The New Lounge

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
Credibility. Going going gone
Easy to say...

May of 2020
Michigan, April of 2020
Fox News says it happened in at least 8 states by late April 2020.

Here's an article fact-checking Canada's relief claims, and they've been greatly overstated... and they're still better than what the US has offered. (In case you missed that: I deliberately picked an article that supports what you seem to be insinuating... and I'm still right.)
UK, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy all mentioned here.
Comparison of U.S. vs other countries.

I'm bringing documentation of exactly what I said. I didn't vet all these sources, which is not my M.O., but all you're bringing is 4 words, so...
 

GhostOf301

Heisman
Mar 24, 2020
14,024
35,962
0
You are denying that there were shutdown protests as early as April 2020 and that Canada and much of Europe offered way better financial compensation to their citizens?
It appears that I mistook what you were calling facts. It is a little strange that you incorporated something of little relevance to the point. Lockdowns didn't work anywhere. Not on a small scale, not on a large scale. You're big on mental health (we all should be) what do you think has effected the under 60 demographic more... the virus or the restrictions as a result of policies? Like children not being in school, drug addicts, depressed people who rely on social environments, ect...
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

GhostOf301

Heisman
Mar 24, 2020
14,024
35,962
0
Easy to say...

May of 2020
Michigan, April of 2020
Fox News says it happened in at least 8 states by late April 2020.

Here's an article fact-checking Canada's relief claims, and they've been greatly overstated... and they're still better than what the US has offered. (In case you missed that: I deliberately picked an article that supports what you seem to be insinuating... and I'm still right.)
UK, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy all mentioned here.
Comparison of U.S. vs other countries.

I'm bringing documentation of exactly what I said. I didn't vet all these sources, which is not my M.O., but all you're bringing is 4 words, so...
Canada has roughly 300 million fewer people than the U.S. and a much more restricted immigration system. How do you justify comparing the two without an ounce of context? I love you, Canada is so much better, people. Try moving there. I bet they find a reason not to let you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
Laugh all you want. I’m sure you’re a hell of a teacher. And I appreciate the great teachers I had both of them. The rest phoning it in. You know it I know it and everyone on this board knows. I used to stay with my grandmother in the summers. She would tell me to read 50 pages of the encyclopedia briitanica before lunch. Not easy to do but I did it if I wouldn’t she wouldn’t beat my a— as a consequence I know more than about Africa and everything else than you ever dreamed of knowing. I know that sounds pompous. But Fact.
Wait. Your grandmother would or wouldn't beat you if you didn't read 50 pages of the encyclopedia?
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
Fair share. 70 % 80 %? You do realize that this is the point people and corporations either move to a tax friendly env or just say f it altogether right? No one on the right ever coined the phrase trickle down. Yet another liberal myth.
Under President Eisenhower -- the last decent Republican President -- the top bracket was 91%. The highest ever was in 1944 @ 94% for people making over $200k. The average salary in 1944 was $2,410. Those taxed at 94% made at least $12,000 after taxes, about 5 times what the average American made.

Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed -- I think -- a 70% tax on only the income over $200k. So that first $200k is taxed considerably lower, say 40%. $120K after taxes. If you make $300k, only that last $100k would be taxed at 70%, so you'd take home another $30k after taxes. $120k + $30k = $150k. Someone who made $1 million would get $360k after taxes, which is still almost 5 times the average 2020 income of $78.5k.

Now, I'm not endorsing those exact numbers, but I very much like the structure. If resources are finite, there's a point where having X amount of it is inherently harmful to others. It's a form of violence in my book, far worse than taking someone's wallet at gunpoint. I forget who said it -- probably AOC or someone else you wouldn't respect -- but I agree: "Nobody earns a billion dollars. They take it."

