On August 20 2011 10:24 chenchen wrote: Guys, guys . . .think of it this way . . .the rich invest or save a much much larger share of their income and wealth . . providing capital to create new wealth.
If you cut taxes on the poor, they'd just end up spending it.
This shit has to be like . . calculated out to ensure the best possible economic health of the country and the government.
I really tried not to comment on this thread, but this common idea just kills me.
Rich people don't just magically decide to take their money and make more jobs. They make jobs if there is a greater demand for a product or service. There is NO greater demand for a product or service if poor people have no money.
According to wikipedia, I am apparently rich (though it doesn't feel like it). If you gave me $10,000, I would honest to god throw it in an index fund and forget about it. That doesn't help the economy at all; nobody is buying anything. I'm not going to go out and buy 20 more snowboards or 500 pizzas. If you gave 50 poor people (my girlfriend is in the "bottom 50%") $200 each, they are going to spend it immediately on shit they desperately need right now. She needs clothes, she needs work done on her car because the spark plugs are failing.
That spending is what drives the economy. When hundreds of millions of people buy more stuff at walmart and target, THAT is what drives those companies to order more inventory, which is what causes manufacturers to make more stuff, which causes them to hire more workers.
On August 20 2011 10:24 chenchen wrote: Guys, guys . . .think of it this way . . .the rich invest or save a much much larger share of their income and wealth . . providing capital to create new wealth.
If you cut taxes on the poor, they'd just end up spending it.
This shit has to be like . . calculated out to ensure the best possible economic health of the country and the government.
I really tried not to comment on this thread, but this common idea just kills me.
Rich people don't just magically decide to take their money and make more jobs. They make jobs if there is a greater demand for a product or service. There is NO greater demand for a product or service if poor people have no money.
According to wikipedia, I am apparently rich (though it doesn't feel like it). If you gave me $10,000, I would honest to god throw it in an index fund and forget about it. That doesn't help the economy at all; nobody is buying anything. I'm not going to go out and buy 20 more snowboards or 500 pizzas. If you gave 50 poor people (my girlfriend is in the "bottom 50%") $200 each, they are going to spend it immediately on shit they desperately need right now. She needs clothes, she needs work done on her car because the spark plugs are failing.
That spending is what drives the economy. When hundreds of millions of people buy more stuff at walmart and target, THAT is what drives those companies to order more inventory, which is what causes manufacturers to make more stuff, which causes them to hire more workers.
It's situational. Right now you are correct - businesses are not investing / expanding because of low demand. But that is not always the case. Back in the 70's there was plenty of demand but not enough capital to expand the productive base. This, in part, lead to "stagflation" a period where the economy didn't expand but prices sure did.
And just a point of clarification, putting money in even a passive index fund does help the economy. It makes it easier for public companies to raise capital and expand their business. And keep in mind that some sectors of the economy are doing very well and need attractive capital markets to fund their growth.
I recently talked to someone who controls a multi-billion dollar budget at a major corporation. He said that his company has over $10 billion cash in hand (well, liquid assets) that they can't invest. They can't invest it because corporations see too much risk these days, and that if they did, it would show up as billions of dollars of spending without profits and completely skew their balance sheets. Corporations used to invest in the future (10+ years before profit turnover) but not anymore.
I never saw this perspective before, but it makes loads of sense. And tax breaks, or tax increases, aren't going to affect any of it. What's needed is a way for the major players to once again invest in long-term gains.
He doesn't say that we're going to balance the budget just on the backs of the super rich. Nobody has ever said that to my knowledge, and it's a common attack that doesn't make any sense. Of course we aren't going to balance the budget with just revenues, but to make only cuts without these revenues is stupid. Buffet is making the case that taxing the super rich needs to be part of the solution. Millionaires don't need hand outs. I do agree with the second part of your post, about government needing to spend money on infrastructure but not trillion dollar deficits. Military cuts will go a long way toward reducing those deficits, among other things of course.
Millionaires don't need handouts - this isn't how the economy has ever worked, no major industry survives without significant help from the government, which is a problem but higher taxes isn't going to fix it
Military cuts are a fantasy unfortunately, not with China around
I also don't know how it doesn't make any sense since the number one promise from the president and men like warren buffett is that taxes on the middle class simply won't be increased
impossible to bring the deficit to bush 2 average levels and keep increasing spending without tapping the huge pool of middle class taxpayers
That might be true, has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that taxing the rich would help limiting the deficit.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
The first part is the most laughable defense of racist parts of your constitution that I ever heard. American approach to constitution with all the amendments and trying to interpret parts of constitution as applying to modern issues seems very messy, impractical, prone to misuse and preventing necessary changes required by modern problems. Why not just rewrite it, while keeping the good parts ?
Anyway back to OP : Might you support those assertions with sources ? As far as I know SS is, and for some more years will be, in black. Concerning Medicare and Medicaid I have my doubts so could you again point to sources ?
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Seriously? I don't know where you get the idea government drug purchasing plans inflate the price of drugs. They are the largest buyers of drugs and thus have the greatest purchasing power allowing them to purchase drugs at the lowest price. Where is the proof that SS is a failing system? I can't imagine the cost of having SS is more than the cost of not having one.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
I don't know if this has been brought up earlier in the threat, but recently fox news hilariously called Warren Buffett a socialist for his arguments. Yep, Warren Buffett: Socialist.
