We need more intellectuals working as elected officials to solve the complex issues that face our society now and in the immediate future. We have some. But not enough.
A government that can't even agree to "keep the lights on" when the world is more complex and challenging than ever is a major failure.
The two party political system is starting to take its toll.
(09-23-2023, 02:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: We need more intellectuals working as elected officials to solve the complex issues that face our society now and in the immediate future. We have some. But not enough.
A government that can't even agree to "keep the lights on" when the world is more complex and challenging than ever is a major failure.
The two party political system is starting to take its toll.
Old video but I can't imagine the numbers have changed much.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-23-2023, 08:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: You sure ? Covid crisis wasn't a good reflection for science and intelligence to be honest ... And for empathy either.
What's funny about this statement is you can get both sides of the aisle to agree on this thinking you're only talking about the other side.
-The only bengals fan that has never set foot in Cincinnati 1-15-22
Intelligent people do not lower themselves and become career politicians. Intelligent people become doctors, scientists, lawyers (sometimes), and run businesses. Smart people also teach, become nurses, write books, and become architects.
(09-24-2023, 05:10 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Intelligent people do not lower themselves and become career politicians. Intelligent people become doctors, scientists, lawyers (sometimes), and run businesses. Smart people also teach, become nurses, write books, and become architects.
The losers go into politics.
More like crooks in need of power.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(09-23-2023, 08:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: You sure ? Covid crisis wasn't a good reflection for science and intelligence to be honest ... And for empathy either.
“Empathy” is so overused by the left. There was nothing empathetic about the left’s stance on Covid. We had one side who said the costs and consequences of the shutdowns outweighed the benefits. We had another side painting Covid out to be a black plague, pushing a rushed vaccine, without any concern for addict relapses, depression issues, kids who were robbed of a proper education, healthy people in their mid 20s and 30s being robbed of 2 years of the prime of their lives, or just the fact that we will not recover from this for a really, really long time, if we ever do… all because we needed grandma to live to be 85 instead of 83.
Real empathy looks more like this: “Hawaii I totally get where you’re coming from, I once started a kitchen fire, here’s $700. Wish it could be more but we have to spend the rest of the money on funding the military of a corrupt oligarchy masquerading as democracy.”
(09-23-2023, 02:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: We need more intellectuals working as elected officials to solve the complex issues that face our society now and in the immediate future. We have some. But not enough.
A government that can't even agree to "keep the lights on" when the world is more complex and challenging than ever is a major failure.
The two party political system is starting to take its toll.
I don’t think intelligence has anything to do with solving issues. The GOP’s proposal to cut 27% is absurd but it won’t be that high. SSA is a big problem. I believe that’s 23% of our budget, which is double the percentage that Britain, France, Canada and Norway spend. I have no idea how you clean that up.
(09-25-2023, 12:04 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I don’t think intelligence has anything to do with solving issues. The GOP’s proposal to cut 27% is absurd but it won’t be that high. SSA is a big problem. I believe that’s 23% of our budget, which is double the percentage that Britain, France, Canada and Norway spend. I have no idea how you clean that up.
You get rid of the caps people who make over a certain amount have to pay into it and make them pay their fair share..It's not rocket science..
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"
Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.
(09-23-2023, 02:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: We need more intellectuals working as elected officials to solve the complex issues that face our society now and in the immediate future. We have some. But not enough.
A government that can't even agree to "keep the lights on" when the world is more complex and challenging than ever is a major failure.
The two party political system is starting to take its toll.
One thing you just never hear politicians say on the stump.. "America just doesn't have enough stupid, ignorant bastards walking around."...although I wouldn't be surprised anymore..
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"
Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.
(09-26-2023, 01:44 AM)grampahol Wrote: You get rid of the caps people who make over a certain amount have to pay into it and make them pay their fair share..It's not rocket science..
I’m not rich but I never understood this logic. What does fair share mean to you? The top 1% already pays 42% of our taxes. They earn about 10 trillion a year, and pay around 4.3 trillion of that in taxes. Which means even if we did AOC’s idea of capping at 70%, we’d see an increase in tax revenue of around what… 1.5 trillion? That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what our debt will be in 2033 based on Biden’s current economic plan (50+ trillion in debt, there’s a Senate hearing about it).