How much freedom do we give any one person before it starts encroaching on others' freedom? You can't shoot a gun in your backyard within city limits. You can't play your music as loud as you want in the middle of the night in a neighborhood. You can't cut through my yard without permission. You can't dig a well without a permit because of the potential impact on existing wells. Nobody needs a billion dollars. Nobody deserves a billion dollars. If a billionaire gives up 70% of 1 billion, they still have $300 million. I don't pity them in the slightest.
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
It appears that I mistook what you were calling facts. It is a little strange that you incorporated something of little relevance to the point. Lockdowns didn't work anywhere. Not on a small scale, not on a large scale. You're big on mental health (we all should be) what do you think has effected the under 60 demographic more... the virus or the restrictions as a result of policies? Like children not being in school, drug addicts, depressed people who rely on social environments, ect...
Lockdowns didn't work because people didn't comply. They didn't comply b/c they bought the ridiculous, paranoid, right-wing idea that it was some conspiracy to take away our freedoms AND b/c the harm to the economy was hurting them personally.
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
Canada has roughly 300 million fewer people than the U.S. and a much more restricted immigration system. How do you justify comparing the two without an ounce of context? I love you, Canada is so much better, people. Try moving there. I bet they find a reason not to let you.
That's why I didn't leave it at Canada, and I'm not making a one-to-one comparison. If we had insured a UBI early on, there would have been greater compliance w/ lockdowns, which means better social distancing, which means flattening the curve. We would be way better off by now, both wrt covid and the economy.
 

KDSTONE

All-Conference
Oct 15, 2004
5,319
3,649
40
Wait. Your grandmother would or wouldn't beat you if you didn't read 50 pages of the encyclopedia?
Either one. She beat me anyway when the young and the restless that day didn’t turn out the way she wanted
 

KDSTONE

All-Conference
Oct 15, 2004
5,319
3,649
40
Easy to say...

May of 2020
Michigan, April of 2020
Fox News says it happened in at least 8 states by late April 2020.

Here's an article fact-checking Canada's relief claims, and they've been greatly overstated... and they're still better than what the US has offered. (In case you missed that: I deliberately picked an article that supports what you seem to be insinuating... and I'm still right.)
UK, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy all mentioned here.
Comparison of U.S. vs other countries.

I'm bringing documentation of exactly what I said. I didn't vet all these sources, which is not my M.O., but all you're bringing is 4 words, so...
All of those you mentioned no I’m not an expert on European taxation rates. But I’m pretty sure the average citizen pays higher taxation rates income gas food you
Under President Eisenhower -- the last decent Republican President -- the top bracket was 91%. The highest ever was in 1944 @ 94% for people making over $200k. The average salary in 1944 was $2,410. Those taxed at 94% made at least $12,000 after taxes, about 5 times what the average American made.

Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed -- I think -- a 70% tax on only the income over $200k. So that first $200k is taxed considerably lower, say 40%. $120K after taxes. If you make $300k, only that last $100k would be taxed at 70%, so you'd take home another $30k after taxes. $120k + $30k = $150k. Someone who made $1 million would get $360k after taxes, which is still almost 5 times the average 2020 income of $78.5k.

Now, I'm not endorsing those exact numbers, but I very much like the structure. If resources are finite, there's a point where having X amount of it is inherently harmful to others. It's a form of violence in my book, far worse than taking someone's wallet at gunpoint. I forget who said it -- probably AOC or someone else you wouldn't respect -- but I agree: "Nobody earns a billion dollars. They take it."

How much freedom do we give any one person before it starts encroaching on others' freedom? You can't shoot a gun in your backyard within city limits. You can't play your music as loud as you want in the middle of the night in a neighborhood. You can't cut through my yard without permission. You can't dig a well without a permit because of the potential impact on existing wells. Nobody needs a billion dollars. Nobody deserves a billion dollars. If a billionaire gives up 70% of 1 billion, they still have $300 million. I don't pity them in the slightest.
its not yours to decide who gets to keep what that’s the whole point. If you come up with an idea or product that makes a fortune it’s not governments right to come in and say “here’s what you can keep. We’ll take the rest”. And when you quote a low iq socialist bartender yo support your case, then yes you’ve already lost
 
  • Like
Reactions: topps coach

KDSTONE

All-Conference
Oct 15, 2004
5,319
3,649
40
Lockdowns didn't work because people didn't comply. They didn't comply b/c they bought the ridiculous, paranoid, right-wing idea that it was some conspiracy to take away our freedoms AND b/c the harm to the economy was hurting them personally.
So the 70 % of African Americans who refuse to get vaccinated have fallen for right wing conspiracies. That’s encouraging to know going into 2022 excuse me I have a few phone calls to make.
 

KDSTONE

All-Conference
Oct 15, 2004
5,319
3,649
40
Under President Eisenhower -- the last decent Republican President -- the top bracket was 91%. The highest ever was in 1944 @ 94% for people making over $200k. The average salary in 1944 was $2,410. Those taxed at 94% made at least $12,000 after taxes, about 5 times what the average American made.

Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed -- I think -- a 70% tax on only the income over $200k. So that first $200k is taxed considerably lower, say 40%. $120K after taxes. If you make $300k, only that last $100k would be taxed at 70%, so you'd take home another $30k after taxes. $120k + $30k = $150k. Someone who made $1 million would get $360k after taxes, which is still almost 5 times the average 2020 income of $78.5k.

Now, I'm not endorsing those exact numbers, but I very much like the structure. If resources are finite, there's a point where having X amount of it is inherently harmful to others. It's a form of violence in my book, far worse than taking someone's wallet at gunpoint. I forget who said it -- probably AOC or someone else you wouldn't respect -- but I agree: "Nobody earns a billion dollars. They take it."

How much freedom do we give any one person before it starts encroaching on others' freedom? You can't shoot a gun in your backyard within city limits. You can't play your music as loud as you want in the middle of the night in a neighborhood. You can't cut through my yard without permission. You can't dig a well without a permit because of the potential impact on existing wells. Nobody needs a billion dollars. Nobody deserves a billion dollars. If a billionaire gives up 70% of 1 billion, they still have $300 million. I don't pity them in the slightest.
So just curious here. Do you think celebrities like Leboring James would be so enthusiastically supportive of Democratics if you shared your brilliant opinions with him? If you would please let him know how much of his own money he “gets” to keep I’m sure he’d appreciate it. Scary
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
its not yours to decide who gets to keep what that’s the whole point. If you come up with an idea or product that makes a fortune it’s not governments right to come in and say “here’s what you can keep. We’ll take the rest”. And when you quote a low iq socialist bartender yo support your case, then yes you’ve already lost
AOC is undeniably brilliant. She is undeniably inexperienced. Whether we like her or not has no bearing on either. Anyhow,... I'm not sure who said it. I don't take credit for the quotation, but I support it and will defend it.

We have laws against monopolies b/c we recognize that at some point it harms others' ability to thrive. We already have progressive income tax brackets. The very concept of taxes is that the govt absolutely does get to say what we can keep and what they'll take. It's exactly that. Unless you're arguing for zero point zero % taxes, which I don't think you are, then we're talking degrees.
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
Either one. She beat me anyway when the young and the restless that day didn’t turn out the way she wanted
Well, I suspect you're being somewhat facetious, but it also appears that you are endorsing beatings for not reading the encyclopedia. If you think that's how education should be... yikes. If you're saying it should be like that today b/c you turned out fine... you didn't actually turn out fine.
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
So just curious here. Do you think celebrities like Leboring James would be so enthusiastically supportive of Democratics if you shared your brilliant opinions with him? If you would please let him know how much of his own money he “gets” to keep I’m sure he’d appreciate it. Scary
Warren Buffett is. And pro athletes are a great example. In yesteryear they had off-season jobs selling cars to make ends meet. If they were lucky, they'd have a leg up on buying their own dealership when they retired from sports. Nothing changed that made athletes more worthy of luxurious lives; the arbitrary value we place on them increased exponentially. They don't make millions of dollars b/c of merit; they have a talent and skill that is rewarded. Does that mean that all the parents and teachers and preachers and other authority figures telling future athletic superstars to work hard in school were fools? No. And it doesn't mean the hard-working student who goes into an underpaid profession like teaching is a fool, either. It means athletes get what they get due to arbitrary factors that aren't based on general, objective merit.

You act like my sharing how I think it ought to be and defending it with logic and history is my claiming that I'm in charge. Why? That's ridiculous. I've already said I wasn't married to the exact numbers I tried to recall about Sen Warren's plan, just the structure & concept. I'd have no qualms whatsoever about expressing my position to Lebron or any other athlete or entertainer.
 

Mac9192

Heisman
Jan 25, 2017
9,218
13,138
107
Lockdowns didn't work because people didn't comply. They didn't comply b/c they bought the ridiculous, paranoid, right-wing idea that it was some conspiracy to take away our freedoms AND b/c the harm to the economy was hurting them personally.
This is a bad take. Lockdowns were in place, people did comply. Many lost their businesses. Some lost more

Try again.
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
This is a bad take. Lockdowns were in place, people did comply. Many lost their businesses. Some lost more

Try again.
I've already posted links to news articles -- including from Fox News -- documenting shutdown protests as early as April 2020. I've already tried and succeeded. Why should I try again before you've tried at all?
 

