waitforufo

oh yeah, I forgot this one. What did Jesus actually say? He said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" So to a religious person what things are god's, the creator of all things both seen and unseen? Yes, in every sector for 50 years. As a mater of fact in every sector since the dawn of civilization. People have been ingenious and competitive for all time. If you can't keep up you are left behind. Yes, socialism is all consuming. That is why people are always throttling it back. Societies that fail end up like Venezuela. Obama grew the government THE LEAST, because the legislature is full of Republicans doing what their voters asked them to do.

Jobs Americans won't do? I thought that is why we had undocumented Democrats.

Well then perhaps more people acquired that skill. More supply equals less pay. Ask me about H1B visa holders and the "shortage" of engineers.

Wages went down because the jobs became less skilled. Productivity went up because more could be produced by fewer and less skilled laborers. That's what technology and innovation produce. People in poverty today have technology that people 100 years ago would marvel at. I have had to change jobs in my life because the skill I provided was no longer needed. I have also lost jobs in my life because other companies saw that my company was making money hand over fist and went into competition with us. That competition drove down profits. Before long there was not enough profit to stay in business. The only winner in that game was the consumer because prices dropped an order of magnitude. When my skills were no longer needed or my company was driven out of business, I just moved onward and upward. I have been at it now for 35 years. I got no complaints. People have been doing what I have done since the dawn of civilization. How many farrier do you know. How many gas stations are service stations with mechanics on duty? There there used to be one on every other corner on most arterial roads. How many milkmen do you know? How many TV repair men? All those were middle class jobs. My money is no more sacred than yours. It's just that mine is mine and yours is not mine. I will also defend your right to keep your money and property. Liberals did say don't spend MY money on wars in the middle east. That's why Obama is president. I think he is a terrible president, but he is my president. Maybe one day Trump will be your president. I think there would be better Republicans, but if it is the will of the people, so be it.

The pharisees were attempting to get Jesus to incite rebellion against Rome by encouraging jews not to pay their taxes. This simply would have gotten him and his followers killed. A common act by despots to those who don't pay their taxes. He was basically saying worship god, but pay your oppressors taxes so you don't get killed by government. Also, it's interesting that you say he admitted is failure by saying "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Interesting because he said "Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?" and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22, Mark 12) after he said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.(Matthew 19, Mark 10." So are you saying, being god, he knew what he was going to say, and admitted failure before he said it? Finally the images on my money are of revolutionaries for liberty, and those sworn to uphold that liberty, so I'm not in the same dilemma. One more thing. I'm also not rich, but liberals and socialist still want my property and money. Were you forced into involuntary servitude? Could you not walk away from a poor paying job an find a hiring paying one. I have been doing that my entire life and no one tried to stop me. Should an employer really have to pay a worker following a wiring diagram to wire a product the same money as a person putting a red wire in a red hole, a green wire in a green hole and so on. How about someone who has to stuff a printed wiring board with leaded parts compared to someone who puts part reals on a pick and place machine? My guess is that employer will pay the engineer who figured out how to simplify the wiring of his products and automated placement of components more. Innovations like that are the primary source of improved productivity. Productivity drives the price of products down and makes them more affordable. This is a benefit to all people. Do you mourn the job losses for all those buggy whip makers and wheel rights?

Well it simple. Modern liberals, and in particular socialist, have a problem understanding money an property. That is why you are confused. With regard to both, most normal people understand the concepts of mine an not mine. Conservative thinking people understand that some money is theirs and some is not theirs. Same goes for property. Mine and not mine. For the modern left there is just "the money" and "the property." In a modern liberal's eyes the purpose of government is to distribute the money and the property as the government see fashionable at the moment. They call that fairness. Firearms present a problem with this modern liberal view because normal thinking people might say "hey wait a minute, that's mine." Conservative thinkers, which oddly enough are traditional US liberals, think that the purpose of government is to secure for the people their natural rights of life, liberty, property and the personal defense thereof. That an incredibly liberal understanding. I, and others like me, are very cooperative in preserving the concepts of mine and not mine. In fact, we understand those two concepts are the foundation of all lasting cooperation between people.

My money and property first.

