KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Do Karaoke Hosts Need UBI? Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:56 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:21 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:
Having a degree or a certificate is nice and all,,, but honestly they are not truly necessary. If you are going into a professional field, then yes they are needed. But take me for example. I have a genius IQ, yet I only have a high school diploma, no extra schooling. Yet where I currently work I am one of the highest paid employees. And almost none of the positions where I work actually require a degree. Is that unusual? Not really. It's all in what a person will accept and work towards.



Yet you are struggling financially, isn't that why you went back to hosting for a short period of time? I mean you never talked much more about the woman with health problems bar you were trying to help? Just in my life time this country lost manufacturing jobs, steel industry jobs, automotive jobs, all high paying, with union protections, with defined pension plans. They have been replaced with service jobs that pay less, have no pension system other than Social Security, and many with little or no Health Benefits.

The contract that existed in this country between industry and workers has been slowly dismantled, and nothing has been put in place to fill the gap. Corporations are making more money than ever, and paying less in corporate taxes than at anytime in our history. Is it little wonder there is such a gap between the rich and poor. We have systematically destroyed that which made our economy great during the 1950's, and replaced it with corporate greed.

P.S. So tell me again why it is wrong to have government step in and help, while allowing big corporations not to pay their fair share?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:02 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5040
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1238 times
we have been paying major corporations and million/billionaires for decades.
not only did Amazon for example pay $0 in taxes for 2017, but you and I paid them an extra $137 million in a refund because they are so rich that they deserve more money as a thank you for being....so rich.
Phillips-Van Heusen
Gannett
INTL FCStone
Murphy Oil
AECOM Technology
International Business Machines
CenturyLink
DowDuPont
Activision Blizzard
Avis Budget Group
Celanese
JetBlue Airways
Deere
First Data
Duke Energy
Pitney Bowes
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold
WEC Energy Group
Levi Strauss
Brighthouse Financial
Aramark
Whirlpool
Prudential Financial
Trinity Industries
Ryder System
United States Steel
Eli Lilly
CMS Energy
Tapestry
EOG Resources
Beacon Roofing Supply
SPX
Realogy
Public Service Enterprise Group
Rockwell Collins
Goodyear Tire & Rubber
MDU Resources
FedEx
Williams
SpartanNash
Chevron
Delta Air Lines
Edison International
Penske Automotive Group
Principal Financial
PulteGroup
Air Products & Chemicals
Honeywell International
Netflix
General Motors
Tenet Healthcare
Xcel Energy
Halliburton
MGM Resorts International
Atmos Energy
Molson Coors
Nvidia
PPL
American Electric Power
Starbucks
Dominion Resources
Mohawk Industries
DTE Energy
Amazon
Andersons
Kinder Morgan
Owens Corning
Devon Energy
DXC Technology
FirstEnergy
Ameren
Hartford Financial Services
Alaska Air Group
Darden Restaurants
Ally Financial
Sanmina-SCI
Builders FirstSource
McKesson
Occidental Petroleum
UGI
Westrock
AK Steel Holding
ABM Industries
Cliffs Natural Resources
AMR
Chesapeake Energy
HD Supply
Navistar International
Pioneer Natural Resources
Salesforce.com
Visteon

all of these fortune 500 companies paid $0 in taxes and some got refunds like Amazon.
this was the point of the 2017 tax bill, and we can apparently afford it, people only get upset when the money goes to someone who is not rich.
oh, you're rich, we can afford whatever it takes to give you more money for nothing.
oh, you're poor, we can't afford to help you

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:10 am 
Online
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2076
Been Liked: 229 times
I wont disagree that it is morally wrong for these large corporations to not be paying their fair share of the tax burden. And I also will add that I believe that any elected official who gains financially from their political positions should be in prison. That would mean every single democratic and Republican would be locked up.

Basic needs for families should never be a worry for them. But to unilaterally just giving them the kind of money you are talking about is not going to solve the problem. If you dont see that, then you are dillisional. Do any of you have kids? Do you just buy them anything they ask for? If you do, then you are not doing them any favors. Human nature says a person will take greater pride and put higher value on anything they worked for themself. If it's just handed to them on a platter, they will not put value in it.