Mac9192

Heisman
Jan 25, 2017
9,218
13,138
107
I've already posted links to news articles -- including from Fox News -- documenting shutdown protests as early as April 2020. I've already tried and succeeded. Why should I try again before you've tried at all?
Lockdowns were a waste of time. Protests of lockdowns were warranted. What you fail to acknowledge is our “leaders” were not following what was imposed on us.

The old “do as I say, not as I do.” It’s that simple.
 

GhostOf301

Heisman
Mar 24, 2020
14,024
35,962
0
Lockdowns didn't work because people didn't comply. They didn't comply b/c they bought the ridiculous, paranoid, right-wing idea that it was some conspiracy to take away our freedoms AND b/c the harm to the economy was hurting them personally.
Where lockdowns, like actual lockdowns, were implemented, India, Australia, France and many other places... they didn't work. They just delayed the inevitable. So again, your opinion that lockdowns work is just that. Your opinion.

That's why I didn't leave it at Canada, and I'm not making a one-to-one comparison. If we had insured a UBI early on, there would have been greater compliance w/ lockdowns, which means better social distancing, which means flattening the curve. We would be way better off by now, both wrt covid and the economy.
Your opinion. That has been shown to be an incorrect opinion. Herd immunity is the only effective way to flatten curves. Now we have vaccines and many other naturally immune people who have recovered from the virus. Hopefully more people will start trusting the vaccines now that there is real data to go by and it will soon be FDA approved for permanent status and not emergency status. You thinking that it is logical to bankrupt the entire country for a virus that has a very high recovery rate for working aged people and people in good health is batshit crazy. People who are at risk should be doing the social distancing. People who are sick or scared can stay home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

topps coach

All-Conference
Feb 6, 2008
20,901
4,122
0
How's lowering taxes working out for us?
You do realize that government revenues increased after the new tax laws came into effect.Any budget problems are due to government spending not tax rates.Since the top ten percent of wage earners pay 70% of taxes collected by the government why aren’t they paying their fair share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE

topps coach

All-Conference
Feb 6, 2008
20,901
4,122
0
Europeans work, too.
By what qualifications do you claim 50% of America isn't okay with what you claim is a "nanny state," or that 50% is?
We spend more on our military than the next 11 countries combined. 3 times what second-place China spends. More than 10 times what third-place India spends. But tell me more about how protecting our health would make us a nanny state. Shoot, knock 12 billion off the military budget and we'd still spend triple what China does. $12 billion would buy a lot of N95s.
Bu-bu-but the deficit! Let's lower taxes some more.
 

Mac9192

Heisman
Jan 25, 2017
9,218
13,138
107

And yet people have the nerve to wonder why people don't trust the gov or the media. It's a complete joke. Their holier than thou attitudes are sickening.
Yep. So many examples of leaders at places not wearing masks, not long after imposing masks mandates. The Governors of California and Michigan, then the dipshit mayor of DC a few days ago are a few. The worst one may have been the Ol drunk Pelosi staggering into the lady’s hair salon in California. When the video surfaced showing her not wearing a mask, the old hag had the audacity to say she was set up.

These crooks aren’t held accountable, yet I seem to remember the media shitting down their leg when Trump had been released from the hospital, and was standing on his balcony not wearing a mask.

If you can’t see the double standard, you are a special kind of stupid.
 

timo0402

Heisman
Feb 24, 2009
13,868
13,709
57
A quote from a treatise:
While some textualist scholars argue that administrative agencies are unconstitutional, particularly because of unconstitutional delegation of law-making power, the current jurisprudence in administrative law deems agencies constitutional, and necessary in the current society in the functional and pragmatic sense.


I have not read the enabling Public Health statutes but it is quite possible that they have language in them permitting agencies to take such reasonable and necessary steps to protect public health. The idea of the moratorium in part is not to overrun shelters with people who've lost their homes and might be carrying the virus. You can agree or disagree with whether the statuet covers this but until the Supremes rule specifically it is an open question. That is why Biden is not committing a crime. There is yet no ruling in place that he is ignoring.

