Let Them Eat Cake - or - Trump goes full-on Bernie over Corona Virus

It might surprise you that people with 6 figure incomes have a proportionate amount of Bill's and expenses.

 

Where is your proof that it would go to corporations and stock by backs?

I'm all for it going to individuals and small businesses.

 

My partisan spin? I take it you've never read any of my posts? I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site and in almost every case one of the President's most vocal supporters. But on this one he's so far left, so far wrong, I just cannot agree.

 

My income is well above that. I'll get only the reduced bribe, if I get one at all. I don't give a **** about the bills and expenses of the wealthy, including myself. I have saved enough that I will be fine. In fact, I have prepared enough that I don't have to rush the store for toilet paper, hand sanitizer, food, or anything else.

This isn't the first pandemic in recent history. If after all the disasters on the news in the past 50 years, an adult is not prepared for most of what is to come is his or her own fault.

Remember the tale of the 10 virgins:

If you make a hundred-thousand dollars or more and don't have enough savings to get past this then you're not living within your means and only an all-out communist would ever believe that I should give to you according to your need.

 

Then you don't know a single conservative... well, you know me. And I am against any safetynet provided at the expense of the fruits of the labors of others and forced under cover of law. I don't care how poor a person is or how rich or in between. Redistribution of wealth is always socialism and is always wrong. Always.

 

Are you finished lecturing from your soap box?

Point being made was.... even people who earn above the thresehold have bills to pay. That didn't really require your parental lecture. It is a fact.

 

Every single conservative aligns with what you envision they stand for? Yeah, ok dude. You have the whole world and everybody in it figured out.

Get over yourself.

No, actually I don't. Assuming I did would make me an arrogant asshat.

Well... that's just stupid and short sighted. I guess anybody injured and legitimately on disability insurance and social programs should just be moved out into the streets to die.

For as smart and wealthy you claim you are, you just are lacking a lot of common sense.

You live in a world of perceptions that are 100% black or white. The world is full of shades of grey. Smart people understand this.

 

Sorry you are that ideological. Depending upon the situatiob both ideologies can destroy this nation

I cannot be a purist due to what I see as idiocy. Pragmatism with a moral center is intelligence.

 

You can be pragmatic with your own money; leave mine out of it. You can donate time and money locally, to your church, your community non-secular charities, even baskets to your neighbors or do like this lady did - all the way back in the pre-Wuhan-Virus era of 2017:



What is destroying this nation is that so many are ignoring the Constitution that created our nation, surrendering their voice to the politicians in Washington, D.C.

 

No conservative supports redistribution of wealth, taking from those who produce and giving to those who choose to not.

On the other hand, true conservatives are very compassionate and caring for those who cannot care for themselves and completely agree that those who cannot care for themselves through no fault of their own should get help from their family, churches, communities, even states but they understand that there is no constitutional authority for the Federal Government to play a role in that and that, in doing so, the Federal Government exceeds its constitutional authority. They understand that if the Federal Government can exceed their authority in one thing then they can do so in any thing they choose.

You may not know me but you know of me. I am a conservative. I may be the only conservative you know. I may be the only conservative on these boards. Most others, and I certainly don't know of them all, are simply more or less socialist than the others, complaining about it when some get assistance from the Federal Government while holding their hands out for their own piece of the pie.

 

It was a fact made in reply to my own post. Typical of hypocrites, you respond to what I said and then challenge my right to respond to your own challenge.

And my point is that I prepared for emergencies - anything from earthquake, tornado, flood, hurricane, financial collapse, even war - and including pandemic. Why do I have to pay the bills of those who did not? The level of preparedness, the comfort enjoyed during disaster, is certainly better for those with more compared to those with less. No doubt BIll Gates pantry is better stocked than is mine. His shelter room is far more comfortable than is mine. Part of my own preparations is that I have plenty of canned foods but I eat those canned foods every week. In any case, there's no excuse for any head-of-household, no matter what their income, to have not prepared for 30, 60, or perhaps even 90 days of disaster.

That my posts offend you or you take them as lecturing from my soap box only shows that you know I am right but you want to stick to your argument against the sound logic that I have provided. You, like any socialist, want your piece of the pie from those who prepared while you did not.

You are not asking for government money to compensate you for your own failure to prepare, you're asking that the government use their guns, their tanks, their army, and the threat of their prisons to take money from taxpayers and give that money to you to compensate you for your own failure.