I don't have the time to read your links right now but if I find Trump to be a criminal I won't vote for him. I do find it ironic however that the party of FDR and JFK would have any problem with politicians having links to organized crime. Doing legitimate business with organized crime members is not a crime. If it were, anyone who has their trash collected in much of New York and New Jersey would be a criminal. Loosing a tort case does not imply a criminal act. Well I stand corrected. I should have said "I can't participate in electing a criminal or a socialist." If the people want a criminal or a socialist it is their right. Also, by criminal most people would understand that to mean people who commit felonies, which is what I meant. When referring to the socialist, I was referring to Bernie Sanders not Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

Your mistake is believing the political correctness is inclusive. Instead it is divisive and designed to be so. Those that hold political offices should be upstanding citizens. That excludes criminals. Socialist are wrong.

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

None the less, Carter could have kept it together and deliberately chose not to for his higher purpose. Disaster ensued. Judge Emmett Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, has also ordered discovery on Hillary's state department skirting records laws regarding her email. I too would hate to see Trump get the nomination, in large part because I would then have to vote for him. I do have to give Trump credit however for how he has run his campaign. Today the US is driven by advertisers seeking to create demand in targeted demographic groups coupled with the media creating programming to attract those targeted demographic groups in order to sell time to advertisers for a high price. So when the media finds that Trump plays the clown buffoon, more of the targeted demographic group watches, and the more advertisers pay the media, thus allowing Trump to campaign for free. It really is a brilliant masterstroke in politics. We just have to hope the targeted demographic turns off the media for showing Trump's buffoonery. Not likely.

Sure I would have voted for Ike. I don't think things were rosy back then because of high taxes and regulation of extreme wealth however. We were the only truly industrial economy in the world at the time. That is why we were prosperous. There are lots of criminals out there without standing criminal charges against them. I worked in the defense industry for some time and had security clearances. I saw peoples carriers ruined for simple mistakes regarding classified documents. Trivial in comparison to Hillary's private email. You would think a Yale lawyer would understand the security documents she signed. In a country of liberty and justice for all, all Americans should demand equal justice for Hillary. Also, we will likely never find out how much Hillary's lack of regard for classified documents and information is costing the american people. How many costly programs had to be shut down? How many operatives had to be recalled? That too will be considered secret. How many sources of secret information were killed? That too will be considered secret. I never watch fox news or visit their website. Why is this fox news narrative to important to you? Why is it so important to liberals? The PC approach is not bringing people together. It is a path that will never unite us as a nation or improve us as a society. The fall of the Shah, a direct result of Carter foreign policy, has lead to nothing but disaster, suffering and death. Iran has suffered the most, but so has the entire middle east. Liberals simply can't admit his fact. So not being able to admit your screw ups seems to be a universal trait of human being and their political parties.

I'm not that old. My first vote was for Ford. Too bad Ford didn't win. Iran would have a Shah, there would be piece in the Middle East, and more than a million fatalities would have been avoided. Perhaps more than to million by now and still counting. Instead we got Carter, who based his foreign policy on human rights. Yeah I know, good intentions. That's all that matters to liberals. Outcomes are a mere details. But we digress. We were talking about Trump.

Yes. You really think I'm going to vote for a socialist? I do. I don't get.

No, I would prefer to see John Kasich to win the Republican nomination but I don't think he has a chance. I would also like to see Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination. I prefer Bernie over Hillary because he is not a criminal. Naw, that's not it. The PC fans are like having your mother kibitz on your conversation. Don't say butt say bottom dear. Don't say crap, say bowel movement or BM dear. It gets tiresome. Also it's not just conservatives, its also comedians who are almost all liberals. Many comedians are boycotting college campuses. Can't offend the poor little darlings with a joke.

The 24 hour news cycle has turned news in to entertainment making entertainment rules apply. In entertainment, the basic rule is that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Trump doesn't have to spend money. He just has to open his mouth and he dominates headlines and screen time. Then people want to be the first to hear his next outrageous comment so they start following and listening to him. If he is doing it on purpose, it's brilliant really. He caught a lot of flak for his time square shooting comment, but again he went up in the polls. Also, I think there is something to the PC backlash. People are tired of being sensitive and corrected so they love to hear someone say things and piss people off.