On August 20 2011 10:24 chenchen wrote: Guys, guys . . .think of it this way . . .the rich invest or save a much much larger share of their income and wealth . . providing capital to create new wealth.
If you cut taxes on the poor, they'd just end up spending it.
This shit has to be like . . calculated out to ensure the best possible economic health of the country and the government.
I really tried not to comment on this thread, but this common idea just kills me.
Rich people don't just magically decide to take their money and make more jobs. They make jobs if there is a greater demand for a product or service. There is NO greater demand for a product or service if poor people have no money.
According to wikipedia, I am apparently rich (though it doesn't feel like it). If you gave me $10,000, I would honest to god throw it in an index fund and forget about it. That doesn't help the economy at all; nobody is buying anything. I'm not going to go out and buy 20 more snowboards or 500 pizzas. If you gave 50 poor people (my girlfriend is in the "bottom 50%") $200 each, they are going to spend it immediately on shit they desperately need right now. She needs clothes, she needs work done on her car because the spark plugs are failing.
That spending is what drives the economy. When hundreds of millions of people buy more stuff at walmart and target, THAT is what drives those companies to order more inventory, which is what causes manufacturers to make more stuff, which causes them to hire more workers.
this man just proved warren buffets idea as plain as anyone can get.. thank you sir!
Can't we just recognize that economically, both the rich and their ability to generate long term wealth through their entrepreneurial endeavors and the poor people's ability to influence aggregate demand are both equally important? Like...it's not so black and white guys. Not all poor people are lazy dredges, and not all rich people are horrible uncaring human beings. Balance fellows, balance.
On August 22 2011 13:11 Kimaker wrote: Can't we just recognize that economically, both the rich and their ability to generate long term wealth through their entrepreneurial endeavors and the poor people's ability to influence aggregate demand are both equally important? Like...it's not so black and white guys. Not all poor people are lazy dredges, and not all rich people are horrible uncaring human beings. Balance fellows, balance.
Most worthwhile post throughout the whole thread, but the money stops somewhere at the end of the road. The government takes our money and then squanders it over and over again, and those that profit from this misuse of our tax dollars are the greedy ones. They do not pump it into the economy, but hide it for fear of that money being found. There are government projects that are/were not necessary that took 10 times + the cost originally estimated, but nobody seems to ever be at fault, regardless though of whoever was taxed the rich or the poor that money is gone.
That's easy for a guy with 60 some billion dollars to say. What will likely happen ? People who make a million a year will get gauged while the mega rich pay crumbs. Sure a million is a lot, but in relation to the scammers with a billion plus (usually acquired through the most insane unethical means) gets let off the hook. There is no way this means any significant change in the way capitalism protects it's mega rich.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
The first part is the most laughable defense of racist parts of your constitution that I ever heard. American approach to constitution with all the amendments and trying to interpret parts of constitution as applying to modern issues seems very messy, impractical, prone to misuse and preventing necessary changes required by modern problems. Why not just rewrite it, while keeping the good parts ?
Anyway back to OP : Might you support those assertions with sources ? As far as I know SS is, and for some more years will be, in black. Concerning Medicare and Medicaid I have my doubts so could you again point to sources ?
It's interesting that the constitution was thought of (by the creators of it) to be a document that gets updated as time progresses, because they knew that what's right now, won't be right in 100 years. Pretty funny to see nowadays (or the last 100 years), how the constitution is treated like a holy scripture given by god directly.
On August 22 2011 12:43 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know if this has been brought up earlier in the threat, but recently fox news hilariously called Warren Buffett a socialist for his arguments. Yep, Warren Buffett: Socialist.
Sixteen executives, including Europe's richest woman, the L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, offered in an open letter to pay a "special contribution" in a spirit of "solidarity".
...
They said: "We, the presidents and leaders of industry, businessmen and women, bankers and wealthy citizens would like the richest people to have to pay a 'special contribution'."
They said they had benefited from the French system and that: "When the public finances deficit and the prospects of a worsening state debt threaten the future of France and Europe and when the government is asking everybody for solidarity, it seems necessary for us to contribute."
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
The actual phrasing is:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
Thank you, it's amazing how many people criticize a document they A., never read, or B., read for school and didn't actually think about it. it was representation... they knew they couldn't immediately do away with slavery... many of them hated it. as to whether they should have ever allowed it at all? well... they weren't perfect (they DID add amendment procedures). Show me a prefect person, I'll show you a liar.
And the top 10% of earners already pay over 90% of all income tax revenue... the government needs to spend less, not tax more. The money belongs to those who earn it first... if you don't have the money, you have to barrow, but you have to stop borrowing and spending eventually
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
Watch these videos for the next 11 minutes (ofcourse I didn't mean months) and learn something about the actual facts here. Or don't, and continue getting your "information" from murdoch.
Thanks for sharing that, those clips are awesome. Really, fox and the hosts on it are soulless vampires, although one of them had a shiny and very fancy moustache.
EPT
That's just really sad. Anyways, he's right... nothing more to say really.
