Watching Biden makes me want to barf

[rachunter]

I had to look up socialism and make sure i knew what it meant.It's totally the opposite of what this great country is about.

On 2/21/2021 at 10:52 AM, rachunter said:

 

BTW you have to expand my repy for those who didn't know.Must be part of the new upgrade.

[BowmanMike]

17 hours ago, ApexerER said:

@bowmanmike explained all you need to know about him when he said "it restricts personal freedom but benefits all" I love a good debate but you can't debate someone with that line of thinking. Nothing benefits all. Someone somewhere is getting screwed. You just might agree that those people should be getting screwed. This is America. We are supposed to be The Land of the Free...I am not ok with restricting personal freedom regardless of benefit and every American should feel that way. Otherwise we are not he land of the free. We are everyone else...

wearing a seat belt restricts your personal freedom...but paramedics are less likely to have to collect your body parts strewn all over the landscaoe. 

[BowmanMike]

17 hours ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

Remember when Bernie said it was immoral to be a millionaire senator.  

Remember when he used to attack millionaires and billionaires. Until he became a millionaire now just attack’s billionaires doesn’t sound like a man standing by his principles at all.

You really think people owning a million or two are the problem or people owning 100's millions?

[9jNYstarkOH]

18 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

You really think people owning a million or two are the problem or people owning 100's millions?

What I wrote had nothing to do with what I think, it’s Bernie flip flopping on his principles. But because you asked I don’t care about anyone else’s finances only that the economy is good enough for me to make a living that supports my family comfortably.

[Grouse]

37 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

wearing a seat belt restricts your personal freedom...but paramedics are less likely to have to collect your body parts strewn all over the landscaoe. 

Yet the Constitution gives the government no authority to mandate you protect yourself from harm.  We used to have freedom of choice.  Motorcycle helmets are another illegal mandate.  I believe both should be worn, but by choice, not by law forced upon us. Too bad the people keep allowing the government to dictate.

[Grouse]

37 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

You really think people owning a million or two are the problem or people owning 100's millions?

I don't think any rich person is the problem.  I think people who get rich by means of corruption are the problem.  Like elected officials who get rich "serving" the public.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

wearing a seat belt restricts your personal freedom...but paramedics are less likely to have to collect your body parts strewn all over the landscaoe. 

I don't think it is the Governments right to mandate that but I aslo don't think it is your or my (or insurance company) responsibility to pay for those that sustain injury becasue they made a poor choice of not wearing one. 

[rachunter]

You really think people owning a million or two are the problem or people owning 100's millions?

Are you in favor of how much money a person can make?why should anyone have to give there fortune to the government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ApexerER]

3 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

wearing a seat belt restricts your personal freedom...but paramedics are less likely to have to collect your body parts strewn all over the landscaoe. 

Yup and if i got to choose I wouldn't wear it. I didn't have to when i started driving. Took me about 12 seatbelt tickets before i sucked it up and started begrudgingly wearing it and in those 25 or 30 years i have been wearing it for no reason other than the fact that i am told too....

[Northcountryman]

3 hours ago, BowmanMike said:

You really think people owning a million or two are the problem or people owning 100's millions?

Mike, what would you propose to prevent this inequity then? I agree that is unfortunate when millions are below the proverty line, but to rectify this, would you advocate for placing a cap on absolute wealth ?  

[rachunter]

Mike, what would you propose to prevent this inequity then? I agree that is unfortunate when millions are below the proverty line, but to rectify this, would you advocate for placing a cap on absolute wealth ?  

You worded it better then me,but from what I read yesterday that’s what Bernie sanders preaches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BowmanMike]

2 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

Mike, what would you propose to prevent this inequity then? I agree that is unfortunate when millions are below the proverty line, but to rectify this, would you advocate for placing a cap on absolute wealth ?  

Yes,i do. The income inequality of today is unprecedented. Top earners in a company making more than 400 times what the lowest paid worker makes? Why? 

Everybody bitches about the welfare folks costing us money,but that is nothing compared to what the ultra ultra rich dont pay. Then you guys call it smart business,like a certain ex-pres paying less than you or me.

And i dont care what political affiliation these ultra rich folks have,it is sick to want more. Who deserves to make 500 million a year? God maybe. 

That money is made but screwing somebody or something up along the way.

Wealth distribution was more equal in the middle ages than today.

So yes,a cap would be a great idea or a very steep tax once you are worth more than 100 mil.

[BowmanMike]

3 hours ago, ApexerER said:

Yup and if i got to choose I wouldn't wear it. I didn't have to when i started driving. Took me about 12 seatbelt tickets before i sucked it up and started begrudgingly wearing it and in those 25 or 30 years i have been wearing it for no reason other than the fact that i am told too....

You got zoning laws in your town? There are a ton of things that have to be regulated because a lot of people are numbnuts or worse and you cant expect them to do the right thing on their own. 

My main rule for life is dont do to others what you dont want done to yourself,but that is too much to ask from some. Part of the reason we need laws.

