What's Wrong With America
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#128 Feb 17, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree with this post.
Yeah, me too, but get ready for the know-nothings and name-callers.
Depends

Murray, KY

#129 Feb 17, 2013
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, me too, but get ready for the know-nothings and name-callers.
.

You are one of them
Teddy

Murray, KY

#130 Feb 17, 2013
Retired teacher wrote:
<quoted text>
"Liberism" ?
Libertarianism, not Liberalism, is the problem.
What's wrong with this country is that a little group of rich people who believe in unfettered Social Darwinism now control far too much of the wealth while everybody else has too little. Worse, they have teamed up with a few far right preachers and convinced a lot of ordinary people to turn their backs on more than 100 years of progress, abandon all the good that came from the Square Deal, the New Deal, and Eisenhower's Middle Way, and vote against their own self interest and in favor of that of the rich.
What you are arguing for is a nation of dependency. Instead of people working hard and earning their living you would have them just sitting around and collecting their government handout. That is not the American way.
Booker T

Duluth, GA

#131 Feb 17, 2013
Teddy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are arguing for is a nation of dependency. Instead of people working hard and earning their living you would have them just sitting around and collecting their government handout. That is not the American way.
I agree with this post
Booker T

Duluth, GA

#132 Feb 17, 2013
Retired teacher wrote:
<quoted text>
"Liberism" ?
Libertarianism, not Liberalism, is the problem.
What's wrong with this country is that a little group of rich people who believe in unfettered Social Darwinism now control far too much of the wealth while everybody else has too little. Worse, they have teamed up with a few far right preachers and convinced a lot of ordinary people to turn their backs on more than 100 years of progress, abandon all the good that came from the Square Deal, the New Deal, and Eisenhower's Middle Way, and vote against their own self interest and in favor of that of the rich.
"social Darwinism". What a stupid little term to describe a conservative or a libertarian. The term has been around for over 70 years with several different definitions but really it's just a cute little term that an "intellectual type" would use to critique a conservative. Instead of saying, I disagree with your politics, and stating his or her case, the "studied ones" like to sound educated..even if they are educated beyond their intelligence. It's very cute, and I'm sure many of your progressive friends are impressed, but just state why you believe in wealth redistribution/socialism.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#133 Feb 17, 2013
Teddy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are arguing for is a nation of dependency. Instead of people working hard and earning their living you would have them just sitting around and collecting their government handout. That is not the American way.
What he's talking about is the increasing imbalance of wealth and income. It's been getting worse for decades and shows no sign of changing. So you think it's okay for the present tax and fiscal policies to keep the imbalance of wealth growing, yet you don't think those who are withering on the vine because of it should get any breaks at all. That's called having your cake and eating it too.

You either support policies that keep the rich getting richer on the backs of the lower classes and the accompanying poverty of more and more people, or you don't. Lot's of us don't, for there is a logical conclusion if it keeps up and it involves violent overthrow of the present system. Hungry people do not care what the law is. They will kill and take what they need to survive. You can watch Faux and listen to Rush, but they can't change the reality of hungry people who become desperate. It's happened before and it will happen again if things don't change.
Teddy

Murray, KY

#134 Feb 17, 2013
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
What he's talking about is the increasing imbalance of wealth and income. It's been getting worse for decades and shows no sign of changing. So you think it's okay for the present tax and fiscal policies to keep the imbalance of wealth growing, yet you don't think those who are withering on the vine because of it should get any breaks at all. That's called having your cake and eating it too.
You either support policies that keep the rich getting richer on the backs of the lower classes and the accompanying poverty of more and more people, or you don't. Lot's of us don't, for there is a logical conclusion if it keeps up and it involves violent overthrow of the present system. Hungry people do not care what the law is. They will kill and take what they need to survive. You can watch Faux and listen to Rush, but they can't change the reality of hungry people who become desperate. It's happened before and it will happen again if things don't change.
What a bunch of nonsense. Most people that are "poor" are fat, have cell phones, and flat screen televisions. They also have no problem paying for their cigarettes and lottery tickets. There is an imbalance because fewer people are willing to do the hard work it takes to make it while many more want a handout. The wealth is concentrated because the talent, intelligence, and willingness to do what it takes to succeed is concentrated. The rich earned their wealth and you want government to steal it and give it to those that didn't.
Depends