Like I said, basic needs should be our God given right to have available to us. That includes clean water to drink, affordable food to eat, the ability to protect yourself with gun ownership, proper care for the elderly, affordable housing, basic health care including life saving needs when necessary. That's a few items I think that could be made happen without going to the point you are talking of. Your idea is not going to solve anything because the vast majority of the people receiving your proposed amounts would first off, stop actually working a job and therefore would no longer be contributing to the system. They would become a drain on the entire economy. Also many of the recipients would spend those benefit dollars foolishly, rather than paying for actual needs. I've seen it happen time and time before. Its human nature.

Our constitution says we have the right of the "pursuit of happiness", but it does not say it will be handed to you. A person has to be willing to work towards their own dreams. It is not governments duty to make it come true. Government was created to protect our rights, not to control how we live.

Sure, make those rich companies and wealthy individuals pay their fare share. And if you honestly think that our new elected leaders will actually make a difference for the good of the people, rather than the increase of their bank accounts, you are so very blind. History of your beloved Biden and Harris tells us we are in for some very bad things to come to pass. God save us all.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:40 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:

Basic needs for families should never be a worry for them. But to unilaterally just giving them the kind of money you are talking about is not going to solve the problem. If you dont see that, then you are dillisional. Do any of you have kids? Do you just buy them anything they ask for? If you do, then you are not doing them any favors. Human nature says a person will take greater pride and put higher value on anything they worked for themself. If it's just handed to them on a platter, they will not put value in it.

Like I said, basic needs should be our God given right to have available to us. That includes clean water to drink, affordable food to eat, the ability to protect yourself with gun ownership, proper care for the elderly, affordable housing, basic health care including life saving needs when necessary. That's a few items I think that could be made happen without going to the point you are talking of. Your idea is not going to solve anything because the vast majority of the people receiving your proposed amounts would first off, stop actually working a job and therefore would no longer be contributing to the system. They would become a drain on the entire economy. Also many of the recipients would spend those benefit dollars foolishly, rather than paying for actual needs. I've seen it happen time and time before. Its human nature.



Sure, make those rich companies and wealthy individuals pay their fare share. And if you honestly think that our new elected leaders will actually make a difference for the good of the people, rather than the increase of their bank accounts, you are so very blind. History of your beloved Biden and Harris tells us we are in for some very bad things to come to pass. God save us all.



If giving money directly to individuals is not going to work, then why are both parties doing it right now? You are right there are some that would probably squander the money, but doesn't government like you have said, now squander the money anyhow? By making direct payments to individuals you are cutting out layers of government agencies, thus cutting government waste and red tape, which will save money that is already being spent. All of us have a list of needs, most responsible people especially those with children know the basics are first. Food, Shelter, Health Care, Utilities. I don't see taking care of the basics as turning people into spoiled children. Rather it let's them focus then on improving their lives. Once the basics are covered then you can focus on the next set of goals. That would require working as well as getting UBI, since UBI would only cover the basics, coupled with a public health option. Since when is owning a gun a basic need, I have never owned or used one since the military?

Is it really giving them money, isn't it compensation for what has been taken from them? Seeing from where we came from in the 1950's till now, we can see that the overall quality of life, for the non rich has declined to the point where most of us have lost ground, and a permanent under class in this country has been created. That underclass is being exploited on the left and right to undermine our Democracy, and is a national security threat. Wasn't the wealth of large corporations and rich individuals made possible by the labor of the underclass, and the purchasing of products, why shouldn't some of it go back to those people?

I have no guarantee that the next Administration will do any better than the last, due mainly to the deep divisions in our society. I hope that things will improve, anything has got to be better than armed insurrection.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:10 am 
Online
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5154
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 347 times
Mr Scott, the only schooling that I have had outside of high school was a tech school for computer operations. That schooling is basically obsolete and woefully out of date. The rest of my computer knowledge was done at home on my own. The only way you can get me to jeopardize my main income (SSDI) is to find a job that pays at least twice a month what I am making now.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:29 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5040
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1238 times
mrscott wrote:
I wont disagree that it is morally wrong for these large corporations to not be paying their fair share of the tax burden. And I also will add that I believe that any elected official who gains financially from their political positions should be in prison. That would mean every single democratic and Republican would be locked up.