We have to ask ourselves this: is that worth altering the tax brackets so dramatically? The 1% is there for a reason. Bill Gates started Microsoft. Mark Zuckerberg Facebook. Steve Jobs, Apple… etc. People need to realize we do depend on that 1% for more than just 42% of the government’s tax revenue. Jeff Bezos didn’t exactly find his money between couch cushions.
(09-26-2023, 02:19 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I’m not rich but I never understood this logic. What does fair share mean to you? The top 1% already pays 42% of our taxes. They earn about 10 trillion a year, and pay around 4.3 trillion of that in taxes. Which means even if we did AOC’s idea of capping at 70%, we’d see an increase in tax revenue of around what… 1.5 trillion? That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what our debt will be in 2033 based on Biden’s current economic plan (50+ trillion in debt, there’s a Senate hearing about it).
We have to ask ourselves this: is that worth altering the tax brackets so dramatically? The 1% is there for a reason. Bill Gates started Microsoft. Mark Zuckerberg Facebook. Steve Jobs, Apple… etc. People need to realize we do depend on that 1% for more than just 42% of the government’s tax revenue. Jeff Bezos didn’t exactly find his money between couch cushions.
The majority of those don't get their money from income wages, they get it thru investing. IE: Buffet makes 100k/yr in income wages. So it's not going to hit him hard at all. We just taxed one of the richest men in the US and all we gonna get is +30k in taxes... whooop de doo. And if you think he's the only one that does that game, then you are sadly mistaken.
and at best her plan will generate 1.5-2T over a decade. In the 80's when the rate was high, it only generated about 5-7B annually, adjusted to today's numbers that's roughly 15-18B annually. Just make sure you always read the entire print, when they throw BIG numbers out there, make sure it's not followed by "over a decade" type of tripe. They all conveniently love to leave that last line off and make it sound to everyone that it's annually to get us behind it.
I don't have any problems with it if they would use it for the Debt, but the problem i have, is that instead of using it for debt, they will create MORE programs that will need constant support and just add to the debt instead of lower it.
EDIT: Why do you think Buffet is a big time supporter of raising the taxes on the rich? cause he knows that it's not going to really effect him as much as the ill-informed public would like to believe and he scores nice brownie points.
Find a way to tax those investments over $xxx and guys like Buffet will never shut up about it.
(09-26-2023, 10:13 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The majority of those don't get their money from income wages, they get it thru investing. IE: Buffet makes 100k/yr in income wages. So it's not going to hit him hard at all. We just taxed one of the richest men in the US and all we gonna get is +30k in taxes... whooop de doo. And if you think he's the only one that does that game, then you are sadly mistaken.
and at best her plan will generate 1.5-2T over a decade. In the 80's when the rate was high, it only generated about 5-7B annually, adjusted to today's numbers that's roughly 15-18B annually. Just make sure you always read the entire print, when they throw BIG numbers out there, make sure it's not followed by "over a decade" type of tripe. They all conveniently love to leave that last line off and make it sound to everyone that it's annually to get us behind it.
I don't have any problems with it if they would use it for the Debt, but the problem i have, is that instead of using it for debt, they will create MORE programs that will need constant support and just add to the debt instead of lower it.
EDIT: Why do you think Buffet is a big time supporter of raising the taxes on the rich? cause he knows that it's not going to really effect him as much as the ill-informed public would like to believe and he scores nice brownie points.
Find a way to tax those investments over $xxx and guys like Buffet will never shut up about it.
Yeah. Biden and the democrats would just appoint a bunch of special envoys or fund trans/gay/minority/insertoppressedflavorofthemonth ceremonies or something. I still don’t know what the hell a “Special Envoy to Monitor Anti-Semitism” is or why he felt the need to increase funding for the Holocaust Rememberance Fund. Other than the David Duke’s of the world I feel like we cover it pretty extensively in school. Just pandering.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