iNow, I did make comments above to your first reply to my previous post. This is a continuance since you posted twice to my comments. First wasn't it Obama that bail out GM and Chrysler. So can I take it that you thought that bail out was corporate welfare and wrong? I so I'm sure the UAW thinks you are wrong. Your second link is not working for me. Your first link show that GM is mostly owned by mutual funds. Who do you think invests in mutual funds? What do you have in your 401k? I have mutual funds in mine. But you think R&D expenses are corporate welfare right? You know their is a reason why the US is a technology leader. Our government show it understands the importance of R&D to our nation. Do you? So you are a big supporter of the ideas of the Cato institute? No I'm using the sources you previously gave. That source said the top tax rate was 35% but that some paid 13%. 35% - 13% = 22%. Those paying 13% are not being hauled of to jail so I have to assume they are following the law. You see when the government writes tax law there are three way you can be compliant. 1) You can pay the top rate. 2) You can act in a way the government wishes you to. 3) You can do both. In all three of those ways you are compliant with the tax code. You like to think that options 2 and 3 are cheating or immoral in some way. I think all three was were intended to benefit society and are therefore good. With regard to food workers your data shows a full 54% fall into the new worker category I mentioned. I'm sure others are simply working for supplemental income. The others need to get more ambitious. Again, I simply have a different perspective of the facts. I wish those other countries luck, but we in the US have our own way. More again later.

Its relevant because or your parjoritve rhetoric. You are calling good people robbers and other things simply to score points. It does your own argument no good. My responses were based on your sources. We just view the same facts from a different perspective. To be effective in arguing you need to try to walk in the other person's shoes. You see corporate welfare, and I see corporations and states & municipalities working to create the jobs needed for thriving communities. You see subsidies, and I see intensives. You want the government to fix things, and I see the government doing just that through the tax code. If Warren Buffet's secretary is paying 35% in federal income taxes, that person is likely making in excess of $200k a year. I say good for that person, and don't feel that they are in need of my sympathy. My guess is you would like to see that person paying even more in taxes. Warren Buffet pays 15% because his income is from long term capital gains. Long term capitol gains taxes are lower the income taxes in large measure to account for inflation. I personally think gains from investments should be taxed based on the difference in the inflation adjusted initial investment cost subtracted from the sale price. While that would be fair, the mere suggestion of such a scheme would make the average liberal's head explode. Again, simply a perspective thing. I think your perspective is skewed by your desire for more governmental tax revenue. The government however disagrees with you. They understand the benefits of the tax intensives and tax brakes they provide. Like I said, I like neither, simply because I think one is better than the other doesn't mean I am in favor of either. I would agree with this except I feel you are implying that I am not informed. If that is the case, you are wrong. More on other comments later.

If this wasn't your core point then you should stop using such pejorative rhetoric. There is a reason why people respond to you the way they do. Your pejorative rhetoric distracts from the meet of the conversation. You see the corporations that you claim are getting corporate welfare are full of middle class people working for a living, paying taxes, paying to have their kids educated, and saving for retirement. They are your neighbors. None of them are robbing anyone. Your rhetoric is offensive. First, I appreciate your response and the respect you provide me in giving such a thoughtful response. This balance you are looking for however will be punishing to many. Their are costs and risks associated with doing business. Governments appreciate this. Governments also have citizens that need work. In the end it is people who pay all the taxes. Either through direct taxation or through the prices they pay for the goods and services they buy. So the important thing it to make sure people have work. Governments that provide tax incentives are providing jobs to workers. In doing so they are investing in workers. Those governments then reap the benefits from the taxes the workers pay, the taxes paid by the construction worker building or upgrading facilities, and when the intensives run out the taxes they collect from the successful companies that remain. Your source on corporate welfare was at least balanced enough to point out just such an example. Governments are not forced to provide tax intensives, they jump at the chance. They start out making no taxes and have workers that need jobs. The give intensives which gets investors to spend money on construction and start up business costs. Now they have workers paying taxes. Then the incentives run out and they have successful companies paying taxes, and employed workers paying taxes. You are against this why? By mentioning GM and their bail out you are confusing matters. GM was bailed out to save the unions. More specifically the workers union pensions. Pensions that were guaranteed by the government. The federal government couldn't afford the pension bail so instead they bailed out GM which was cheaper. It saved workers their jobs and their pension. So who really benefited. The workers did. Stock holders took a big hit in the beginning but have recovered as well. Was that really bad? Who owns GM stock. Working people do. Same goes for Chrysler. The only way they get that 13% rate is by spending there money the way government wants them to spend it. Sure they benefit as well, but so do workers and governments. I'm an engineer. I don't think I have ever worked for a company that was not able to write off R&D expenses. Corporate welfare in your opinion. No, the government simply wants to punish companies that don't return enough profits back into their companies to keep them functioning thereby keeping people employed. The government goal is a 13% rate. 22% of the 35% rate is punishment for corporate greed. Our tax code prohibits that greed to the benefit of workers. Hedge fund managers pay the 15% rate on long term capitol gains just like everyone else. They pay higher rates for income just like everyone else. You are simply talking about very successful hedge fund managers like Warren Buffet. This is an extreem example and you know it. Take all of Warren Buffet's money away if you think it will do your cause any good. Most of these food industry jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs for inexperienced workers. Taxpayers support these jobs because we are kind to people when they are starting out at the bottom. With experence these workers are supposed to move on to better higher paying employment. By saying "wealth has been redistributed" you suggest a distributor. Perhaps some people are just better at making money than others. No one taking from the poor and middle class and giving from the rich. You would do a lot better if you dropped this evil distributor notion and appeal directly to the kindness in people. There is nothing unfair about the current situation. Some people need help yes but those people have not been treated unfairly. Minorities, particularly blacks are an exception to this. Welfare is provided to them in order to preserve a guaranteed voting block for the Democratic party, but that is a different topic. As you know, I am not a fan of either obamacare or a single payer system, but I have often said on this form that single payer would be preferable to obamacare. I think this is a long enough response from me. If you find any of the above disrespectful, it was not intended to be such. Perhaps our only economic problem is that there are two up and coming countries with billions of people each that are competing with us now. Both of those countries have billions of people living way below bottom rung on our latter. Such competition will impact those at the bottom in our country the most. Same goes for the middle class.