i don't disagree here at all, we are 100% on the same page, my point was showing how we have tons of money to give to the rich but we cry broke when it's going to the poor.
if Amazon paid their taxes last year, the bill would have been (at the 21% corporate rate in the tax bill) $2.9 billion.
instead, you and I PAID THEM $137 million.

mrscott wrote:
Basic needs for families should never be a worry for them.

but we can't have that....that is Democratic Socialism.
mrscott wrote:
But to unilaterally just giving them the kind of money you are talking about is not going to solve the problem. If you dont see that, then you are dillisional.

it's not a new program by any stretch and is used un multiple countries already.
mrscott wrote:
Do any of you have kids?

yup, i sure do
mrscott wrote:
Do you just buy them anything they ask for? If you do, then you are not doing them any favors.

nope, i do not, nor does this have anything to do with UBI.
mrscott wrote:
Human nature says a person will take greater pride and put higher value on anything they worked for themself. If it's just handed to them on a platter, they will not put value in it.

UBI covers what you say you want covered for every American.

mrscott wrote:
Like I said, basic needs should be our God given right to have available to us.

which is paid for by UBI.
mrscott wrote:
That includes clean water to drink

can't...capitalism. but UBI helps pay for that
mrscott wrote:
affordable food to eat

can't...capitalism. but UBI helps pay for that
mrscott wrote:
the ability to protect yourself with gun ownership

not related, but UBI can help afford that to everyone.
mrscott wrote:
proper care for the elderly

can't...capitalism. but UBI helps pay for that
mrscott wrote:
affordable housing

can't...capitalism. but UBI helps pay for that
mrscott wrote:
basic health care including life saving needs when necessary

can't...capitalism. but UBI helps pay for that
mrscott wrote:
That's a few items I think that could be made happen without going to the point you are talking of.

that IS the level i am talking of.
mrscott wrote:
Your idea is not going to solve anything because the vast majority of the people receiving your proposed amounts would first off, stop actually working a job and therefore would no longer be contributing to the system.

global evidence shows that is not actually true. it does not give enough to be wealthy, just not be in poverty so people do continue working.
mrscott wrote:
They would become a drain on the entire economy.

again, the global research of those countries using UBI show that those recieving it do NOT quit their jobs (yes, there will always be cases, we even have veterans here that milk the system for freebies) but by and large they do not.
mrscott wrote:
Also many of the recipients would spend those benefit dollars foolishly, rather than paying for actual needs. I've seen it happen time and time before. Its human nature.

by buying things....spending money in the economy....raising demand...forcing businesses to increase supply to compensate or lose to the other company that does....
they get the money, spend it on whatever they spend it on, then it goes up to the rich guys anyway in the end but more people have benefited from it first. each dollar in these type payments to everyday people like you and I generates and extra $2.10 in economic activity.

mrscott wrote:
Our constitution says we have the right of the "pursuit of happiness", but it does not say it will be handed to you.

no one is asking for it all to be handed to anyone, just covering the things you and I said believe should be god given rights.
mrscott wrote:
A person has to be willing to work towards their own dreams. It is not governments duty to make it come true. Government was created to protect our rights, not to control how we live.

this does not stop that in any way, it actually makes it better. how many more entrepreneurs would be able to go get started with the worry of a roof and food were eliminated? or the fact they can not leave their job and lose their insurance?

mrscott wrote:
Sure, make those rich companies and wealthy individuals pay their fare share.

that needs to happen and will be a huge benefit to the rest with the UBI method. for instance, in 2918 alone, corporations paid $91 billion LESS than the year before. not total, but that much less. we need to go back to what we were doing when we were the greatest and strongest. the tax rates were progressive instead of regressive and we not only built the strongest infrastructure anywhere, but we literally went to the moon. once we changed that and began coddling the rich, well...just look around at the failing infrastructure and rising poverty.
mrscott wrote:
And if you honestly think that our new elected leaders will actually make a difference for the good of the people, rather than the increase of their bank accounts, you are so very blind.

i don't think anyone really belives they will fix it all, that's just not realistic.
mrscott wrote:
History of your beloved Biden and Harris tells us we are in for some very bad things to come to pass. God save us all.