 

Always about your money .lol. Even paying taxes is theft! Lol I am not a purist in ideology for I hold some common sense con beliefs as well as some classical liberal beliefs .

This allows pragmatism. If a con way of fixing a problem fails then it is time to try another fix regardless of ideology. This is what intelligence does instead of sticking with what. failed. Being a purist and allowing ideology to trump intelligence is a losing proposition

The reality is all civilizations tax their citizens. And we have no say in what the money is used for. It should be used for the common good of the nation and people. Including social safety nets, our common defense and policing to name a few . This is what modern civ. does. I would not want to live in a nation based exclusively on con beliefs or the beliefs held by the modern left. We have had a mixture instead of purism.

I dont think the right side can give us an economy that serves most Americans . indeed they were in power that saw the rise of the excesses of the gilded age and the crash of 29 and the ensuing deptession . Once they came back into power in the 80s and they deregulated the finance sector it was no surprise we crashed in 08. Their economic beliefs is the culprit. They gave us the giant sucking sound perot warned us about. Offshoring our value added manuf. Base was a gop idea. Thanks to bush sr and Clinton moving to the right.

Cons are no friends of anyone but a few elites. Yet because some working people believe in con beliefs they cut their own throats economically. And their ideology blinds these people .

The same applies to working people who are dems. For that party no longer looks out for working people Neither party does.

Imo there is no way in hell the cons would have offshored our manuf economy or drew up plans to do it . And yet the so called con gop did just that !

 

I struggled with your post because you were too lazy to type full words. You're probably a product of the public school system. I'm assuming that when you say con you mean conservative and cons means conservatives. At first I thought you were shortening Constitution and it's still not clear in every case.

Did I say paying taxes is theft? I never said any such thing and I never have. You'll learn a lot more about the Constitution, original intent, and how our government is supposed to operate if you'll read my words and the links I provide rather than just look for ways to twist my words to suit your agenda. In fact, no conservative believes that paying taxes is theft and if anyone who thinks paying taxes is theft and says they're a conservative they are lying. They might be anarchists instead. I'm a conservative - a constitutional conservative, to be precise. The Constitution allows, properly, for the government to lay taxes for a specific set of uses.

You seem to be making the common mistake of assuming that Republican = Conservative = Constitutionalist = Capitalist. You can throw "Right Wing" in the mix if you choose. All of those things are completely unique philosophies. Often times, two or more, in various combinations can be found together.

But a conservative capitalist would have morals and practice ethical capitalism. Some capitalists believe corporate profits should be pursued at all costs to others. Some defend any corporate action on the basis of legal responsibilities of boards and officers to the shareholders. Of course they ignore that those responsibilities are to provide the prudence that a reasonably prudent person would provide, not profits at all costs.

For instance, some people have bought many thousands of bottles of hand sanitizer to sell at seriously inflated prices. Is that capitalism at its finest? Is it ethical? No, of course not. I love capitalism and have used it quite well to my benefit but, like all things, it should be executed with ethics. Thus, not all capitalists are conservative.

When Republicans pass unconstitutional laws, such as DOMA referred to in these threads, are they constitutionalists? Of course not. Constitutionally, DOMA laws would be acceptable at the State level, though we know the Courts would never allow it. The certain thing is that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the Federal Government to involve itself in marriage. So, Republicans are not necessarily conservative.

A pure Constitutionalist might, or might not, support many of the things you're proposing but understands you have to change the Constitution to do them - See Article V. A conservative, on the other hand will be against many of the things you're proposing. People like me, constitutionally conservative, believe that you're wrong in your goals but if you're going to do them you have to do them by the Constitution. I'll fight against those goals, nonviolently, with all I have but if, in the end, you succeed in changing the Constitution, I'll accept them - until or unless they become so oppressive that the Declaration of Independence comes into play.

Bottom line is that on the left we have communism. On the right we have conservatism - or anti-communism. No conservative supports anything communist. They also don't support capitalism, such as offshoring, to the detriment of our nation and security.

 

The dems are not communists .

Except to people who dont know what communism is

Both parties only represent the elites making both parties look like an oligarchy or fascism
.

You must hhave went to private school or was home schooled?

Yes con is short for conservative or cconfidence man. Not much ddifference Imo. .

But I am not a Dem. Left that party when they stopped representing the working americans under Clinton.

