Good point TiJay you may like and identify with a regular joe type of guy, but he may not be qualified to run the country. Like Gracchus said in gladiator "I may not be a man of the people, but I try to be a man for the people".
No, I most certainly do NOT identify with a regular Joe type of Guy. I'm a well educated middle class citizen headed to Med school.
My problem is not with Elitism, it's with Populism. Politicians are what they are. But for one "elite" politician to say "Hey, I'm a common man just like you. Don't vote for them, because they're elites and they don't understand you like I do," is dishonest. They're throwing around the elitism charge to score political points. Dems do it too, but its not prevalent
Both parties want the same thing. Power and money and control. The only people I've seen in politics who don't want those things more than anything else are A FEW 3rd party people and some democrats who aren't afraid to cross over on some issues.
And lots of democrats are rich too. I haven't checked the statistics, though.
And guns are not all used for hunting. Their use for self defense is even more important. I wrote a research paper on that, actually. Statistics are in favor of it.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's always money, but almost definitely Power and Control. My point isn't to say that Republicans are corrupt or Rich or anything (because MOST Republicans aren't), and there are many rich democrats. My point is the mentality that Republicans have (giving more and more to the wealthy and hoping it trickles down). I just don't see where it works.
And I'm not against guns (my dad's a cop). Just don't see why people want submachine guns to "protect" themselves
Why you always hating on us repupblicans lol. I can say the same thing your saying about the democratic party. And I'm so tired of people thinking that everyone in the repuplican party is rich. There are plenty of democrats who have PLENTY of money. First of all hollywood who is mainly liberal. People seem to forget that Kerry was a billionaire. come on now be fair
I really wanted to re-shoot this video because it didn't get my point across at all.
What I meant by "the rich party" is the fact that the people currently running it believe in "trickle down economics" and that redistributing the wealth upward in the form of tax cuts helps everyone. If those same tax cuts were given to the middle class where do you think the money goes? Right back to those same people they're trying to give the tax cuts to. Americans buy things.
It's not republicans that upset me, it's the philosophy that giving more to the few, produces more for the many. It's kind of backwards if you ask me. And you don't have to give me the whole spill about them cutting jobs, and raising prices, etc. It can work both ways, it has before. I guess my problem is that I'm still waiting on that money to trickle down...and it hasn't. The gap between rich and poor has grown extremely large since the 80's (Reaganomics). It doesn't work.
When people have money, they spend it. That money goes back to businesses, sales increase, etc.
They may have to pay a little more in taxes, but MORE people are able to purchase from their businesses. It's economics from the bottom --> Up!
I believe in personal responsibility and working hard for what one wants, but the system isn't set up to create wealth, it's set up to keep the wealthy wealthy. Your party currently embraces that philosophy that benefits the few and not the many.
I understand the point of view your comming from when u say that if money is distributed people will end up giving it right back...but think it will not go back to the small businesses like local markets, no it will more then likely go to big companies like Wal-mart..etc thereby increasing the centralization of wealth.
Well, under Obama's plan taxes will not be raised on about 98% of small businesses. So something's telling me they'll be alright. It seems more like it would be Wal-mart's taxes that are going up a bit, not small businesses or upstarts. They would then be able to keep their prices lower, remaining competitive with big businesses like Wal-mart.
small businesse that wont be taxed heavily are the ones who make less then $250k, let me put it this way to you my uncle owns a small chain of retail clothing stores (which he worked hard for) that each maybe brings in about $120K a year. overall yes the company brings in more then $250K a year but RIGHT NOW he himself makes what $100K, after all the costs to run a business is paid.
when the new tax plan is implemented his revenue will severly decrease because with the higher taxes he will have to raise prices, more then likely ppl wont come to his stores and he will still have to pay off all his business payments like labor costs, insurance, cost for merchandise and so on. He predicts that the new tax plan might put him out of business (by the way he has masters in marketing)
It's not as if he is raising taxes. He's simply letting Bush's tax cuts expire, and allowing them to go back to the rates of the 90's. Can you honestly say that your hard-working uncle would not have been just as successful 10 years ago?
last time i checked, obama is gonna raise taxes not lower them...and i think you have misinterpreted what im saying about my uncles situation. with the current tax rates his business is doing fine, progressing actually, but with obamas plan his business may regress.
what do i mean it will go to big organizations? put it this way people like to spend money but also like to have some left over. as of right now companies like wal-mart can already out compete small markets with prices. but the difference now isnt that big so ppl still go to local markets. when this new plan is implemented taxes will force businesses to raise prices and where do u think everyone will want to shop at after that? just my insight of things
Hold on dumb fuck, lol. I wish you had read my comments before. My dad is a strong conservative who regularly votes Republican and he is rich by no means
My point is that the attack machine attacks the "Elite left" while the republican party, in its current embodiment, serves the INTERESTS of the rich and NOT the middle class, where the heart of the economy lies.
