I Hate Middle Class "Liberals" and "Socialists" (and here's why)

I have only 3 problems with your article.

1) you said they are "out-of-the-box thinkers" without quoting it ironically, like I did
2) 'gentrification, gentrification, gentrification, gentrification'. Too many instances of one word SUCKS. It just makes it boring.
3) overall tone. Vocabulary is a part of this. I realize this post is getting old, so this may not be as much of a problem for you anymore, but the wording isn't very good. It sounds like a teenage rant, not an article I should take seriously.
Sprinkle in a couple "bigger" words more often; maybe write a little more loud; or just edit a couple times before sharing.
You need a little more professional of a sound to help your credibility, but a little more soul wouldn't hurt either.


You speak truth, but you better learn to sing it or yell it if you want anyone to listen.

 

Is it not patriotic to defend your country from being taken over from within? The country in which I was born is very close to no longer existing, and don't try to twist that into my being a supporter of slavery, or against womens rights. The country was initially governed based upon a Constitution which has been debased greatly over my life time.

What I was trying to get across is the fact that giving up ones citizenship does not eliminate ones necessity to pay taxes in the U.S.
Perhaps you could elaborate and define exactly what a "fair share" of taxes is?
You might give thought to the fact that "envy" can be just as bad as "greed", but when you use the word "country", exactly what are you referring to?

 

This is what I get from your posts here:

You retired, took your money and moved to an Asian country, probably socialistic or Communistic in structure? Since you're paying taxes, you're still making money from investments, likely in the U.S.?

Then, from your armchair view from abroad, you criticize social programs in the U.S. because you personally aren't getting very much in return?

Feel free to correct me if I have made any inaccurate assessments.

Since you have chosen to be secretive about your age and location, We don't know how old you are. I just recently retired myself at 62. Personally speaking, if what you have stated here in this forum is an indication of what you have to "teach," I'm not interested.

.

 

Hey guys, I gotta thank Duck for reminding me of this thread (plus his critique, which was awesome).

Anyway, this thread got kinda out of hand. The original article I wrote was mostly just a random post on a slow day at LibPorn.com. I don't like using personal experiences to sway anyone's opinion (I think a good objective argument works best...I guess I'm old school in that regard).

That being said, I do think people should try to lead by example. If you're supposedly a socialist (or whatever) maybe you should chill on, let's say, kicking people out of their neighborhood lol

Or maybe go buy some locally produced sneakers, or whatever. I don't know lol

 

This is absurd. We vote, the winners make the rules. This time the liberals won, so they get to make the rules. In the 90s the conservatives won and they made the rules until they broke the economy.

This is also absurd.

The Constitution is still the ruling law of the land and more people today than ever can count on it for protection.

Not if you are still making money from U.S. investments. Nothing unfair about that.

The present rate structure is pretty fair, although I would like to see loopholes closed and the wealthy pay a bit more. The one thing I've noticed all of my life is that it's the rich who whine the most about paying taxes.

In geography , a country is a geographical region. The term is often applied to a political division or the territory of a sovereign state ...

.

 

I don't think there is any other way to truly lead. Maybe temporarily, but eventually the stink of hypocrisy will bring down far more than your name.

 

That's partially correct.

I criticize the social programs only because they go beyond the power the Constitution allows the Federal government. Investment gains are easily found in a falling market as well as a rising market. So smart investors use them to their advantage. Do you see Soros or others like him crying they are losing wealth?

I've done so.

Are either of much importance? I've told you I live in Asia, and move around as I find necessary. My age? Recently turned 75, so what?
Obviously, people only learn by asking relevant questions. Facts exist everywhere, but not only must you seek them out, but you must recognize them when they are found.

 

The economy's been breaking since Reagan, and all it's ever gotten as fixes were band-aids.
It's still only gotten band-aids.
We need change in economic strategy NOW, or extreme luck to stay afloat for any more than a couple decades.

Not really on topic, but nothing else is in this thread =P

 

Why don't you quote me the specific part of the Constitution that prohibits social programs.

Criticizing a country that you find unsuitable to live in is a bit disingenuous, particularly if the country in which you currently live embodies the same values you're criticizing.

Too many people quote as FACT, that which is not.