Who are these liar fat cats? Which industries are getting our money? Can you please give some specific examples? What lies have they told? What corporation is getting a check or violating tax laws? Such accusations should be backed up.

Your references simply say the wealth is distributed and how it is distributed, not that there is some undesirable force unjustly distributing wealth that must be counteracted. None of your references say anything about fairness. If the source of our current distribution is that some are more clever or work harder then others that seem perfectly fair to me. Every workplace I have ever worked at publicly stated that they strive to pay based on performance. That is the normal practice and it is justified. So you only want one question. Okay. Who are are these wealthy people who are robbing the poor? Please try to be as specific as possible.

Perhaps you should more clearly describe how wealth is redistributed today, why that current redistribution is unfair, and why a government remedy required? You state "Wealth is always being redistributed." How is this being done? What are the fair ways and unfair ways? Are only government ways fair? You state "For the last several decades, wealth has been taken from the poor and redistributed upward." How was it taken? Why is it unfair? You state "wealth is continually redistributed in all economies at all times...". How is this being done? When is it fair and when is it unfair? You state "Instead of bumper sticker wisdom, consider taking a deep breath, stepping back, and realizing that shared prosperity has a far greater ROI for us all, that the rising tide truly does lift all ships and that continuing the current status quo of the rich robbing the poor has a deleterious effect on everyone, both in the short-term and the long." Where do you feel that the current wealth redistribution, that you have yet to define, is not producing ROI for us all? How are the rich robbing the poor? You state "see also: corporate welfare". Show me a company that is receiving corporate welfare that is not employing people that pay taxes, and does not also pay corporate taxes. Don't you just want corporations to pay even more taxes? Show me a company that receives more in direct subsidies than it pays in taxes. Perhaps green energy companies, but anyone else? You state "This is about recognizing the role of the wealthy in sustaining and protecting the foundation that allows them to enjoy and expand their riches." How are the wealthy not doing this? Why is it their responsibility? Finally please describe who these wealthy people are. Are you talking about TAR? Are you talking about people who simply lived a typical middle class life and are preparing or prepared for retirement? Perhaps you are only talking about billionaires. What is the threshold be to a wealthy person? Is a 21 year old with one million dollars wealthy. How about a 67 year old with one million dollars, socially security, and no pension? Don't corporations have stockholders. Aren't many of those stock holders middle class people? Middle class people who were encouraged by their government to invest in IRAs and 401k plans. Aren't some of those stock holders widows and orphans? If you reduce there investment wealth or income, won't you just have to provide them with government redistribution to make up for it? Finally, how is fairness assured in your government redistribution plan. Are government officials never corrupt? Are government officials never in the pocket of special interest groups or lobbyists? Isn't that your complaint about corporate welfare? Perhaps if you explain these things more people, particularly people in the middle class, will better appreciate your government redistribution ideas and plans.

