America's disintegration: 1953 and 2013, a comparison.

When? I say again "When"?

You claimed that this epidemic of racial violence "continues to this day". (*)(*)(*)(*)ing support that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) statement.

- - - Updated - - -

That is, however, the topic of the thread.

 

I'm suggesting that it be proportional. What's 22% of 16,000? Etc. We rely on corporations to provide, and when we combine income with corporate taxes, we also ask them to be taxed effectively IMO at a 50% rate. It's absurd. You'll never get anywhere with a top-down or down-up approach. BOTH approaches have been tried, you've both failed.

A proportional tax rate where ALL contribute, will lead to much higher funds for government(which is what you're so concerned for) and at the same time the burden will be lessened on everyone.

 

I don't understand what you mean proportional "etc." With a flat tax, both the billionaire and the single mother struggling to support 2 kids on $16,000 a year pay 22% of their income in taxes.

I have no problem with corporations paying a lower tax rate so long as the difference is made up with tax increases on the richest.

Before you said flat tax. Now your saying proportional. You're not making sense.

 

Most of the "single mothers struggling" in the US are paying the price of an irresponsible sex life in younger years, and I have no sympathy for them. IMO the children bred under such circumstances are often not worth the cost of raising them, and any taxes paid toward reimbursement of earlier years on welfare is repayment of debt that is owed to the country irregardless of what anyone else's tax rate is.

It is the woman's responsibility to choose genetically desirable, responsible males as mates so her children have a decent genetic inheritance and parenting.

The woman's movement has done a terrible job of removing the barriers which were in place to try to protect young females from this fate. Affluent liberals have demolished most of them, to the cost of women from less affluent strata of society.


Tough luck. So much for "sexual freedom." Live and learn.

 

I am not discussing him sending in troops.

Okay then. So when do you believe Obama sent troops in?

 

USS Nimitz not to many years ago with prostitution rings and black and Latino gangs.

Deep down below the waterline is where the ship's "hood" is located.

 

Well thanks. I appreciate your honesty. Poor families should pay more so billionaires can get bigger megayachts because they deserve to be poorer.

It comports with how I think most conservatives view things if they are honest about it. It certainly comports with Republican policy.

 

We have equality today yet women still get slapped around by their husbands.
And many women can't say anything because, well, their man will slap them around a little.

What is it with you modern men treating women like your fathers and grandfathers did in the 50's?

 

We don't have sexual equality, we have a distorted view of reality that helps a few among the privileged to do whatever they want while leaving millions of average women out in the cold.

 

Of course I am. A flat tax is by its essence, proportional. Fair rates for everyone. The total amount of course will be different. What's 22% to a billionaire will be different to a millionaire, to a guy in the thousands, and then those who are poor, etc who we should keep exempt or perhaps as low as 5%. That's how I see it.

Everyone contributing, even the small guys, means we can share in our prosperity and share in growing the country together.

 

OK, I think we have different terminology. To me a proportional tax system is one where the rate varies with income.

That's a subjective issue.

Now I'm confused again. If you're saying a billionaires should pay 22% of his income, but a poor person pay 5% of his income, that is not a flat tax.

A true flat tax is one in which the same tax rate percentage is applied (flatly) to all levels of income.

I fair to see how the small guys having to "contribute" more so the richest can get a bigger mega yacht and stash more millions in offshore accounts helps everyone grow together.

 

‘The Luckiest Generation’: LIFE With Teenagers in 1950s America

 

They also lynched blacks because they wanted rights,

People were convicted in sham trials and wrongly executed,

Major corporations like General Electric were busy dumping PC's into the Hudson River,

Civil rights were routinely trampled on in the name of law and order,

Jim Crow laws were in effect, which disenfranchised a whole generation of people,

And the list goes on and on. I'll gladly take today with all its flaws intact as opposed to back then. I think we are a prouder nation today then 63 years ago.

 

The government (Obama) supports BLM and La Raza. Every event featuring either of these groups is organized by recruiters who offer money to those who'll participate.

 

since the military industrial complex is right wing, it stands to reason why they love buggery so much

 

Amen to that!! White/western culture has contributed a lot of good in this world... but not all of that history and heritage should be revered or reverted to.

Let's learn from history, do better and move forward.

 

The anti-Trump demonstrators I saw at the rally I waited in line to attend certainly looked like they were being led by someone.

 

At least they stopped slavery over a century ago--and I don't think they ever officially sanctioned sex slavery.

 

Ms. Dowd reviews the literature here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20dowd.html

 

Why should they mind? People aren't equal. Happiness requires, in part, accepting this fact. Otherwise you eat yourself up in resentment.

 

Oh well, THAT certainly proves that Mysterious Anonymous People pay money to anyone who attends La Raza and Black Lives Matter rallies! Alert the media with this slam dunk evidence!

 

Yea...who needs equality right?

Of course you see yourself as not needing equality because you're on the "good" end of that equation

 

The US promises the right to pursue happiness and have equal treatment under the law, not "equality" in lifestyle or income.

IMO these promises require that there be a level playing field of rules and regulations which assure there can be fair play, with decent compensation for honest effort.

People of greater ability and resources (family backing, finances, health, education, etc) are usually going to come out ahead even with a level playing field, but at least the rest of us can then have a fighting chance. A financial system like the one we have now, in which complicated and costly mathematical algorithms are used to make financial transactions from second to second, essentially creaming off the best of the financial markets, and available only to the wealthiest subscribers, are not an example of a level playing field...nor is a financial system under which it is legal to set up less wealthy clients to lose profits to wealthier clients. There are all sorts of little things like that deliberately built into our system, and they are the type of thing Trump has been calling out during his campaign. That is why he has triggered so much opposition, and why the movers and shakers are now so eager to make deals with him.

Financial services are supposed to be just that--services. Control of money flow has unfortunately perverted them in the West.

I would not want a financial equality that would lead to those capitalists who run things to stop their efforts. They produce everything we need, from cars to fuel to medicines to bread.

 

In Canada we study your history as well as ours.
It is really hard to read your post with so little fact involved
The Dem, Johnson sent in the army in 1964, He put peoples rights ahead of his own party.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/resources/timeline.html