I guess, I could have more carefully articulated this, but it was just a quick vid.
I respect the party for the ideals it holds and I respect you for being one, as long as it is for those ideas.
My overall point is that they are just as rich and highly educated as their opposition, yet they are saying "Hey, that guy over there is TOO smart. He couldn't possibly relate to you" It's the Karl Rove attack politics that upsets me, for it's a politics of division. We can respectfully disagree and campaign on issues without being hypocritical
Yes, I agree that we can and should campaign on the issues. The problem that I have with the Democratic Party, is that it's ideal is to overtax the rich and big corporations. The problem with overtaxing the big corporations, is that when you do so, they aren't able to expand and create more jobs. The Democratic Party attempts to polarize people by class, while the Republican party attempts to polarize people on other issues.
The way to help the middle class and the poor, is not by giving hand-outs(ie welfare, food stamps, etc) indefinitely. All that you do when you create a permanent class of welfare citizens, is you have an entire class of people who have no concept of personal responsibility. I myself am not rich by any means. If Obama were to be elected, I would receive heavy tax cuts, because of my tax bracket. But I don't believe that Obama's policies are what this country needs.
I think that Obama's plan to place higher taxes on people making $250,000 annually or more, is faulty at best. Are we talking 250k net or gross? Is the "American Dream" only realized at $250k and after that you have to "spread the wealth around"? Why is the number $250k? How does this actually help America? How many jobs will not be realized because small business at that level won't be able to expand? And large corporations will be forced to cut jobs?
The "Left" contains a form of elitism, by saying that the American Dream can only be realized at a certain level(say $250,000), and no higher without penalty. Many of the leaders of the Democratic Party are quite wealthy(including Joe Biden. I'm originally from Delaware, and this is a man who is extremely arrogant and elitist). Not everybody who votes Republican is a "rich elitist". There is no hope in either party really. They both have their elitists. It just depends where you sit.
Because this administration has held the most elitist attitude and the most power of pretty much any administration I've ever seen or read about. Yet, the people that helped get him elected are the ones that I'm hearing yell "Elitist."
Republicans are the rich party? Ummm, Obama and Biden are fuckin rich too. Democrats are rich too. You really need to do your research better. Cause this is..."seriously"....bul*lshit. You have no points in this. First vlog grade, F---------
Obama just paid back his student loans not too long ago and over 90% of his revenue is book royalties. He cleared about $4M this year. Joe Biden is the second poorest senator, lol. He only makes about $250K a year.
But all this doesn't matter, because what I meant by that statement was that Republicans throw the Elitism charge when they are the ones that cater to the Rich and support their interests, not the interests of the middle-class
Obama just paid back his student loans not too long ago and over 90% of his revenue is book royalties. He cleared about $4M this year. Joe Biden is the second poorest senator, lol. He only makes about $250K a year.
But all this doesn't matter, because what I meant by that statement was that Republicans throw the Elitism charge when they are the ones that cater to the Rich and support their interests, not the interests of the middle-class
I dont think I have heard this charges of elitism from the republicans, maybe I just dont pay attention. I think you maybe a bit confused. What I have heard is the republicans criticizing so called Democrat "elite" telling everyone else that they should pay more in taxes. I dont think its an argument about them being wealthy, but an argument about them telling everyone else what to do.
So you must have missed when Karl Rove compared Barack Obama to "the guy at the country club" sipping champagne or something and "making snide comments as people walk by."
And I guess that Democrat elite you're referring to is the one that said he wants the middle class and all working families (95%) to get a tax CUT, not an increase.
Aren't Republicans basically saying we're not going to give you a tax cut because we want to give those tax cuts to the wealthy, so they can blah blah...?
Couldn't agree more. Somewhere along the line it became a BAD thing to want someone who is actually INTELLIGENT and has a spectactular education running this country.
This is exactly my point. In discussing Sarah Palin, it was said "She's from a Small town, but that's not good enough for them."
Since, when did this become a qualification to be Vice/President? I mean that's great and all, but don't parade it around like that fact is going to make all our problems go away. Forgive me for wanting someone who is highly educated and deeply knowledgeable on the issues running the country, but they act like that's a bad thing. "You don't want an egghead," they say
true, but my problem is with the ELITIST charge. I have problems with some democrats as well, but they never retort by saying "Do you really want this INTELLIGENT person to lead you? He/She's too smart. They don't understand. Wouldn't you rather have someone just like you?" All the while, they are probably even more out of touch.
What bothers me the most, is I think it actually works
I don't think the point is that NRA members want an AK47, they just don't want gun control because the next step is no protection from our crazy government and their policies. :c)
You might want to aim towards hating NeoCons those are fake republicans that don't follow what republicans use to stand for. Remember Martin Luther King was a republican. Democrats voted down civil rights v=-p5-7ValsFk
YOU'RE SO RIGHT!!! It was my mistake to generalize like that. Thumbs Up
And Yes MLK was a Republican. But after he died, most people that WERE Democrats became REPUBLICANS (against civilrights. Today the Republican party is the party of Nostalgia to a time when things were simpler...and blacks couldn't vote, lol. Just kidding (a bit), but If MLK was alive today, he'd be a Democrat. Remember the "Poor People's Campaign?" As far as I can tell, he was not a Republican for it's Economic ideology.
Just wanted to clarify that the shift of Rural states (especially the South) from Democrats to Republicans was a DIRECT result of African Americans gaining civil Rights. The South protested by leaving the Party and becoming Republicans. The Progressiveness of Democrats (the New Deals, etc.) brought Blacks to the Democratic Party.
Well I am a Libertarian. I believe that any president is not able to do anything. Where it is at is in the Senate and the House. Considering all the problems was Democrats controlling I blame some of the problems on them. Though wiping out our constitution took a good deal with both parties. Democrats controlled for a while and you see them trying to keep poor families apart(welfare no marriage etc.) If we followed the constitution still we'd be better off. Imagine our dollar backed by gold now.
I think it would be great if our dollar was backed by something, substantial. However, The power of the presidency comes in the fact that they are responsible for how a law is executed, which actually makes a LOT of difference.
And you're right, both parties are pretty good at screwing up. I just feel like at this current time, Dems are on the right side of the issues, my personal opinion.
I'm not voting. Both are sketchy and I don't think either one will benefit us in the least. However with that said. Dems have control and have had control of congress for the past 2 years now. Can you remember 3 years ago? I can and shit was going pretty good, not the best by any means but still better than now. AND Im not voting because I feel very strongly that politicians are getting better and better at saying and not doing. so screw it. its a waste of time now.
I can respect that. But the problem isn't with electing them, it's with holding them accountable. We haven't been doing a good job of that, and partially the media is to blame. The incumbency rate of congress is over 90% and we are to blame for that. And the problems we have now is a direct result of past actions and inaction of congress.
And also I understand that, but unless they're living up to the spirit of our forefathers and planning on being patriotic :) (lol) and OVERTHROWING the government, I don't see the problem.
Your dont have the slightest clue about politics....
1st:
The 2 riches senators are:
1st - John Karry
2st - Harry Reid
2nd:
Criminals are criminals. Do you think, that just because congress passes a gun ban, that they arnt going to get a gun some other way? What happens when that gun is pointed at the innocent.
First, John Kerry married into wealth and Harry Reid grew up in a broken shack. My point of bringing up Republicans being the "party of the rich" is that the ideology says "give advantages to the rich few and it will trickle down to the rest of you."
What is put aside is that when you give those advantages to the People that need it, they support those businesses run by those rich few, and their businesses expand CREATING JOBS!
Only difference is that one of these ideologies screws the people
Secondly, I don't support a gun band. I just can't understand why you personally need a sub-machine gun.
So what DOES happen when that criminal's gun is pointed at you? Is he then going to wait for you to pull out your M16 and fire back?
We all have the right to bare arms, but at the same time there is a need to control the amount of illegal firearms that are being released on the streets in urban areas. I do not support a gun ban, but I heavily support more regulation in this area. Thanks
Well, turns out that you actually ARE allowed to own an automatic weapon (as long as its not fully automatic) but there are parts you could buy to MAKE them automatic.
Why is this irrelevant? The ideology says Tax breaks to the rich help everyone else. This is an example (of many) of this NOT being the case. And I'm not saying that this is always true, but more often than not it is. Also that wasn't the only thing that made me feel that way, but...
It's not that the wealthy should be paying more taxes, but that they shouldn't be paying Little to None (Comparatively with everyone else)
the top 1% of wealth already acct for the majority of revenue (with a flat rate, 17% i think). this demo notion of tax "fairness" if anything would be cutting taxes heavily on the rich. not to mention fairness in taxes would assume we are striving for an egalitarian society or at least economy, limiting business, enforcing gov't control of free markets, removing capitalism, and would basically be the building blocks for socialism. and we should all know what that tends to lean towards.
Read my comment about Fairness and bottom-up economics
Socialism? What's more socialist: that or giving Large tax breaks to those corporations, not regulating them, watching them screw up then using middle-class Taxpayers to bail them out, wink :) Sound familiar?
I hope it does
Government shouldn't CONTROL the free market, but when it's not regulated LAST WEEK happens. You know as I do that capitalism isn't going ANYWHERE in America. We are capitalists by nature and consumer a nation.
the problem to begin with was the gov't did get involved making sum prime mortgage loans when govt tried to fix the housing byouts in the 1980s under carter (dem)[CRA]. clinton applied the CRA in the 1990s bush again in 2002 except bush saw the problem pushed for investigation which was block by dems like bartney frank in 2004. mccain and obama both notioned the problem is coming except mccain proposed a bill which was blocked as obama just notioned. now were are where we are
history should be our guide showing capitalism DOES work and we are a nation of consumers because the coprorate tax in america is the 2nd highest in the WORLD at 35%. thats why prod/manufacturing is sent abroad along with cheaper labor.
people today want everything handed to them instead of working for what you get and striving to better themselves. you want the govt to act as a big brother holding your hand through life like you cant make your own decisions.
So a CEO can screw a company, yet walk away with $66mil...(Merrill Lynch). Welfare for CEO's is still welfare...
Capitalism is great, Laissez-faire is STUPID. Oversight is needed. Last time we had unbridled capitalism we wound up with Standard Oil, and the Great Depression. Taxing the richest 5% while giving breaks to the other 95% means that people will use that money to stimulate the economy. More consumer demand = more production = more jobs.
no it means that since we are taxing the rich, costs go up for products. More so than they already are. Thats economics 101. what a company pays in taxes is figured into cost of product. That hike in cost goes directly to us and the company still makes a huge profit. and its not a tax break it's $1000 back, so it's the exact same thing as a stimulus check but it comes back with your returns. jesus christ people, dont spew the crap you hear, use your fucking heads
Our economy did very well under Clinton with higher taxes. I understand economics. I also understand that the small raise in price would be payable by the consumer who now has more capital to spend. Tax cuts to businesses and corporations should be given in a manner that helps the middle class, because we are the backbone of this country. Tax cuts to corps that shift jobs over seas do not help us; Give them to Corps that create jobs here.
2nd highest? you're forgetting to add all of the tax breaks that allow them to circumvent that tax rate. Not many American Corporations, if any pay a tax rate of 35%
Nobody is asking for a handout. The point is to let 95% of the American people (including you) KEEP MORE of OUR money and allow us to stimulate the economy that way. When we have more money we buy more things, businesses profit, jobs are created, the economy blooms.
good argument. youre talking about the capital gains tax which is different and its rate with tax breaks is around 12%.
history shows raising taxes stiffles economic growth and production. and look at it from the flip side. this 5% getting taxed will not want to lose revenue from this. so they will either raise prices causing inflation, limit production hours, eliminate jobs, or a combination of each to compensate. getting a tax cut will be irrelevent if high inflation is the product result
I don't believe there are very many people that want a handout. The American People work pretty hard. Why not give a tax break to the Middle Class that is struggling through no fault of their own. That's not a handout. That's keeping more of YOUR money.
Good point TiJay you may like and identify with a regular joe type of guy, but he may not be qualified to run the country. Like Gracchus said in gladiator "I may not be a man of the people, but I try to be a man for the people".
Remus0387 2 years ago
No, I most certainly do NOT identify with a regular Joe type of Guy. I'm a well educated middle class citizen headed to Med school.
My problem is not with Elitism, it's with Populism. Politicians are what they are. But for one "elite" politician to say "Hey, I'm a common man just like you. Don't vote for them, because they're elites and they don't understand you like I do," is dishonest. They're throwing around the elitism charge to score political points. Dems do it too, but its not prevalent
TiJayEve 2 years ago
They score short term political points by demonizing intellectualism.
And I should make a correction. My problem is with "disingenuous populism targeted at intellectualism"
TiJayEve 2 years ago
I hate republicans soo much.,,,, words couldn't describe.
h0neybunn 3 years ago
Both parties want the same thing. Power and money and control. The only people I've seen in politics who don't want those things more than anything else are A FEW 3rd party people and some democrats who aren't afraid to cross over on some issues.
And lots of democrats are rich too. I haven't checked the statistics, though.
And guns are not all used for hunting. Their use for self defense is even more important. I wrote a research paper on that, actually. Statistics are in favor of it.
chrzl 3 years ago
I wouldn't necessarily say it's always money, but almost definitely Power and Control. My point isn't to say that Republicans are corrupt or Rich or anything (because MOST Republicans aren't), and there are many rich democrats. My point is the mentality that Republicans have (giving more and more to the wealthy and hoping it trickles down). I just don't see where it works.
And I'm not against guns (my dad's a cop). Just don't see why people want submachine guns to "protect" themselves
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Why you always hating on us repupblicans lol. I can say the same thing your saying about the democratic party. And I'm so tired of people thinking that everyone in the repuplican party is rich. There are plenty of democrats who have PLENTY of money. First of all hollywood who is mainly liberal. People seem to forget that Kerry was a billionaire. come on now be fair
PrettyWomen88 3 years ago
Lol, well hello again :)
I really wanted to re-shoot this video because it didn't get my point across at all.
What I meant by "the rich party" is the fact that the people currently running it believe in "trickle down economics" and that redistributing the wealth upward in the form of tax cuts helps everyone. If those same tax cuts were given to the middle class where do you think the money goes? Right back to those same people they're trying to give the tax cuts to. Americans buy things.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
It's not republicans that upset me, it's the philosophy that giving more to the few, produces more for the many. It's kind of backwards if you ask me. And you don't have to give me the whole spill about them cutting jobs, and raising prices, etc. It can work both ways, it has before. I guess my problem is that I'm still waiting on that money to trickle down...and it hasn't. The gap between rich and poor has grown extremely large since the 80's (Reaganomics). It doesn't work.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
When people have money, they spend it. That money goes back to businesses, sales increase, etc.
They may have to pay a little more in taxes, but MORE people are able to purchase from their businesses. It's economics from the bottom --> Up!
I believe in personal responsibility and working hard for what one wants, but the system isn't set up to create wealth, it's set up to keep the wealthy wealthy. Your party currently embraces that philosophy that benefits the few and not the many.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
I understand the point of view your comming from when u say that if money is distributed people will end up giving it right back...but think it will not go back to the small businesses like local markets, no it will more then likely go to big companies like Wal-mart..etc thereby increasing the centralization of wealth.
ajskdlfhg 3 years ago
Well, under Obama's plan taxes will not be raised on about 98% of small businesses. So something's telling me they'll be alright. It seems more like it would be Wal-mart's taxes that are going up a bit, not small businesses or upstarts. They would then be able to keep their prices lower, remaining competitive with big businesses like Wal-mart.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
small businesse that wont be taxed heavily are the ones who make less then $250k, let me put it this way to you my uncle owns a small chain of retail clothing stores (which he worked hard for) that each maybe brings in about $120K a year. overall yes the company brings in more then $250K a year but RIGHT NOW he himself makes what $100K, after all the costs to run a business is paid.
ajskdlfhg 3 years ago
when the new tax plan is implemented his revenue will severly decrease because with the higher taxes he will have to raise prices, more then likely ppl wont come to his stores and he will still have to pay off all his business payments like labor costs, insurance, cost for merchandise and so on. He predicts that the new tax plan might put him out of business (by the way he has masters in marketing)
ajskdlfhg 3 years ago
It's not as if he is raising taxes. He's simply letting Bush's tax cuts expire, and allowing them to go back to the rates of the 90's. Can you honestly say that your hard-working uncle would not have been just as successful 10 years ago?
TiJayEve 3 years ago
last time i checked, obama is gonna raise taxes not lower them...and i think you have misinterpreted what im saying about my uncles situation. with the current tax rates his business is doing fine, progressing actually, but with obamas plan his business may regress.
ajskdlfhg 3 years ago
what do i mean it will go to big organizations? put it this way people like to spend money but also like to have some left over. as of right now companies like wal-mart can already out compete small markets with prices. but the difference now isnt that big so ppl still go to local markets. when this new plan is implemented taxes will force businesses to raise prices and where do u think everyone will want to shop at after that? just my insight of things
ajskdlfhg 3 years ago
Well I guess Obama can get that $150,000 deal for clothes from the DNC LOL
MOTOWNFOREVER 3 years ago
This vlog was put together very well. I enjoyed it. Keep up the good work my friend.lol. That's a McCain joke. ha
MRougely760 3 years ago
thanks, lol. And yeah, I got it
TiJayEve 3 years ago
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT THE FUCKING RICH PARTY YOU STUPID FUCK! im not rich and im a republican!
ItsJustTLTL 3 years ago
Hold on dumb fuck, lol. I wish you had read my comments before. My dad is a strong conservative who regularly votes Republican and he is rich by no means
My point is that the attack machine attacks the "Elite left" while the republican party, in its current embodiment, serves the INTERESTS of the rich and NOT the middle class, where the heart of the economy lies.
I guess, I could have more carefully articulated this, but it was just a quick vid.
I'd demand an apology, but I'm not naive, lol
PoliticalPlayhouse 3 years ago
Sorry that was my other account.
I respect the party for the ideals it holds and I respect you for being one, as long as it is for those ideas.
My overall point is that they are just as rich and highly educated as their opposition, yet they are saying "Hey, that guy over there is TOO smart. He couldn't possibly relate to you" It's the Karl Rove attack politics that upsets me, for it's a politics of division. We can respectfully disagree and campaign on issues without being hypocritical
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Yes, I agree that we can and should campaign on the issues. The problem that I have with the Democratic Party, is that it's ideal is to overtax the rich and big corporations. The problem with overtaxing the big corporations, is that when you do so, they aren't able to expand and create more jobs. The Democratic Party attempts to polarize people by class, while the Republican party attempts to polarize people on other issues.
IronWillFFF 3 years ago
The way to help the middle class and the poor, is not by giving hand-outs(ie welfare, food stamps, etc) indefinitely. All that you do when you create a permanent class of welfare citizens, is you have an entire class of people who have no concept of personal responsibility. I myself am not rich by any means. If Obama were to be elected, I would receive heavy tax cuts, because of my tax bracket. But I don't believe that Obama's policies are what this country needs.
IronWillFFF 3 years ago
I think that Obama's plan to place higher taxes on people making $250,000 annually or more, is faulty at best. Are we talking 250k net or gross? Is the "American Dream" only realized at $250k and after that you have to "spread the wealth around"? Why is the number $250k? How does this actually help America? How many jobs will not be realized because small business at that level won't be able to expand? And large corporations will be forced to cut jobs?
IronWillFFF 3 years ago
The "Left" contains a form of elitism, by saying that the American Dream can only be realized at a certain level(say $250,000), and no higher without penalty. Many of the leaders of the Democratic Party are quite wealthy(including Joe Biden. I'm originally from Delaware, and this is a man who is extremely arrogant and elitist). Not everybody who votes Republican is a "rich elitist". There is no hope in either party really. They both have their elitists. It just depends where you sit.
IronWillFFF 3 years ago
...and sorry about calling you a dumb fuck back.
Sorry to inform you, but Reaganomics doesn't work how it's supposed to.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Don't democrats tend to try to pin problems on elitist republicans? Democrats are full of millionaires and billionaires. Ever hear of George Sauros?
IronWillFFF 3 years ago
Can you read my comment above yours. I'm kind of getting tired of rewriting it, lol.
Sorry
TiJayEve 3 years ago
There is a difference between being elite and being an elitist.
mdiem 3 years ago
Enlighten me...
Because this administration has held the most elitist attitude and the most power of pretty much any administration I've ever seen or read about. Yet, the people that helped get him elected are the ones that I'm hearing yell "Elitist."
TiJayEve 3 years ago
lol-seriously, y u playin dat shoprite music inda background-lol
bellybum21 3 years ago
Republicans are the rich party? Ummm, Obama and Biden are fuckin rich too. Democrats are rich too. You really need to do your research better. Cause this is..."seriously"....bul*lshit. You have no points in this. First vlog grade, F---------
adidaswings 3 years ago
Obama just paid back his student loans not too long ago and over 90% of his revenue is book royalties. He cleared about $4M this year. Joe Biden is the second poorest senator, lol. He only makes about $250K a year.
But all this doesn't matter, because what I meant by that statement was that Republicans throw the Elitism charge when they are the ones that cater to the Rich and support their interests, not the interests of the middle-class
Thanks for the commentary
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Obama just paid back his student loans not too long ago and over 90% of his revenue is book royalties. He cleared about $4M this year. Joe Biden is the second poorest senator, lol. He only makes about $250K a year.
But all this doesn't matter, because what I meant by that statement was that Republicans throw the Elitism charge when they are the ones that cater to the Rich and support their interests, not the interests of the middle-class
Thanks for the commentary
TiJayEve 3 years ago
I dont think I have heard this charges of elitism from the republicans, maybe I just dont pay attention. I think you maybe a bit confused. What I have heard is the republicans criticizing so called Democrat "elite" telling everyone else that they should pay more in taxes. I dont think its an argument about them being wealthy, but an argument about them telling everyone else what to do.
FacultyFan 3 years ago
So you must have missed when Karl Rove compared Barack Obama to "the guy at the country club" sipping champagne or something and "making snide comments as people walk by."
And I guess that Democrat elite you're referring to is the one that said he wants the middle class and all working families (95%) to get a tax CUT, not an increase.
Aren't Republicans basically saying we're not going to give you a tax cut because we want to give those tax cuts to the wealthy, so they can blah blah...?
TiJayEve 3 years ago
By the way, I'm from rural Pennsylvania.
People cling to their guns and religion. Period.
bango31 3 years ago
Couldn't agree more. Somewhere along the line it became a BAD thing to want someone who is actually INTELLIGENT and has a spectactular education running this country.
Fuck us, right? We must be unAmerican.
bango31 3 years ago
This is exactly my point. In discussing Sarah Palin, it was said "She's from a Small town, but that's not good enough for them."
Since, when did this become a qualification to be Vice/President? I mean that's great and all, but don't parade it around like that fact is going to make all our problems go away. Forgive me for wanting someone who is highly educated and deeply knowledgeable on the issues running the country, but they act like that's a bad thing. "You don't want an egghead," they say
TiJayEve 3 years ago
You lookin' to get laid or lookin' for a political debate?
A little hard to read a brother through the jazz.
introvertical71 3 years ago
Lol, I'll try something else next time.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
and democrats blame problems on republicans. hate to say it, but politics goes both ways.
esjakeis86 3 years ago
true, but my problem is with the ELITIST charge. I have problems with some democrats as well, but they never retort by saying "Do you really want this INTELLIGENT person to lead you? He/She's too smart. They don't understand. Wouldn't you rather have someone just like you?" All the while, they are probably even more out of touch.
What bothers me the most, is I think it actually works
TiJayEve 3 years ago
I don't think the point is that NRA members want an AK47, they just don't want gun control because the next step is no protection from our crazy government and their policies. :c)
You might want to aim towards hating NeoCons those are fake republicans that don't follow what republicans use to stand for. Remember Martin Luther King was a republican. Democrats voted down civil rights v=-p5-7ValsFk
motavis 3 years ago
YOU'RE SO RIGHT!!! It was my mistake to generalize like that. Thumbs Up
And Yes MLK was a Republican. But after he died, most people that WERE Democrats became REPUBLICANS (against civilrights. Today the Republican party is the party of Nostalgia to a time when things were simpler...and blacks couldn't vote, lol. Just kidding (a bit), but If MLK was alive today, he'd be a Democrat. Remember the "Poor People's Campaign?" As far as I can tell, he was not a Republican for it's Economic ideology.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Just wanted to clarify that the shift of Rural states (especially the South) from Democrats to Republicans was a DIRECT result of African Americans gaining civil Rights. The South protested by leaving the Party and becoming Republicans. The Progressiveness of Democrats (the New Deals, etc.) brought Blacks to the Democratic Party.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Well I am a Libertarian. I believe that any president is not able to do anything. Where it is at is in the Senate and the House. Considering all the problems was Democrats controlling I blame some of the problems on them. Though wiping out our constitution took a good deal with both parties. Democrats controlled for a while and you see them trying to keep poor families apart(welfare no marriage etc.) If we followed the constitution still we'd be better off. Imagine our dollar backed by gold now.
motavis 3 years ago
I think it would be great if our dollar was backed by something, substantial. However, The power of the presidency comes in the fact that they are responsible for how a law is executed, which actually makes a LOT of difference.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
And you're right, both parties are pretty good at screwing up. I just feel like at this current time, Dems are on the right side of the issues, my personal opinion.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
I'm not voting. Both are sketchy and I don't think either one will benefit us in the least. However with that said. Dems have control and have had control of congress for the past 2 years now. Can you remember 3 years ago? I can and shit was going pretty good, not the best by any means but still better than now. AND Im not voting because I feel very strongly that politicians are getting better and better at saying and not doing. so screw it. its a waste of time now.
adidaswings 3 years ago
I can respect that. But the problem isn't with electing them, it's with holding them accountable. We haven't been doing a good job of that, and partially the media is to blame. The incumbency rate of congress is over 90% and we are to blame for that. And the problems we have now is a direct result of past actions and inaction of congress.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
as well as some pretty bad policies
TiJayEve 3 years ago
And also I understand that, but unless they're living up to the spirit of our forefathers and planning on being patriotic :) (lol) and OVERTHROWING the government, I don't see the problem.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
A WASTE OF TIME!
imhereyoufoul1 3 years ago
Well, I'm Glad you took the time out to watch it then :)
Take Care
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Below me is a true example of a person who takes opinions toooo seriously
I would write an extended comment..but no
all in all..i can relate to what your saying
LeAnn609 3 years ago
Your dont have the slightest clue about politics....
1st:
The 2 riches senators are:
1st - John Karry
2st - Harry Reid
2nd:
Criminals are criminals. Do you think, that just because congress passes a gun ban, that they arnt going to get a gun some other way? What happens when that gun is pointed at the innocent.
Lordcorm 3 years ago
First, John Kerry married into wealth and Harry Reid grew up in a broken shack. My point of bringing up Republicans being the "party of the rich" is that the ideology says "give advantages to the rich few and it will trickle down to the rest of you."
What is put aside is that when you give those advantages to the People that need it, they support those businesses run by those rich few, and their businesses expand CREATING JOBS!
Only difference is that one of these ideologies screws the people
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Your fogetting one problem...
If you tax the rich, and large corporations, they will have to cut jobs for profit margins, because they are paying extra on taxes.
Which reduces jobs, and reduces the amount of "goods" or "products" to flow, essentially leading the entire nation into POVERTY.
Taxing the rich and giving to the poor isnt the solution. If your poor, its your own damn fault. Im poor, its my own damn fault.
Lordcorm 3 years ago
and you forget...the MORE people have, the MORE people spend!
Don't you love Capitalism? :)
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Secondly, I don't support a gun band. I just can't understand why you personally need a sub-machine gun.
So what DOES happen when that criminal's gun is pointed at you? Is he then going to wait for you to pull out your M16 and fire back?
We all have the right to bare arms, but at the same time there is a need to control the amount of illegal firearms that are being released on the streets in urban areas. I do not support a gun ban, but I heavily support more regulation in this area. Thanks
TiJayEve 3 years ago
There already are regulations for firearms that you have described.
You are NOT allowed to own an automatic weapon.
Lordcorm 3 years ago
The NRA supports less regulation in this area. The NRA is a major supporter of the Republican party. It was just a random thought, but whatever.
and since you are NOT allowed to own an automatic weapon, I guess you don't mind us taking greater steps to make sure that this is the case.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Well, turns out that you actually ARE allowed to own an automatic weapon (as long as its not fully automatic) but there are parts you could buy to MAKE them automatic.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
fully automatic sorry
TiJayEve 3 years ago
And also...I actually hate myself for HOW MUCH of a CLUE I have about Politics.
