Pay attention, a preview of things to come!
CBN TV - France's Reckoning: Rich, Young Flee Welfare State
CBN TV - France's Reckoning: Rich, Young Flee Welfare State
Our future
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
^^^ 'Exactly what many conservatives have been saying/warning the U.S. about for y-e-a-r-s.
Maggie Thatcher was right - but didn't go far enough - when she said the trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money. She could have - and ought to have IMHO - added the following: '...if you don't run out of rich people first'.
A few years ago Dr. Adrian Rogers recoined what various others have said over the past 200 years:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Presently, here in the U.S. the number of people who "get the idea that it does no good to work" famously stands at 47%. (Mitt Romney pointed that out in the last presidential election and was BLASTED by the Left and the media [but I'm being redundant there] for saying it.)
Each time a "rich person"/company leaves, guess who's forced to pay ever more in taxes to make up for the taxes lost with his/its departure?
I r-e-a-l-l-y fear for the economic well-being of my kids and grandkids.
Maggie Thatcher was right - but didn't go far enough - when she said the trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money. She could have - and ought to have IMHO - added the following: '...if you don't run out of rich people first'.
A few years ago Dr. Adrian Rogers recoined what various others have said over the past 200 years:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Presently, here in the U.S. the number of people who "get the idea that it does no good to work" famously stands at 47%. (Mitt Romney pointed that out in the last presidential election and was BLASTED by the Left and the media [but I'm being redundant there] for saying it.)
Each time a "rich person"/company leaves, guess who's forced to pay ever more in taxes to make up for the taxes lost with his/its departure?
I r-e-a-l-l-y fear for the economic well-being of my kids and grandkids.
And yet Obama (and his minions) sees France as his guiding light. Gee...I wonder why:
Obama sees France as standard for workplace benefits | On Air Videos | Fox News
Howard Jones
Supporter
I live in California. The French version of America. In the end all the money in the US will reside in states like Texas. Then what. "We gotta TAX them rednecks to pay for our Obama Phones!"
Go ahead and scoff. You know I'm right.
Go ahead and scoff. You know I'm right.
And that's when we will succeed! We can....they won't, because they depend on everyone else to bail them out. We don't need CaliFrancia.....We are already planning on securing our state border, perhaps we need to limit immigration from California?.....Seriously, we would accept any Californian or any other LEGAL immigrant who isn't afraid of working for a living.
Here's the poster girl for Obama and his minions...and for those who demand 'handouts' in general. She exemplifies the mindset of faaaaaaaar too many who reside in this country both legally and otherwise:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio"]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]
Notice she has noooooooo problemo listing why she's 'for' Obama...but, when asked why she dislikes Romney all she can come up with is, "He sucks. Bad."
Millions of people who think(?) the way she does vote...and their ranks seem to be growing daily. Is it any wonder we're $17.6 trillion in debt and climbing with no end in sight?
Edit: And please, let's not do the "Bush did it too" thing as a counter-argument. Who's doing it isn't the issue. The fact that it's being done at all IS.
Here's another example of the 'entitlement' mindset:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio"]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]
Notice she has noooooooo problemo listing why she's 'for' Obama...but, when asked why she dislikes Romney all she can come up with is, "He sucks. Bad."
Millions of people who think(?) the way she does vote...and their ranks seem to be growing daily. Is it any wonder we're $17.6 trillion in debt and climbing with no end in sight?
Edit: And please, let's not do the "Bush did it too" thing as a counter-argument. Who's doing it isn't the issue. The fact that it's being done at all IS.