Also, remember the issue with Hilary's emails? She violated a state department regulation that all emails go through their servers and they enacted that regulation to comply with FOIA. It happens all the time. Most of the regs are small and nonproblemattc so you don't seat.
I’m just catching up after a couple days of golf and a back that is now shot. That’s for another time, but don’t try and play on a bad back.

Lot of words there, lot of things thrown around. I’ll wait to hear definitively where this is any way constitutional.

To the bigger point, there was zero reason to extend this moratorium. The idea was that people couldn’t work, thus couldn’t afford their rent. That’s no longer the case as there are more jobs available than necessary. We are, again, going around in circles. Common sense needs to prevail. More people are hurt, big businesses and banks especially are benefiting at the expense.
 

timo0402

Heisman
Feb 24, 2009
13,868
13,709
57
You: "Of course he knew what it was."
Also you: "The data is being willfully ignored."

But I'm making assumptions. :rolleyes:
Still have no clue what this means. Look at the data readily available and please tell me what we are doing here.
 

BOOGIEMAN1914

All-Conference
May 15, 2007
7,695
1,996
113
Not sure what 12 years you're referring to, nor what state's public schools. Since 2010, NC's public schools have been horribly underfunded. It started under Democratic leadership during a nationwide recession and has gotten worse since.

The past 15 months is a very poor timeframe for judging anything about public schools, or a lot of other things, for that matter.

There are so few bad career educators it's closer to the truth to say there are none than to say there are "so few." Bad teachers don't last. There is no more tenure. Bad teachers get run out. They are put on action plans and required to go to all kinds of extra support stuff and they usually leave on their own.

Lots of teachers with one foot out the door aren't leaving at their personal peak, whether to retirement or a career change. Practically every teacher with a second job is not at their personal peak. Schools are a microcosm of society. Schools aren't failing kids. Society is failing schools.
Lots of truth to that Dat!!!
 

BOOGIEMAN1914

All-Conference
May 15, 2007
7,695
1,996
113
Our nation spends more per capita than any developed nation. In a perfect world teachers would make more but what other profession gets at least three weeks for Christmas two months for summer? Um none. Schools are always underfunded according to Dems I’ve never heard anything different. I appreciate your public service. Not trying to be condescending. But I’ve lived in Ga Nc Sc and I e never heard of a teacher being laid off for poor performance I’ve heard of a few laid off for drunk to work molesting a student etc but never for just being a piss poor teacher. Is it different where you are or is this just more message board shctick?
When a teacher could acquire tenure, that bad teacher could essentially just collect a paycheck and keep showing up while jumping through some hoops...with tenure being removed action plans create more hoops and tedious stuff that they have to meet, they usually remove themselves and without tenure its easier for administrations to just not renew you for the next year as well....and with so much turnover many of those bad ones end up in the mix of those that didn't return the following yeat
 
Last edited:

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
When a teacher could acquire tenure, that bad teacher could essentially just collect a paycheck and keep showing up while jumping through some hoops...with tenure being removed action plans create more hoops and tedious stuff that they have to meet, they usually remove themselves and without tenure its easier for administrations to just not renew you for the next year as well....and with so much turnover many of those bad ones end up in the mix of those that didn't return the following yeat
There was a process for removing tenured teachers, too. It took longer because in earning tenure, they earned due processing rights. And people who were once good enough at their jobs to earn tenure deserve support for getting back on track if they slip.
Tenure exists in the first place to protect teachers from politics. Evolution and communism, for example, should be covered, and neither religious obstinance nor capitalist fear should be leveraged against teachers. Look at how politicians are trying to control education now. Where are the small government conservatives now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOOGIEMAN1914

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
It shows us all who’s pocket Fauci is in. The left is even dumber than I’ve thought, and the msm are worthless liars.
Bill O’Reilly was right. When that little weasel is on tv, any reasonable person changes the channel.
It's a bad look for President Obama and Democrats, and if Dr. Fauci was asked, it's a bad look for him not to express discomfort.

There is also a pretty huge difference between a 10-day event with over half a million people from all over the country and an exclusive, vetted birthday party of several hours. I bet the invite to the latter even included covid protocols about vaccinations and masks for attendees.

If you didn't have any problem with President Trump's indoor, maskless campaign rallies throughout last spring, before a vaccine was available, you're a conscientious hypocrite.