.

 

Yes, I agree, this is absurd. If only it was so simple.

You have your point of view. Mine is obviously different.

We shall see.

You wouldn't call it taxation without representation? Actually I don't call it unfair, I just look to see where I can take advantage of it.

Are we exercising a little envy here? Again, do you hear Soros, Gates, Jobs, Dell, or any of the wealthiest out there complaining? Or are you talking of those who in reality make up the upper middle class, the achievers in the society who really irk you most?

Now can you expand on what you posted previously, in relation to my or anyone else's, greed and country?

 

The Republican Congress of the 90s and early 2000s lifted the few restraints on banks, Wall Street and AIG, that still existed. And yes, we do need immediate change, we need to regulate these people and tone down the outrageous salaries and bonuses.

"Liberals and Socialists," that's pretty much what we're talking about. As far as the old folks who sold their property in the old neighborhood and pissed off the young folks, that part played out a while back.

.

 

The Constitution only enumerates the powers which are given the Federal government, leaving to the States or the people those which are not enumerated.

Not at all, I think it is ironic that I can live more freely in a country that does NOT lay claim to being the "land of the free" than I could currently in the U.S.A., which does.

Which only provides us with facts and opposing facts, leaving the individuals to discern where the facts really reside. After all, we're not talking science here. Ideally, the best that could possibly be achieved is a status quo acceptable to all, which is quite unlikely as neither side is willing to give. The pendulum will swing left and right in the future as it always has in the past.

 

Agreed. But this shit started with Reagan, Clinton gave it a couple band-aids but spent money erratically - and there is little arguing that Bush was our fiscally worst president ever - Obama gave Wall Street zero accountability for their mistakes, and although it helped the people in the short run, it basically rewarded Wall Street further for raping us.


(PS - I just gave the Presidents all the blame in literal terms, but I do understand congress is more at fault =P)

 

Give Obama a chance, you never know how he will fail you.

At least you didn't have Blair you followed blindly like a sheep.

 

We were total sheep for a little there after 9/11.

 

We all make mistakes.

But, when it comes to peoples lives I would not just go along with others. Yes, all politicians are the same, but I'd have a little more respect for someone who can stand on their own two feet.

 

The purpose of taxation is to run the country, not for your personal enrichment. For you to take advantage of tax structures in a country where you do not reside is greed over country. It appears to me that you only keep your citizenship for personal gain.

If you are a citizen you have a right to vote. There is no taxation without representation. If you earn money in the U.S. and are not a citizen, there are no constitutional issues for you, it simply doesn't apply.

No, they don't complain, they pay lobbyists to make laws to reduce their taxes via loopholes, however, there are many very wealthy people who happily pay their fair share and wouldn't mind paying more.

There is no envy, just contempt for people who get the most and pay the least.

.

 

You still haven't shown what in the Constitution says that the Federal government cannot have social programs. Hell, the states wouldn't even give money for George Washington's army to have shoes, you can't leave it to the states to spend money on social issues.

So far, I have never felt anything but free here. Please enlighten me as to what you can do there that you can't do here.

Houston, we have agreement.

.

 

Taxation in no way enriches me. However the effect of it, and many government programs, sometimes does allow me, and many others to profit from it. Just ask Al Gore, and George Soros.

That's true, but who should I vote for? The progressive Democrat, or the progressive Republican? American politics today has become a choice of who brings home the most bacon. This is how a real Democracy works. But I am a citizen.

Is George Soros, Gates, Jobs, or are any of the wealthiest Conservatives? As for the wealthy people you claim wouldn't mind paying more taxes, they are free to do so. There is no law preventing someone from donating money to pay down the National debt if they wish.

Yet you have no contempt for those who produce nothing in return for what taxpayers are made responsible to provide them?

 

As I was reading this, Bill Moyer was summing up his weekly show saying that the top salaries have doubled since Reagan while the middle class has remained flat. And, today, the top executives make as much in a day as the average worker makes in a year.

Glad you clarified that on presidential power.

Have you been paying attention to Obama's legislative agenda? He is making changes to the way banks do business and has his sights on Wall Street and CEO compensation. Don't forget, He has a ball and chain around his ankle, the Republicans.

.