Murray, KY

#135 Feb 17, 2013
Teddy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of nonsense. Most people that are "poor" are fat, have cell phones, and flat screen televisions. They also have no problem paying for their cigarettes and lottery tickets. There is an imbalance because fewer people are willing to do the hard work it takes to make it while many more want a handout. The wealth is concentrated because the talent, intelligence, and willingness to do what it takes to succeed is concentrated. The rich earned their wealth and you want government to steal it and give it to those that didn't.
.

And when the rest of us wealthy figure it out. Well that's when the shit shall hit the fan.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#136 Feb 17, 2013
Teddy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of nonsense. Most people that are "poor" are fat, have cell phones, and flat screen televisions. They also have no problem paying for their cigarettes and lottery tickets. There is an imbalance because fewer people are willing to do the hard work it takes to make it while many more want a handout. The wealth is concentrated because the talent, intelligence, and willingness to do what it takes to succeed is concentrated. The rich earned their wealth and you want government to steal it and give it to those that didn't.
So it's the natural order of things? Is that what you are saying? If so, how much wealth should be in the hands of the top 5% of the country. Is 90% too much? If not, is 99% too much? If that's not too much, is 99.9% too much. I would love to hear a direct answer to that, but I know none of you have the balls to answer it. No one ever does because they know the implications of answering. So just go on regurgitating what you hear from those who have been hired by the uber-rich to tell you what to think. I'm sure you know the place to watch or listen.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#137 Feb 17, 2013
Oh, and while you are not answering the above question, be sure and "judge" all of my comments with some kind of derogatory icon, because you KNOW that really shows that you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong.
Teddy

United States

#138 Feb 17, 2013
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>So it's the natural order of things? Is that what you are saying? If so, how much wealth should be in the hands of the top 5% of the country. Is 90% too much? If not, is 99% too much? If that's not too much, is 99.9% too much. I would love to hear a direct answer to that, but I know none of you have the balls to answer it. No one ever does because they know the implications of answering. So just go on regurgitating what you hear from those who have been hired by the uber-rich to tell you what to think. I'm sure you know the place to watch or listen.
If they earn it then so be it.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#139 Feb 17, 2013
Teddy wrote:
<quoted text>
If they earn it then so be it.
And you go down on the list of countless others who don't have the guts to answer the question.
Teddy

United States

#140 Feb 17, 2013
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>And you go down on the list of countless others who don't have the guts to answer the question.
It's not my place to choose who has the wealth. Nobody should have that control. If you want more then earn more. It's as simple as that.
Holding my Rollers

Murray, KY

#141 Feb 17, 2013
Indy, you are like the recent meteorite, you make a lot of noise, but you always go down in flames. As far as the rich crap, Why don't we do away with cash and credit cards and the like. Let's go back to the barter system. Wonder how long my lights would stay on? Probably longer than they will under the carbon tax, anti-coal-anti any thing that makes sense freaks. We really can't afford any of it either way. But now that's a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Here's the problem as I see it, until there's a revolt and a dethroning of the rich, the more you tax them, the more they pass on the cost. How long do you think that revolt will last? It would end with the first drone from your hero, unless somehow they could gain air superiority. Keep dreaming, the rich rule in the background, always have, always will.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#142 Feb 17, 2013
Teddy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not my place to choose who has the wealth. Nobody should have that control. If you want more then earn more. It's as simple as that.
Do you understand that the majority of wealth is obtained through unearned income? Do you understand that the more wealth you have, the more income you gain with no work required. Not only that, but the uber-wealthy are in full control of our president and congress and dictate the rules which will favor them and their domination of the wealth and income of the country.