If you're equivocating Sturgis and a birthday party, the right is even dumber than I've thought, and your right-wing media puppet masters are worthless propaganda machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOOGIEMAN1914

durhamgolfer

Senior
Aug 12, 2020
1,343
596
0
It's a bad look for President Obama and Democrats, and if Dr. Fauci was asked, it's a bad look for him not to express discomfort.

There is also a pretty huge difference between a 10-day event with over half a million people from all over the country and an exclusive, vetted birthday party of several hours. I bet the invite to the latter even included covid protocols about vaccinations and masks for attendees.

If you didn't have any problem with President Trump's indoor, maskless campaign rallies throughout last spring, before a vaccine was available, you're a conscientious hypocrite.

If you're equivocating Sturgis and a birthday party, the right is even dumber than I've thought, and your right-wing media puppet masters are worthless propaganda machines.
Everyone at Obama's party had to show proof of vaccination.
 

Mac9192

Heisman
Jan 25, 2017
9,218
13,138
107
It's a bad look for President Obama and Democrats, and if Dr. Fauci was asked, it's a bad look for him not to express discomfort.

There is also a pretty huge difference between a 10-day event with over half a million people from all over the country and an exclusive, vetted birthday party of several hours. I bet the invite to the latter even included covid protocols about vaccinations and masks for attendees.

If you didn't have any problem with President Trump's indoor, maskless campaign rallies throughout last spring, before a vaccine was available, you're a conscientious hypocrite.

If you're equivocating Sturgis and a birthday party, the right is even dumber than I've thought, and your right-wing media puppet masters are worthless propaganda machines.
I don’t have a problem with any event. What I have issue with is the “what is good for thee but not for me” group.

Let us live. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: topps coach

topps coach

All-Conference
Feb 6, 2008
20,901
4,122
0
Under President Eisenhower -- the last decent Republican President -- the top bracket was 91%. The highest ever was in 1944 @ 94% for people making over $200k. The average salary in 1944 was $2,410. Those taxed at 94% made at least $12,000 after taxes, about 5 times what the average American made.

Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed -- I think -- a 70% tax on only the income over $200k. So that first $200k is taxed considerably lower, say 40%. $120K after taxes. If you make $300k, only that last $100k would be taxed at 70%, so you'd take home another $30k after taxes. $120k + $30k = $150k. Someone who made $1 million would get $360k after taxes, which is still almost 5 times the average 2020 income of $78.5k.

Now, I'm not endorsing those exact numbers, but I very much like the structure. If resources are finite, there's a point where having X amount of it is inherently harmful to others. It's a form of violence in my book, far worse than taking someone's wallet at gunpoint. I forget who said it -- probably AOC or someone else you wouldn't respect -- but I agree: "Nobody earns a billion dollars. They take it."

How much freedom do we give any one person before it starts encroaching on others' freedom? You can't shoot a gun in your backyard within city limits. You can't play your music as loud as you want in the middle of the night in a neighborhood. You can't cut through my yard without permission. You can't dig a well without a permit because of the potential impact on existing wells. Nobody needs a billion dollars. Nobody deserves a billion dollars. If a billionaire gives up 70% of 1 billion, they still have $300 million. I don't pity them in the slightest.
Why do you think successful people should be penalized?Do you think people would work as hard if the government was going to take away the rewards for hard work.Asked you in a previous post that if the top ten percent of wage earners pay 70% of the taxes in this country how are they not paying their fair share.Taking it further to the top twenty five percent they pay 87.5 percent of the taxes.When you rob people of the desire to achieve innovation that we enjoy to further society will end
 

Mac9192

Heisman
Jan 25, 2017
9,218
13,138
107
Why do you think successful people should be penalized?Do you think people would work as hard if the government was going to take away the rewards for hard work.Asked you in a previous post that if the top ten percent of wage earners pay 70% of the taxes in this country how are they not paying their fair share.Taking it further to the top twenty five percent they pay 87.5 percent of the taxes.When you rob people of the desire to achieve innovation that we enjoy to further society will end
Don’t expect a real answer. It will be spun into feelings. Just like @durhamgolfer chiming in on Obama’s birthday bash. According to her, it’s ok because they all had to show proof of vaccination. Any of us rational sees the double standard in that absurd take, but another point is missed. Obama, a democrat, had his party where the 1 percenters live. So, it’s not just mean Ol republicans that are the 1 percenters. All those in attendance are upstanding citizens that worked hard to get where they are. (Cough cough)

Must suck to live in such a racist nation too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE