All Forums | Politics

So Democrats = Socialists now right?

...

Participants:

Posts: 69

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 2:13 PM ET #26

it is stated 1 percent owns 96 % of wealth.

fair enough. because it really makes no difference if the one percent is the government such as Russia, china, cuba , north korea or the 1 % buys the politicians that run the country. us ,great britian , Sweden , Switzerland.

1 % controls the weather of the climate of commerce.

so if the economy is suffering they made the weather.

like wise if the economy is good it is still the 1 percent'[s fault.

here in the us the elite rich have a buffer, politicians its obamas fault or bush's fault or so in sos fault but reality

the economy is directly the activitie of around 400 families of jet setters 300 live in nyc and 100 globally. they are the collective printed wealth of all share holders in most industry.

canovsp

Captain

Joined: Dec, 2009

Posts: 5755

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 2:22 PM ET #27

Quote Originally Posted by don juan:

Wow Ricko, you are a real genius .

Think through what you said Bud ( above )

My answer.....If all the billionaires left their fortune to their children eventually we would wind up with 4 Kings, it may take 500 years but that's what would happen.

Here's a quote from Warren Buffet himself to the Gates foundation.

"I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."

Inheritance taxes solve that problem, but it's the greedy and selfish ones that want it all,.. and assault weapons because they think every wants their wealth.

That is what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates choose.

Do you think it should be up to the individual or the government? (I know your answer...that question is really directed to anyone who is reading)

SportsFan9698

Banned

Joined: May, 2010

Posts: 5575

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 2:38 PM ET #28

I think the OP is a bit incorrect... Democrats = Communism

The history of entangling US taxpayer moneys with private business does elevate the "socialist" label to communism.

BTW Hillary is currently being grilled by the senate hearing, again. Pitiful that 40% or so want this horribly corrupt person back in the White House.

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 5:21 PM ET #29

actually there is no provision in the constitution to allow or not allow death tax aka estate tax. most estates are already taking as an individual enters nursing long term care at an avg of 3000 a day avg per facility per patient a 1.5 million a year fee most estates are liquidated through this measure.

don juan

Captain

Joined: Jul, 2001

Posts: 5561

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 6:11 PM ET #30

Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:

actually there is no provision in the constitution to allow or not allow death tax aka estate tax. most estates are already taking as an individual enters nursing long term care at an avg of 3000 a day avg per facility per patient a 1.5 million a year fee most estates are liquidated through this measure.

You are exactly correct, But Rick the genius believes you have a constitutional right to not allow death tax. Just like his ignorant stance on assault weapons.

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 6:27 PM ET #31

Quote Originally Posted by don juan:

You are exactly correct, But Rick the genius believes you have a constitutional right to not allow death tax. Just like his ignorant stance on assault weapons.

i do not believe the constitution will be admended. the proposed in the 70's equal rights admendment has yet to be ratified by the 3/4 of the states needed and the sex clause which was a huge hang up then has been justified by the supreme court but i realize this will stay as policy not a constitutional right.

the chance of any admendment becoming part of the constitution is really not realistic in this century,

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 7:39 PM ET #32

but if we could pass one admendment in my life time I would like to see a balance budget admendment to pay any future budget with reality of recoursces on hand......

canovsp

Captain

Joined: Dec, 2009

Posts: 5755

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 9:29 PM ET #33

Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:

A significant portion of the upper 1% get their wealth from inheritance. They have done nothing to deserve it or earn it other than simply be born. This is against one of the basic ideas of capitalism.

The solution? When a person dies, leave up to a set amount to their heirs (maybe 1 million or so, certainly a significant inheritance) and give the rest to the government.

The wealth is redistributed, and while the family of the deceased may complain, they really have no claim to the money whatsoever.

So your solution is to take the money away from a few people who don't deserve it and give it to thousands of people that don't deserve it.

I wish I could take credit for that line but a friend of mine came up with it.

bowlslit

Banned

Joined: Oct, 2008

Posts: 5625

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 10:16 PM ET #34

So the left doesn't have a problem with poor people doing nothing but if a rich person does nothing he is a problem?

bowlslit

Banned

Joined: Oct, 2008

Posts: 5625

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 10:23 PM ET #35

If everyone was greedy and acted on it...would we need social programs for anyone but the disabled?

I say greed has made us the great nation that we are. Too bad we have liberals that hold us down. The only good I see with Liberals is to keep the conservatives in check.

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 22, 2015 - 11:48 PM ET #36

Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:

If everyone was greedy and acted on it...would we need social programs for anyone but the disabled?

I say greed has made us the great nation that we are. Too bad we have liberals that hold us down. The only good I see with Liberals is to keep the conservatives in check.

darkhorse12

All-Star

Joined: Sep, 2004

Posts: 10739

Posted: Oct. 23, 2015 - 1:35 AM ET #37

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

GI Bill,
VA Home loan.
First time home buyer credit
Child tax benefits.

I could go on.

What is your point?

That if someone takes advantage of social programs then they are morally compromised, and can not be critical of socialism?

That is exactly what the Paleo Conservatives talk about when they talked about the "poison pill" of social security.

We do not have a choice about Social Security, payroll taxes, paying into unemployment etc.

I don't personally think that it is all socialism, or absolutely no handouts, but it is interesting to see the implications of taking advantage of social programs. that I am somehow now "compromised".

Didn't really mean anything by it rick. Just that my point is we are socialist by nature.

bunny651

Captain

Joined: Apr, 2009

Posts: 6709

Posted: Oct. 23, 2015 - 6:05 PM ET #38

Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:

A significant portion of the upper 1% get their wealth from inheritance. They have done nothing to deserve it or earn it other than simply be born. This is against one of the basic ideas of capitalism.

The solution? When a person dies, leave up to a set amount to their heirs (maybe 1 million or so, certainly a significant inheritance) and give the rest to the government.

The wealth is redistributed, and while the family of the deceased may complain, they really have no claim to the money whatsoever.

Yet the government deserves it? Seriously?

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Oct. 23, 2015 - 10:18 PM ET #39

Quote Originally Posted by don juan:

You are exactly correct, But Rick the genius believes you have a constitutional right to not allow death tax. Just like his ignorant stance on assault weapons.

Don, I just want to know the constitutionality of liquidating a person's estate and confiscating it at gunpoint, after you dole out a bit to the widow and kids.

Maybe you could help me out, I am obviously not as smart as you.

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 23, 2015 - 11:46 PM ET #40

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

Don, I just want to know the constitutionality of liquidating a person's estate and confiscating it at gunpoint, after you dole out a bit to the widow and kids.

Maybe you could help me out, I am obviously not as smart as you.

that is actually covered by the good and general welfare clause the legislative branch operates when making laws. It also was the thesis that suported obama care the right to pay anthem blue cross unum 100 a week for insurance that wont be needed for a twenty for stastistacally 25 years.

something to keep insurance lower for retired ppl with lung cancer from smoking or type two diabetes from over eating or liver disease from heavy drinking. ect.

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 23, 2015 - 11:56 PM ET #41

i am not sure though because reality dictates the constitution states that the feds cannot seize property without compensating the owner a fair market value. the marriage rights may cover the widow

but i believe the heirs without belonging to a trust fund were the wealth is kept are on the hook for the estate tax.

Its a matter for attorneys to make sums setting up the fund as a loose limited corporation front to keep said wealth as a buisiness the owners of said buisiness of the trust cannot be taxed as an estate tax.

but it is late and i am tired

not sure what to tell you except if you are ready to pony up the fees to a lawyer

wealth can be protected under the seizure of property clause.

joe pockets

Captain

Joined: Jul, 2000

Posts: 5500

Posted: Oct. 24, 2015 - 4:12 PM ET #42

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it.

The dumbest thing that has ever been put on the internet.

No Claim?

Sure, ok, just let me see the part of the Constitution that says that the government gets to confiscate your estate upon death.

You sound like a neo-Habsburgist.

Amend it ! It's been done before.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Oct. 24, 2015 - 4:54 PM ET #43

General welfare? Might as well state interstate commerce lol.

Check this out, and let me know what you think.

https://www.tax-freedom.com/Federal-Estate-Tax-Is-Unconstitutional.htm

joe pockets

Captain

Joined: Jul, 2000

Posts: 5500

Posted: Oct. 25, 2015 - 8:26 AM ET #44

Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:

but if we could pass one admendment in my life time I would like to see a balance budget admendment to pay any future budget with reality of recoursces on hand......

Bill Clinton did it without a amendment

bowlslit

Banned

Joined: Oct, 2008

Posts: 5625

Posted: Oct. 25, 2015 - 8:49 AM ET #45

Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:

Bill Clinton did it without a amendment

You meant to say Republican controlled House under Bill Clintons term right?

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 25, 2015 - 2:59 PM ET #46

Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:

You meant to say Republican controlled House under Bill Clintons term right?

they did it by taking all surpluses in social security to include any new surpluses in the fica tax on payroll.

this was like an overweight individual getting lipo suction and skin surgery without making the necessary lifestyle change. they are bound to find the weight they lossed and the feds were bound to create deficit spending cutting revenue and increasing spending is the reagonanomiics that got us here in the first place.

nature1970

Hall of Fame

Joined: Jan, 2015

Posts: 21593

Posted: Oct. 25, 2015 - 9:07 PM ET #47

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

General welfare? Might as well state interstate commerce lol.

Check this out, and let me know what you think.

https://www.tax-freedom.com/Federal-Estate-Tax-Is-Unconstitutional.htm

seriously the legislate branch didn't enact laws the good welfare or interstate commerce that darn constitution its so bi partson .

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Oct. 25, 2015 - 10:31 PM ET #48

I have lost track of what you are talking about.

don juan

Captain

Joined: Jul, 2001

Posts: 5561

Posted: Oct. 26, 2015 - 5:48 AM ET #49

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

I have lost track of what you are talking about.

That says it all . One cannot have an in depth conversation with you, your mind cannot process too much.

joe pockets

Captain

Joined: Jul, 2000

Posts: 5500

Posted: Oct. 26, 2015 - 6:55 AM ET #50

Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:

So your solution is to take the money away from a few people who don't deserve it and give it to thousands of people that don't deserve it.

I wish I could take credit for that line but a friend of mine came up with it.

I think of estate tax more as breaking up concentrations of power and wealth before they inevitably corrupt the market and the government and create a non-capitalistic market while also creating a non-democratic government.
It makes every generation more of a meritocracy and reduces the chance that well-born idiots will simply inherit powerful government and business positions and must instead earn those on their own merits. That seems good for the country tho it may be bad for the individuals.

All Forums | Politics

So Democrats = Socialists now right?

Hot Forum Topics