 

Once again, too lazy to type full words. I'm a high school dropout but I learned language from reading books and learned to learn from the same. It's the best way to learn both, as well as the best way to learn spelling.

I never said Democrats were communists. Democrats are like Republicans in that neither one is actually anything other than whatever their party wants them to be so that the party can maintain its own power. That is not to say that no Democrats are communists because we know some who are. In the same way, there may be a few conservative Republicans. But most people register to vote in one party or the other but that doesn't make them actual Democrats or Republicans. It just makes them voters.

 

LOL, now you get to define what every other conservatives position is? Good lord man, get a grip.

I agree with this.

Well you certainly think highly of your black and white perspecitves.

 

You can respond, even with ridiculous black and white one size fits all perspectives, but expect to be called out on it.

Do you want a cookie?

Who says you are? If we all get a return on some of the taxes we paid in, how exactly are YOU paying for that?

Ok, great. Again, pat yourself on the back. See the difference between you and me is that I am also prepared, but also understand back to my original point that even those high income earners have obligations.

You are taking that simple statement to create long drawn out posts patting yourself on the back while simultaneously ignoring realities with black and white perspectives. You want a sounding board to tell everybody how great you are. Stay humble my friend.

Oh for ****s sake. Dude, seriously get over yourself. I make more than you, guaranteed, I have more wealth, and am well prepared. I am in the 2%. At the same time, I can identify ridiculousness and self gloating that just makes you look unrealistic and ridiculous.

I made one simple factual comment "wealthy people have bills too", and you have used that statement to go on this long self glorifying lecture. Nobody gives a **** dude.

Sound logic? Lol. Logic that is you trying to impress everybody with you panic bunker and canned food? Again, get over yourself.

hahahahahahahahhahahah

Now I am a socialist. You make me ashamed to be a conservative. People like you, with your self righteous crappy attitude and lecturing give us all a bad name.

want your piece of the pie from those who prepared while you did not.

These conclusions from the statement "wealthy people have bills to pay too".

Wow. Take your meds.

 

I and others have used con for conservative for years here. I also use CIA to denote central inyelligence agency and dem to denote democrat. Out of thousands of posts only you have made an issue of it! I find that just a bit anal retentive . And unnecessary .

But perhaps you don't like con because it is also is used to denote confidence as in the term con man. But as I said there isnt much difference between a conservative and a con man since both are deceptive players .

I am speaking of the politicians and not an average con voter . Unless the voter is a far right radical extremist . Yet I think the same way about the modern lib or progressive. ****! I used lib to denote liberal !

But at least I understand the definitions of socialism and communism unlike so many on the right. And what both entail when it comes to an economy.

 

Redistribution of wealth is not a conservative value. If a person supports redistribution of wealth they're not a conservative regardless of any claim they make to the contrary. Black and white.

 

Don't be so certain you make more than I make. And who's bragging?

But the difference between you and me is that I am not suggesting that government should bail out those who make over 100K, or over 200K or over 300K and, especially, send them money without any determination of need. Why do you or I need money from the government? Have you lost your job? I haven't. You're no different from the left except the left usually only wants to take from those who produce and give it to the poor; you're supporting taking from those who produce and giving it to the rich.

 

It just makes your posts hard to read. You save a couple seconds and some keystrokes but then everyone who reads your posts has to stop, even if for just a second, and figure out what you're saying, translating your shortcuts into actual meaning for consideration. The accumulated time your posts cost others far outweighs your own benefit of saving a couple keystrokes. Unless you were lost on an island with a bunch of other folks and your language devolved along with the language of all of those boys, consider using English as it is the language of the site and the language of the American Dream.

 

I was wrong, republicans raised it, now the right considers 99k rich... we will remember that when the next round of tax cuts come around, and they whine about dems saying it's 250k again, and repubs saying 250k is not rich

 

what happened to the right saying the rich were just getting back their own money they paid in, so it didn't cost anything when we gave them some back?

the right only cares about people making way more than 250k a year, anything less and they want to reduce it as much as possible as the mega rich do not benefit anyways in their eyes

 

More unsubstantiated, and untrue, claims.

 

republicans refused to cap the Bush tax cuts at the first 250.... true or not? they were holding the people hostage unless those over 250k got a mega tax cut.... point made

remember these debates

"World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over"

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/jfmt1...-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over