Let put one myth to rest - Largesse for the Rich

[NedimNapoleon]

As for taxes on the rich - America can easily tax them brutally. They won't flee - they don't have anywhere to go. They would cry 'socialism' and complain, but that would be all they'd be able to do. Aside from throwing money at the Republicans and funding Tea Parties to wage guerilla camp-- wait, they did that anyway, so what the heck is Obama afraid of?

I don't know why its such an "insult" to be called a socialist in the US. When you say that in the US its like you called someone the antichrist and worst.

 

[peter grimes]

I don't know why its such an "insult" to be called a socialist in the US. When you say that in the US its like you called someone the antichrist and worst.

Most people in the US don't realize just how far down on the income scale they are. They think that if socialism means taking from people who have more to give to people who have less, then they will be the ones to lose stuff in order to finance 'welfare queens'.

Of course, there really isn't a welfare queen problem. If anything, the welfare system in the US is far too onerous on the poor. Here in NYC you have to get fingerprinted & drug tested in order to get food assistance. It's just one way those in power perpetuate a systemic poverty.

Of course, anytime the city tries to implement a livable wage requirement for all developments that receive city tax breaks, the financiers go rabid.

 

[Chiteng]

Most people in the US don't realize just how far down on the income scale they are. They think that if socialism means taking from people who have more to give to people who have less, then they will be the ones to lose stuff in order to finance 'welfare queens'.

Of course, there really isn't a welfare queen problem. If anything, the welfare system in the US is far too onerous on the poor. Here in NYC you have to get fingerprinted & drug tested in order to get food assistance. It's just one way those in power perpetuate a systemic poverty.

Of course, anytime the city tries to implement a livable wage requirement for all developments that receive city tax breaks, the financiers go rabid.

Seems to me that a drug test is NOT too onerous. Possibly obeying the law is not to onerous. Punishing CRIMINALS is not too onerous

 

[History_Buff]

Most people in the US don't realize just how far down on the income scale they are. They think that if socialism means taking from people who have more to give to people who have less, then they will be the ones to lose stuff in order to finance 'welfare queens'.

Yep, but getting them to admit this is getting them to admit they are poor. Given the American social structure, that's not going to happen.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Jobs are created by an increase in demand.

You can increase demand by giving the middle class more money to spend.

Tax cuts for the rich will not increase demand.

They may increase demand for consumption of the rich

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Cutlass
Brilliant last post

 

[Cutlass]

@Cutlass
Brilliant last post

Thank you.

Seems to me that a drug test is NOT too onerous. Possibly obeying the law is not to onerous. Punishing CRIMINALS is not too onerous

It is extremely onerous. Outrageously so. This has nothing to do with criminals. This has nothing to do with drug use. Bringing those subjects into it in any way, shape, or form is an utterly unacceptably onerous distraction from what it is supposed to be, which is the protection and feeding of the weak.

 

[Chiteng]

Thank you.







It is extremely onerous. Outrageously so. This has nothing to do with criminals. This has nothing to do with drug use. Bringing those subjects into it in any way, shape, or form is an utterly unacceptably onerous distraction from what it is supposed to be, which is the protection and feeding of the weak.

No. That is what it is for YOU. I have no interest in anything other than enforcing the law. You dont like the law? Then change it. But dont ask me to ignore it. I wont.

 

[Cutlass]

No. That is what it is for YOU. I have no interest in anything other than enforcing the law. You dont like the law? Then change it. But dont ask me to ignore it. I wont.

The law, such as it is, is a trainwreck that could not be enforced under any circumstances. As it stands, it is unenforceable. So it is up to Congress to write a law that can be enforced. Until they do, the president is in the situation where he cannot enforce the law as it is, and so must use the executive authority to cut the problem down to a manageable size.

 

[Chiteng]

The law, such as it is, is a trainwreck that could not be enforced under any circumstances. As it stands, it is unenforceable. So it is up to Congress to write a law that can be enforced. Until they do, the president is in the situation where he cannot enforce the law as it is, and so must use the executive authority to cut the problem down to a manageable size.

Martial law?

There is no such thing as unenforceable.

Shooting drug users upon sight would limit drug use.
Is it desirable? No. But it is a decision they make to break the law.
The onus is upon the criminal.

Every white collar ass who snorts coke should face the full fury of the law.

 

[Cutlass]

So much for a free country....

 

[Chiteng]

So much for a free country....

Then change the law

It is a very simple idea

 

[Cutlass]

Then change the law

It is a very simple idea

Nothing is simple in changing the law in the current political climate. So good luck with that.

 

[History_Buff]

There is no such thing as unenforceable.

Yes there is. It's a very well defined legal concept within the world of common law actually.

 

[Chiteng]

Nothing is simple in changing the law in the current political climate. So good luck with that.

So you just ignore it then =)

The argument of the anarchist. Try ignoring the tax laws.

********************************************************
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
************************************************************

Laws exist for reasons. Usually to express the will of the majority.
Not always no. But usually.
If you flout the will of the majority, then you are no better than John Wilkes Booth.
You just have not committed murder.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Chiteng
Are you a mindless servant to the law or do you actually possess something that resembles independent thought? If the latter, why do you refuse to make use of it when it comes to law?
Law is most of all just a theory based on a more or less sound premise. Its execution and more generally how it actually relates to reality will always be a different matter and unless you view law as a means to its own end this IMO surely justifies more consideration than "The law must be upheld!". For instance the consideration what it actually means to depend welfare on drug tests beyond the mere fact that it is a way to enforce law.

 

[Chiteng]

@Chiteng
Are you a mindless servant to the law or do you actually possess something that resembles independent thought? If the latter, why do you refuse to make use of it when it comes to law?
Law is most of all just a theory based on a more or less sound premise. Its execution and more generally how it actually relates to reality will always be a different matter and unless you view law as a means to its own end this IMO surely justifies more consideration than "The law must be upheld!". For instance the consideration what it actually means to depend welfare on drug tests beyond the mere fact that it is a way to enforce law.

Because we use the tools we have, to gain the ends we want. Like all living creatures.

 

[peter grimes]

Seems to me that a drug test is NOT too onerous. Possibly obeying the law is not to onerous. Punishing CRIMINALS is not too onerous

Then why not also make them present their voter registration card as well? Or their library card?

Why do we allow people to drive away after being issued a speeding ticket? They have demonstrated a reckless disregard for the law by endangering the lives of every other motorist, cyclist, pedestrian, pet, and wild animal. They broke the LAW!! Impound the car forthwith!!

Or we could ask why this provision exists at all... is it to catch drug offenders? If so, what's to be done? Jail (proven to not work), treatment (woefully underfunded &understaffed)?

Or is the intent to discourage people from taking advantage of one of the only support systems we have to help children who are born into poverty?

I sincerely hope it's not for the last reason, but it's hard not to be cynical at my age.

 

[Chiteng]

Then why not also make them present their voter registration card as well? Or their library card?

Why do we allow people to drive away after being issued a speeding ticket? They have demonstrated a reckless disregard for the law by endangering the lives of every other motorist, cyclist, pedestrian, pet, and wild animal. They broke the LAW!! Impound the car forthwith!!

Or we could ask why this provision exists at all... is it to catch drug offenders? If so, what's to be done? Jail (proven to not work), treatment (woefully underfunded &understaffed)?

Or is the intent to discourage people from taking advantage of one of the only support systems we have to help children who are born into poverty?

I sincerely hope it's not for the last reason, but it's hard not to be cynical at my age.

Your argument ignores the obvious. They could always choose to not use drugs.
They could choose to obey the law.
Why is it that you cannot see that the decisions as such are made by THEM.

 

[Cutlass]

Your argument ignores the obvious. They could always choose to not use drugs.
They could choose to obey the law.
Why is it that you cannot see that the decisions as such are made by THEM.

None of which has any relationship or connection to welfare....