Just try to name one single country in the modern history of capitalism that thrived for a long time without progressive taxation and estate taxes. Keep looking, but you won't find one. It is impossible for capitalism to thrive long-term without progressive taxation, or as your kind call it, socialism. I call it paying up my taxes as my patriotic duty to keep the country strong.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#143 Feb 17, 2013
Holding my Rollers wrote:
Indy, you are like the recent meteorite, you make a lot of noise, but you always go down in flames. As far as the rich crap, Why don't we do away with cash and credit cards and the like. Let's go back to the barter system. Wonder how long my lights would stay on? Probably longer than they will under the carbon tax, anti-coal-anti any thing that makes sense freaks. We really can't afford any of it either way. But now that's a revenue problem, not a spending problem. Here's the problem as I see it, until there's a revolt and a dethroning of the rich, the more you tax them, the more they pass on the cost. How long do you think that revolt will last? It would end with the first drone from your hero, unless somehow they could gain air superiority. Keep dreaming, the rich rule in the background, always have, always will.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Who wants to do away with cash and credit cards? I don't know what "make sense freaks" means either. So taxing the rich is a cost passed on to others? Have a look back at 1935-1960. The marginal tax rates were as high as 90%. Do you need reminding what happened with the U.S. economy over those decades? That's when the middle class was born and thrived. By the way, the rich did just fine during the same time period.

Since: Nov 12

United States

#144 Feb 17, 2013
Obama’s life before politics

Obama’s Father = Anti Colonialist
Obama’s Mother = Communist
Obama’s Grandmother = Communist
Obama’s Grandfather = Communist
Obama’s Mentor = Communist
Obama’s Pastor = Black Liberation Theologist
Obama’s ghost writer = Terrorist
What part of this equation makes you think that he shares the same ideals as you or I?
What part of this equation makes you think he appreciates capitalism or individuality?
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#145 Feb 17, 2013
Annoying Keyboard Tapper wrote:
Obama’s life before politics
Obama’s Father = Anti Colonialist
Obama’s Mother = Communist
Obama’s Grandmother = Communist
Obama’s Grandfather = Communist
Obama’s Mentor = Communist
Obama’s Pastor = Black Liberation Theologist
Obama’s ghost writer = Terrorist
What part of this equation makes you think that he shares the same ideals as you or I?
What part of this equation makes you think he appreciates capitalism or individuality?
I don't care much for Obama. He is bought and paid for by the big banks and other corporations like G.E. He only gives lip service to the common man. I would categorize him as a crony capitalist.
Independent

Owensboro, KY

#146 Feb 17, 2013
Annoying Keyboard Tapper wrote:
Obama’s life before politics
Obama’s Father = Anti Colonialist
Obama’s Mother = Communist
Obama’s Grandmother = Communist
Obama’s Grandfather = Communist
Obama’s Mentor = Communist
Obama’s Pastor = Black Liberation Theologist
Obama’s ghost writer = Terrorist
What part of this equation makes you think that he shares the same ideals as you or I?
What part of this equation makes you think he appreciates capitalism or individuality?
And by the way, most all of this is complete BS obtained from right wing radio who multimillionaire hosts are laughing at you all the way to the bank.

Since: Nov 12

United States

#147 Feb 17, 2013
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
And by the way, most all of this is complete BS obtained from right wing radio who multimillionaire hosts are laughing at you all the way to the bank.
You are not and independent. You are an idiot ! watch 2016 the facts are the facts

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Murray Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kim Davis Issue 1 hr jameson 18
I wanna meet a girl to have some fun 1 hr Miss H 18
Jasmine (Aug '11) 3 hr Kiki 23
Day cares in Murray 3 hr Tara 5
smoking at MSU 4 hr 2Independent 44
deleted again 4 hr Clara 4
Get a city sticker ticket this week? 7 hr 2Independent 116
Pagliais closing Wed Sam 49
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Murray Mortgages