of the taxes than Google's founders?"

 

[Dr.Who]

We are talking about their FAIR participation in paying back some of the huge profit they have accumulated BECAUSE of our resources, because of their workers' work, and because of our public funding for so many elements that entered into making them successful (like public education, like the judicial system that allowed them to get patents for their product and protect it from being copied by others, like the infrastructure they are able to use to ship their product, to build their factory, etc. . . ). NO wealthy man is a "self-made" man. We all stand on the shoulders of MANY people. . .some of us prefer not to forget that, and when we reach the top because of those shoulders that have bolstered us, we choose to look back and give a hand to help the next person to get up.

the gov is responsible to make sure that every single person has an equal opportunity to take advantage of all of that. If the gov did its job and some benefited more it is because they worked more and deserve it. Like a grade on a paper. But if the gov did not do its job then the solution is for the gov to start doing its job.

 

[Dr.Who]

I believe that the right to live is above EVERY OTHER RIGHT.

Then clearly the right to live trumps the right to privacy.

Additionally, as long as any single persons life is in danger of starvation or whatever no matter what the cause we must confiscate ever larger sums of money from anyone who has it to meet those needs.

Is that what you believe?

 

[Openmind]

Then clearly the right to live trumps the right to privacy.

Additionally, as long as any single persons life is in danger of starvation or whatever no matter what the cause we must confiscate ever larger sums of money from anyone who has it to meet those needs.

Is that what you believe?

I do believe that, in a country as wealthy as ours, there is NO acceptable excuse to let people starve or die for lack of care.

I am not a strongly religious person, but it is a question of decency and human empathy.

If this means that the billionaires must keep a little less of their "earned!?" income, so be it.

 

[Alias]

I do believe that, in a country as wealthy as ours, there is NO acceptable excuse to let people starve or die for lack of care.

I am not a strongly religious person, but it is a question of decency and human empathy.

If this means that the billionaires must keep a little less of their "earned!?" income, so be it.

No one starves in this country. That's a myth. We have an obesity problem.

As far as care, I thought this new health care law was going to reduce insurance premiums. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lly-rose-costs-for-americans/?test=latestnews

 

[Openmind]

No one starves in this country. That's a myth. We have an obesity problem.

As far as care, I thought this new health care law was going to reduce insurance premiums. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lly-rose-costs-for-americans/?test=latestnews

Don't you ever wonder why obesity is more prevalent in low income families?

It's really pretty simple: it costs a lot more to eat a healthy diet than to eat a filling but fattening diet. When a mother has but a few dollars to prepare a meal for 3 hungry children, she will choose to satisfy their hunger, do you think she may buy one pound of ground beef that contains 40% fat at $2.00 a pound, or a pound of 97% fat free ground beef at $5.00 a pound?

There are too many children who go to bed hungry. . . they may not be physically starving, but their body and their brain doesn't get the proper nutrition that children need for a healthy development. And it even affect their ability to focus in school, and their all attitude toward life.

Fox News is about as reliable as Rush Limbaugh. . .so I put no credence in any of their spin! And I'm sure you will equally deny this report:

Obamacare Already Helping Check Insurance Costs and Expand Coverage
Thursday, March 31, 2011 | Posted by Deaniac83 at 10:39 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookThis is the meme on the right wing media noise machine, joined in unison by the Left puritan, public-option-or-bust armchair activists. The claim is that President Obama's health reform has failed - FAILED - to contain the exploding cost of health care and health insurance. Never mind the pure absurdity of that argument being raised before the premium subsidies, exchanges and the individual mandate has a chance to take effect in 2014. The rah-rah yelling and screaming sensationalizes announcements from insurance companies of big raises in rates, but fail to correct the story-line when those same insurers pare down those rates.

That's happening right now, as both the Fox media empire on the Right and the Faux-gressives on the Left fail to tell you. Especially in cases where state regulators have started taking advantage of the new law's provisions that allow them to hold insurance companies accountable and ask for justifications of arbitrary rate hikes. California exercised that option, and here is the result:


WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in California has reduced its proposed rate increase [in the individual market] to an average of 9.1% from the previous proposal to an increase of 16.4%. Further, WellPoint’s new rate increase of 9.1% will go into effect on July 1, from the previously proposed April 1, and it will delay increases in deductible and co-pays until January 1, 2012.
Consequently, the decreased rate hike will save about $40 million, effecting about 600,000 individual and family policyholders in California.
Is 9.1% average increase effective July 1 still a pretty hefty one? You bet. But it's far better than the 16.4% increase effective April 1 that they proposed earlier and that - you guessed it - got covered by the sensationalized media online and off. Deductible and co-pay increases won't even take effect in California until next year.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Don't you ever wonder why obesity is more prevalent in low income families?

It's really pretty simple: it costs a lot more to eat a healthy diet than to eat a filling but fattening diet. When a mother has but a few dollars to prepare a meal for 3 hungry children, she will choose to satisfy their hunger, do you think she may buy one pound of ground beef that contains 40% fat at $2.00 a pound, or a pound of 97% fat free ground beef at $5.00 a pound?

There are too many children who go to bed hungry. . . they may not be physically starving, but their body and their brain doesn't get the proper nutrition that children need for a healthy development. And it even affect their ability to focus in school, and their all attitude toward life.

Fox News is about as reliable as Rush Limbaugh. . .so I put no credence in any of their spin! And I'm sure you will equally deny this report:

got to love the Republicans (some)...there problem with the poor...is that they are not poor enough for there taste it seems

 

[Dr.Who]

I do believe that, in a country as wealthy as ours, there is NO acceptable excuse to let people starve or die for lack of care.

I am not a strongly religious person, but it is a question of decency and human empathy.

If this means that the billionaires must keep a little less of their "earned!?" income, so be it.

So based on your notions of decency and empathy there is no limit on why money can be taken from wealthier people in order to feed starving people. I.e. the constitution cannot be a reason not to take their money. on the other hand if the constitution could be a reason not to take their money then you would see at least one acceptable excuse.

If that correctly sums up your view then not only do you not believe the constitution forbids redistribution but you do not even care if it does or does not. And the reason you believe this is your own sense of decency and empathy.

 

[Dr.Who]

No one starves in this country. That's a myth. We have an obesity problem.

Not only does no one starve for lack of access to food but no one starves for lack of access to health care. No one. Not one.