Here's another example of the 'entitlement' mindset:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI[/ame]
Last edited:
How taxes work - 10 Men Go To Dinner
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE" lang=EN-US>Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing like they do now with the present income tax structure.<o
></o>
></o>
The fifth would pay $1.<o></o>
></o>The sixth would pay $3.<o></o>
></o>The seventh would pay $7.<o></o>
></o>The eighth would pay $12.<o></o>
></o>The ninth would pay $18.<o></o>
></o>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 of the bill.<o></o>
></o>So that is what the ten men decide to do.<o></o>
></o>The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you all are such good customers I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20". Dinner for the 10 men now costs just $80...<o></o>
></o>The group still wanted to pay the bill the same way that they paid their taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the Paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everybody would get his "Fair Share"?<o></o>
></o>They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal...<o></o>
></o>So, the restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each mans bill roughly the same amount; and proceeded to work out the amounts each man would pay.<o></o>
></o>The fifth, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings).<o></o>
></o>The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)<o></o>
></o>The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)<o></o>
></o>The eight man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)<o></o>
></o>The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)<o></o>
></o>The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)<o></o>
></o>Each of the six was better off then before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings...<o></o>
></o>"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10"...<o></o>
></o>"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got ten times more than me!?"<o></o>
></o>"That's true", shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"<o></o>
></o>"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"<o></o>
></o>The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up...<o></o>
></o>The next night the Tenth man did not show up for dinner, so the Nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!<o></o>
></o>And that Boys & Girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier?<o></o>
></o>How taxes work > The War Room with Quinn & Rose
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
We all know the problem, but what is the solution? I think that while those with their hands out have the right to vote the problem will get worse.
Maybe if you are on any sort of Government assistance you can't vote?
Maybe we go back to only those who own property are allowed to vote?
Maybe if you are on any sort of Government assistance you can't vote?
Maybe we go back to only those who own property are allowed to vote?
The solutions aren't complicated. Implementing them takes balls and no one in Washington has even a pea sized testicle. They're far more self-serving and interesting in winning re-election (i.e. winning the popularity contest) to bother themselves with governing. The liberals have also convinced themselves that their path is best. Probably does help them sleep at night.....at least for now.
As I've grown older, I've come to see the merit of that proposition - at least as far as tax measures that apply to land & houses are concerned anyway.
And, of late, the idea of a voter's competency test in general has made more and more sense to me as well.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Pete
I agree.
HOWEVER you get some people in the UK now who "own" their home with a 95% mortgage, no capital repayments - only interest, should they be allowed to vote?
Perhaps only those who own the property outright?
What about the tax avoiders who now register their home in the name of a company? They do this to avoid the transfer tax, when they want to move they simply "sell" the shares in the company.
But I also think your first idea - any state handouts - no vote is great
In jail - no vote
Be drugs tested - on drugs - no vote
Be left of center - no vote!
Ian
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well I agree Ian, left of center got us into the problem:thumbsup:
In fact I'm now opting for a benevolent dictatorship. You can be president, Keith treasurer,
Al chief of the army, David air vice Marshall with emphasis on the vice, Larry political advisor,
Lonesome head of finance and art. Jimbo and Doc health, Ron communications and to show true benevolence Jeff can be Attorney General and Jim C head of statistics.
I reckon that would work better than the system we have now.
Apologies to anyone I have left out.
In fact I'm now opting for a benevolent dictatorship. You can be president, Keith treasurer,
Al chief of the army, David air vice Marshall with emphasis on the vice, Larry political advisor,
Lonesome head of finance and art. Jimbo and Doc health, Ron communications and to show true benevolence Jeff can be Attorney General and Jim C head of statistics.
I reckon that would work better than the system we have now.
Apologies to anyone I have left out.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Our future is crusty old curmudgeons die off, and we continue with society getting more productive, richer, healthier and better off. It's the way it's been in America since 1787. We survived social conservatives attempting to deny the vote to blacks folks, and women and non-land holders. We survived social conservatives who believed that health and safety regulations would kill business. We survived social conservatives who believed that the New Deal would end America, who thought that Medicare and Medicaid were "communist" and so on.
And yet we move on, and move upward.
And yet we move on, and move upward.
Guys,
I AM french.
