Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

lol loosen up big guy

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

LMAO Generaly when someone on a forum openly says they don't see the joke it is a cover for being extreemly pissed off

[randolph]

I hope we don't have to administer banned-aids if this keeps up.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

LMAO Generaly when someone on a forum openly says they don't see the joke it is a cover for being extreemly pissed off

Speak for yourself. I don't see jokes that aren't there, and in any case I always consider the source when responding to anything directed at me personally. Hence, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

[GRH]

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?

[randolph]

by Sam Pizzigati

Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?

The answer from today?s White House: not much. Advocacy for equality has to take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, once fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly put at risk our nation?s full faith and credit.
But history offers another alternative. Back in 1943, halfway through World War II, a President of the United States confronted a debt ceiling crisis eerily similar to our own. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, faced a congressional opposition to inconveniencing the rich ? with higher taxes ? every bit as rabid as ours.
FDR?s choice, in the face of this opposition? He doubled down on equality.
Roosevelt?s debt ceiling battle actually began in the months right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed dollars ? and lots of them ? to wage and win the new war. FDR wanted those dollars raised as equitably as possible.
That would require, FDR and his New Dealers believed, a steeply graduated income tax, with tax rates on income in the top income brackets much higher than rates on income in the bottom brackets.
How high should the top rates go? All the way, FDR proposed, to 100 percent. At a time of ?grave national danger,? the President told Congress in April 1942, ?no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,? an income just shy of $350,000 in today?s dollars.
The year before, gun executive Carl Swebilius had pulled in $243,204 after taxes, the equivalent of over $3.7 million today. Steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary. But conservatives in Congress looked the other way. They never gave FDR?s plan any love.
Four months later, Roosevelt would try again. In his Labor Day message, FDR repeated his $25,000 ?supertax? income cap call. Again Congress ignored him.
FDR would not back down. In early October, the President flexed his authority under the newly enacted Emergency Price Control Act and issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes, a move, he pronounced, needed ?to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.?


Obama is no FDR.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?

Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

Many people lost everything in their 401Ks. That doesn't happen with Social Security. Social Security is basically an insurance policy that is paid into in order to have at least some funds for old age. Privatizing SS would make it vulnerable to stock market fluctuations, an insane idea.

[franalexes]

A lot of people put what they had into a home; above and beyond what they could really afford, thanks to Barney Frank and his Fannie-May and Freddie-Mack. Not only are these people upside down on their mortgage but the housing market for those above water has been adversly affected.

So having housing connected to the government did not create a safety net. As you say," insane idea."
It is more of a black hole.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Many people lost everything in their 401Ks. That doesn't happen with Social Security. Social Security is basically an insurance policy that is paid into in order to have at least some funds for old age. Privatizing SS would make it vulnerable to stock market fluctuations, an insane idea.

Well with freedom comes responsibility. You're free to choose your retirement plan, and responsible for the results. But this country isn't what it used to be either.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

Well, since you want to beg the issue, I will respond without specificity.

Moderators routinely delete posts that insult other members and issue violations. Some members have a history of such violations and have received bans of increasing number of days over time; often, this ends up leading to a permanent ban. We both know that you are well aware of this fact. For instance, one member recently received a 7-day ban for a particularly nasty insult against one of the transwomen very active on this site.