[Buckmaster7600]

wearing a seat belt restricts your personal freedom...but paramedics are less likely to have to collect your body parts strewn all over the landscaoe. 

Seatbelt laws were lobbied by bug insurance companies. Your boy joe probably made money on that deal!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ApexerER]

22 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

Yes,i do. The income inequality of today is unprecedented. Top earners in a company making more than 400 times what the lowest paid worker makes? Why? 

Everybody bitches about the welfare folks costing us money,but that is nothing compared to what the ultra ultra rich dont pay. Then you guys call it smart business,like a certain ex-pres paying less than you or me.

And i dont care what political affiliation these ultra rich folks have,it is sick to want more. Who deserves to make 500 million a year? God maybe. 

That money is made but screwing somebody or something up along the way.

Wealth distribution was more equal in the middle ages than today.

So yes,a cap would be a great idea or a very steep tax once you are worth more than 100 mil.

First of all, in the middle ages they had kings, the kings men and surfs.....So no, income distribution is better now....

2nd of all, Federal Tax rate is 39.6% and in NY 8.82% for the highest earners for a total of $48.42%. You want to take more than 50% of persons income? That too me is insane.....This doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes or any of the other taxes these high earners pay.  So you want to take millions and millions of dollars more away from these people? Buckmaster wasn't wrong calling you a communist.......

[Buckmaster7600]

First of all, in the middle ages they had kings, the kings men and surfs.....So no, income distribution is better now....
2nd of all, Federal Tax rate is 39.6% and in NY 8.82% for the highest earners for a total of $48.42%. You want to take more than 50% of persons income? That too me is insane.....This doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes or any of the other taxes these high earners pay.  So you want to take millions and millions of dollars more away from these people? Buckmaster wasn't wrong calling you a communist.......

It’s especially insane when we should have a flat tax!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ApexerER]

29 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

You got zoning laws in your town? There are a ton of things that have to be regulated because a lot of people are numbnuts or worse and you cant expect them to do the right thing on their own. 

My main rule for life is dont do to others what you dont want done to yourself,but that is too much to ask from some. Part of the reason we need laws.

Nowhere have i ever said that we don't need laws......

[Northcountryman]

44 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

Yes,i do. The income inequality of today is unprecedented. Top earners in a company making more than 400 times what the lowest paid worker makes? Why? 

Everybody bitches about the welfare folks costing us money,but that is nothing compared to what the ultra ultra rich dont pay. Then you guys call it smart business,like a certain ex-pres paying less than you or me.

And i dont care what political affiliation these ultra rich folks have,it is sick to want more. Who deserves to make 500 million a year? God maybe. 

That money is made but screwing somebody or something up along the way.

Wealth distribution was more equal in the middle ages than today.

So yes,a cap would be a great idea or a very steep tax once you are worth more than 100 mil.

But how would that work? By what tmechanism, in other words?Would the governement get it if an individual exceeded the threshold or hwould it go to charity?  I understand what youre saying, but I just dont know if the "solution" , perhaps, might be worse  than the orginal problem. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

From my signature line. ---"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Why is there so much poverty.....one word.....choices. 

[Buckmaster7600]

Why is there so much poverty.....one word.....choices. 

Ding ding ding!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

Yes,i do. The income inequality of today is unprecedented. Top earners in a company making more than 400 times what the lowest paid worker makes? Why? 
Everybody bitches about the welfare folks costing us money,but that is nothing compared to what the ultra ultra rich dont pay. Then you guys call it smart business,like a certain ex-pres paying less than you or me.
And i dont care what political affiliation these ultra rich folks have,it is sick to want more. Who deserves to make 500 million a year? God maybe. 
That money is made but screwing somebody or something up along the way.
Wealth distribution was more equal in the middle ages than today.
So yes,a cap would be a great idea or a very steep tax once you are worth more than 100 mil.

Punish success and reward failure, I sure hope you didn’t procreate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BowmanMike]

3 hours ago, ApexerER said:

First of all, in the middle ages they had kings, the kings men and surfs.....So no, income distribution is better now....

2nd of all, Federal Tax rate is 39.6% and in NY 8.82% for the highest earners for a total of $48.42%. You want to take more than 50% of persons income? That too me is insane.....This doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes or any of the other taxes these high earners pay.  So you want to take millions and millions of dollars more away from these people? Buckmaster wasn't wrong calling you a communist.......

Fact check that first statement. That is why it is so absurd. 

The tax rates you quoted might be alright if all the loopholes disappear. That's generally why it never happens that the tax code gets meaningful reform. There should be maybe 5 different rates and no write offs.

Bernie was gaining momentum in the primaries and all of a sudden everybody dropped out and got behind Biden. Why do you think that happened? Some very very rich and powerful people got nervous and pulled some strings.

 

[BowmanMike]

2 hours ago, ApexerER said:

Nowhere have i ever said that we don't need laws......

They restrict your personal freedom though,no?

[Merlot]

Too bad Tulsi got kicked to the curb early on...the only smart one in the group.