I won't tell you bullshits, situation here is far from ideal. RIGHT.
But, just to make a couple of things STRAIGHT.
Our president (which popularity is about 0 Kelvin here) has NEVER told that he didn't like rich!
YES, during his electoral campaign, he told tha he would create a 75% tax on the wealthier (by the way, the lower limit for this tax was an income of 150000€/month for a couple)
As far as I know this new tax group has never seen day light, because it was remodelled a couple of times and in the end, there are 34millinons of exceptions for these peoples.... So at the end of the day I think it is almost never applied.
Our system is WAYYYY different than yours. It's true.
As everywhere elese in the world, there are bastards taking huge advantages of our pretty generous system.
And YES, being rich here is probably more difficult than in the US, or many other countries in the world.
Unemployement is a real cancer here, saddly.
I won't get in too much politics here, as I am not enough educated about what is wrong and what is right. You can ear that this f*cking crisis is a consequence of capitalism as well as it is a consequence of our way of life, we are not attractive enough for foreign investors and so on.
I am employed, not self employed. My lunch are NOT paid by my boss. A part of it is. This a part of what you call "attractive conditions", employees benefits in MY company, there is no general rules.
My annual salary is less than 50k€ with more than 10 yrs of experience as a mechanical engineer, and my position is average regarding my friends I was in school with.
These are a few french FACTS.
I won't enter into any confrontation with anybody on this forum.
But with my spoken english understanding habilities, what I heard from the 2 first vids posted was somehow VERY biased.And some kind of pissed me...
It looks like here in ole'france, at least our journalists are a bit more discrets about their OPINIONS.
Of course, we have our left / right newspapers, but, even them are much less partials, basing their statements on FACTS and THEORIES not only good words like this little monkey on top left corner of the Fox News tv show
I won't make any more judgement about fox as I never watch it, and then won't make any generality, but, geeez! If all your newschanel look like this, you guys should probably think about watching something a bit more "smart"
Olivier.
I AM french.
I won't tell you bullshits, situation here is far from ideal. RIGHT.
But, just to make a couple of things STRAIGHT.
Our president (which popularity is about 0 Kelvin here) has NEVER told that he didn't like rich!
YES, during his electoral campaign, he told tha he would create a 75% tax on the wealthier (by the way, the lower limit for this tax was an income of 150000€/month for a couple)
As far as I know this new tax group has never seen day light, because it was remodelled a couple of times and in the end, there are 34millinons of exceptions for these peoples.... So at the end of the day I think it is almost never applied.
Our system is WAYYYY different than yours. It's true.
As everywhere elese in the world, there are bastards taking huge advantages of our pretty generous system.
And YES, being rich here is probably more difficult than in the US, or many other countries in the world.
Unemployement is a real cancer here, saddly.
I won't get in too much politics here, as I am not enough educated about what is wrong and what is right. You can ear that this f*cking crisis is a consequence of capitalism as well as it is a consequence of our way of life, we are not attractive enough for foreign investors and so on.
I am employed, not self employed. My lunch are NOT paid by my boss. A part of it is. This a part of what you call "attractive conditions", employees benefits in MY company, there is no general rules.
My annual salary is less than 50k€ with more than 10 yrs of experience as a mechanical engineer, and my position is average regarding my friends I was in school with.
These are a few french FACTS.
I won't enter into any confrontation with anybody on this forum.
But with my spoken english understanding habilities, what I heard from the 2 first vids posted was somehow VERY biased.And some kind of pissed me...
It looks like here in ole'france, at least our journalists are a bit more discrets about their OPINIONS.
Of course, we have our left / right newspapers, but, even them are much less partials, basing their statements on FACTS and THEORIES not only good words like this little monkey on top left corner of the Fox News tv show
I won't make any more judgement about fox as I never watch it, and then won't make any generality, but, geeez! If all your newschanel look like this, you guys should probably think about watching something a bit more "smart"
Olivier.