Despite what Joe Biden said about Fairness in Tonight's debate, I don't think it's about fairness. I just think it doesn't work.
What made me feel this way is one prominent company gave an exiting CEO a $40 million bonus the VERY SAME MONTH that they CUT 40,000 jobs!
Sorry Lordcorm, but it doesn't work.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Your statement about the CEO is completely invalid, as the *company* gave the CEO the money, not the government.
Your trying to relate irrelevant material.
Lordcorm 3 years ago
Why is this irrelevant? The ideology says Tax breaks to the rich help everyone else. This is an example (of many) of this NOT being the case. And I'm not saying that this is always true, but more often than not it is. Also that wasn't the only thing that made me feel that way, but...
It's not that the wealthy should be paying more taxes, but that they shouldn't be paying Little to None (Comparatively with everyone else)
TiJayEve 3 years ago
the top 1% of wealth already acct for the majority of revenue (with a flat rate, 17% i think). this demo notion of tax "fairness" if anything would be cutting taxes heavily on the rich. not to mention fairness in taxes would assume we are striving for an egalitarian society or at least economy, limiting business, enforcing gov't control of free markets, removing capitalism, and would basically be the building blocks for socialism. and we should all know what that tends to lean towards.
musicyayamusic 3 years ago
Read my comment about Fairness and bottom-up economics
Socialism? What's more socialist: that or giving Large tax breaks to those corporations, not regulating them, watching them screw up then using middle-class Taxpayers to bail them out, wink :) Sound familiar?
I hope it does
Government shouldn't CONTROL the free market, but when it's not regulated LAST WEEK happens. You know as I do that capitalism isn't going ANYWHERE in America. We are capitalists by nature and consumer a nation.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
the problem to begin with was the gov't did get involved making sum prime mortgage loans when govt tried to fix the housing byouts in the 1980s under carter (dem)[CRA]. clinton applied the CRA in the 1990s bush again in 2002 except bush saw the problem pushed for investigation which was block by dems like bartney frank in 2004. mccain and obama both notioned the problem is coming except mccain proposed a bill which was blocked as obama just notioned. now were are where we are
musicyayamusic 3 years ago
history should be our guide showing capitalism DOES work and we are a nation of consumers because the coprorate tax in america is the 2nd highest in the WORLD at 35%. thats why prod/manufacturing is sent abroad along with cheaper labor.
people today want everything handed to them instead of working for what you get and striving to better themselves. you want the govt to act as a big brother holding your hand through life like you cant make your own decisions.
excuse my poor grammar :P
musicyayamusic 3 years ago
So a CEO can screw a company, yet walk away with $66mil...(Merrill Lynch). Welfare for CEO's is still welfare...
Capitalism is great, Laissez-faire is STUPID. Oversight is needed. Last time we had unbridled capitalism we wound up with Standard Oil, and the Great Depression. Taxing the richest 5% while giving breaks to the other 95% means that people will use that money to stimulate the economy. More consumer demand = more production = more jobs.
Justinsax1 3 years ago
no it means that since we are taxing the rich, costs go up for products. More so than they already are. Thats economics 101. what a company pays in taxes is figured into cost of product. That hike in cost goes directly to us and the company still makes a huge profit. and its not a tax break it's $1000 back, so it's the exact same thing as a stimulus check but it comes back with your returns. jesus christ people, dont spew the crap you hear, use your fucking heads
adidaswings 3 years ago
Our economy did very well under Clinton with higher taxes. I understand economics. I also understand that the small raise in price would be payable by the consumer who now has more capital to spend. Tax cuts to businesses and corporations should be given in a manner that helps the middle class, because we are the backbone of this country. Tax cuts to corps that shift jobs over seas do not help us; Give them to Corps that create jobs here.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
2nd highest? you're forgetting to add all of the tax breaks that allow them to circumvent that tax rate. Not many American Corporations, if any pay a tax rate of 35%
Nobody is asking for a handout. The point is to let 95% of the American people (including you) KEEP MORE of OUR money and allow us to stimulate the economy that way. When we have more money we buy more things, businesses profit, jobs are created, the economy blooms.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
good argument. youre talking about the capital gains tax which is different and its rate with tax breaks is around 12%.
history shows raising taxes stiffles economic growth and production. and look at it from the flip side. this 5% getting taxed will not want to lose revenue from this. so they will either raise prices causing inflation, limit production hours, eliminate jobs, or a combination of each to compensate. getting a tax cut will be irrelevent if high inflation is the product result
musicyayamusic 3 years ago
I don't believe there are very many people that want a handout. The American People work pretty hard. Why not give a tax break to the Middle Class that is struggling through no fault of their own. That's not a handout. That's keeping more of YOUR money.
TiJayEve 3 years ago
Agree!!
adidaswings 3 years ago