Its a law like any other law except it is an edict of the president. Who needs congress? Why waste all that time on debating bills and passing them to put on the president's desk? Just tell the president your good intentions are being blocked by a lobbying group, or obstructed by elected congress members, and if that makes the president cry perhaps you will get the law you want. John, if you are not willing to follow the rules of the constitution then anything goes. First the second amendment, then pick another. No, John It's the other way around. For the most part the person who intends to do you harm needs a gun because you just might have one. Because in a free state you you are allowed to have one. Without one, criminals would simply beat you to death. No John, criminals will have guns even if they are illegal. What part of criminal don't you understand. Criminals avoid those they suspect have guns thereby reducing attacks. If criminals are so good at shooting first, why do 75% percent or more of homicide victims have long criminal records? Forgot this one in my last post. It's not that the constitution can be changed to get what you want John, the constitution must be changed. Good luck with that. The only reason interpretations are discussed is because those that wan't gun control know the second amendment won't be changed. Well because there are far more good people with guns than bad people. Take the guns away from the good people and more good people will be shot, and if not shot beaten to death or victimized in other ways. I didn't implicitly suggest, I directly stated this fact because it's true. They lobby but no one has to listen to them. Please explain to me there power to "block" that you keep mentioning. What is the source of this power? How is it enforced or assured? Maybe you haven't been reading John Cuthber's posts. All he talks about is taking guns away from everyone. The new Presidential law makes every gun owner a gun dealer. What law gave him the right to do that? Why should my tax dollars go to smart gun tech? When did congress use it's power over the purse to allocate money for this research?

That silly old piece of paper that modern liberals hate and love to ignore. I'm sure whey you are finished eliminating the second amendment, the first will follow soon after. After all, for starters, we can't have free speech hurting peoples feelings. You keep saying this nonsense which is obviously untrue. The strong can easily overcome the weak. The many can easily overcome the one or the few. Just ask the women of Cologne Germany. The 1968 gun control act does not empower the government to act in the ways defined by Obama's recent executive order, but thank you for providing the information. I think from here on out we should stop taking about this order as and executive order but instead refer to it as Presidential Law. iNow, the NRA has no legal powers and therefore cannot block anything. The references you give and your own use of the work "block" is rhetorical. The NRA is simply a grass roots lobbying organization representing the will of it's membership. The opinions of the NRA can be completely ignored by everyone including members of congress. The risk that members of congress have in ignoring the NRA is that the organization represents voters which may vote congress members out for enacting gun control against the wishes of there chosen lobbying group. You know that but you prefer to have a bogeyman to castigate.

Perhaps in a nation conceived in liberty no political topic should be devoid of a discussion of oppression and liberty. That discussion should never be considered a problem. One of the reasons the militia is mentioned in the second amendment is to prevent the government from denying the people the common arms held by common solders. The supreme court in Miller, for example, allowed the ban of sawed off shotguns because they had no military purpose. If sawed off shotguns had a military purpose the second amendment would have prohibited such a ban. Do you think the military will prohibit small arms that do not include trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot? That will never happen for obvious reasons. If the people wanted the safety technology you are so in favor of, the market would provide that technology. It's called capitalism. Maybe you have heard of it. Nothing is blocked by the NRA. Lobbying blocks nothing. Again, if the people wanted more gun control they would elect people to congress that would give them gun control. Those laws, if passed, would have to stand up to the test of the second amendment. WTF is wrong with people who place so little value on there liberty and their natural rights? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a low value? Why isn't such a poor understanding of the value liberty and natural rights not immediately laughed out of the room. The freedom of speech is always an obstacle to tyrants. I'm not surprised you have a problem with it. Since you brought up the constitution, can you please show me where the constitution permits the president to create laws without an approved bill from congress? If you can't do that, can you please show me the law passed by congress and signed by a president that Obama's executive order is enforcing? If you can't, can you tell me why you have such contempt for the constitution? Can you tell me why you think it's okay for the president to violate is oath of office to support and defend the constitution? You know, there are many laws I would like to see enacted, but I would not support them if they were edicts from a president want to be king. I understand the my liberty is fragile and protected by the constitution and such edicts are unconstitutional. What is wrong with you and the others on this form? Is getting what you want worth the price? You really can't see how such practices will lead to the ruin of your nation and the loss of liberty? Oh, I'm sorry, the people aren't supposed to talk about such things in your enlightened world. Is this another settled issue? Do you have a consensus?