have you missed the last 4 years? forget that....have you missed the last 12 years with the Senate stopping anything to help people in favor of big business? this is where change needs to happen.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:54 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
This is Martin Luther King's holiday, one of the things he touched on in his speeches was a government basic living payment aka UBI. Not only was he pushing the idea but almost at the same time Richard Nixon was also trying to pass a government basic living payment. Coupled with a living minimum wage, sound familiar? Both of these individuals were on opposite sides and still had the same idea. Just goes to show, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The need was there then, and even more so today.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:22 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
Biden is planning to add another 1.9 Trillion dollars in another stimulus package. It will be needed, he is also extending the stopping of evictions for renters until March, and the repayments of student loans until Nov. The problem with both of these is those debts continue to pile up, how will anyone ever catch up their payments?

I fear all of this will do little good if we don't once and for all fix the problems created by trickle down supply side economics. We are going to have to get serious about writing off the books the student debt, and setting up UBI on a permanent self funding basis. Along with making the public option for health care a reality. Making Health Insurance no longer tied to your employer, and a human right for all.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:27 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
If there is any hope of passing anything meaningful in the Senate, the problem of filibuster reform is going to be necessary. Moscow Mitch is pleading to leave the 60 vote rule in place, rather than simple majority 51 to become the rule. This is the man that already eroded that rule by having a simple majority ram home the Supreme Court nominations. He wants nothing better than to keep legislation from being passed accept watered down versions. Again making it where no real reform is accomplished. The Democrats would be fools to not use their majority no matter how slim, to pass all of the bills passed by the House over the last 2 years, sitting in the Senate. Also to pass as much of new legislation as they can over the next 2 years.

Mitch has shown the way, he used his position to keep this country from moving forward. As a result citizens have lost faith in their government. If he gets his way, come the next election cycle the Democrats would have little to show in the way of progress. Then the Republicans would say nothing has been done, and they should get another shot. If this country does not move forward then we will decline as a nation, and lay the groundwork for more disgruntled citizens, and the risk the domestic terrorists will gain followers and power. The only way things like UBI will happen is if the Democrats play political hardball just like the Republicans have.


Last edited by The Lone Ranger on Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:36 am 
Online
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2076
Been Liked: 229 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
If there is any hope of passing anything meaningful in the Senate, the problem of filibuster reform is going to be necessary. Moscow Mitch is pleading to leave the 60 vote rule in place, rather than simple majority 51 to become the rule. This is the man that already eroded that rule by having a simple majority ram home the Supreme Court nominations. He wants nothing better than to keep legislation from being passed accept watered down versions. Again making it where no real reform is accomplished. The Democrats would be fools to not use their majority no matter how slim, to pass all of the bills passed by the House over the last 2 years, sitting in the Senate. Also to pass as much of new legislation as they can over the next 2 years.

Mitch has shown the way, he used his position to keep this country from moving forward. As a result citizens have lost faith in their government. If he gets his way, come the next election cycle the Democrats would have little to show in the way of progress. Then the Republicans would say nothing has been done, and they should get another shot. If this country does not move forward then we will decline as a nation, and lay the groundwork for more disgruntled citizens, and the risk the domestic terrorists will gain followers and power. The only way things like UBI will happen is if the Democrats play political hardball just the Republicans have.


I will agree with you to a certain point. That is, if the Dems don't make significant progress the next 2 years, they will lose trust by those who elected them. However, some if not all resolutions that are presented to the house and senate are too full of party politics. If a piece of legislation is presented and voted on, I believe it should have to support of at least part of both parties. Otherwise it is written too far left, or too far right. So, as far as passing by a simple majority, that isn't good government, that is party politics. I don't know what would be a fair number or percentage, but I do know when I was in high school in debate and legislative forum, in order to pass the first level of a presented bill/resolution, it was a simple majority and then to pass the next was a 2/3 vote. If I remember right, it's the House first, then the Senate? Then it could be vetoed by the acting president. Is this applicable to our current administration?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:45 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:

I will agree with you to a certain point. That is, if the Dems don't make significant progress the next 2 years, they will lose trust by those who elected them. However, some if not all resolutions that are presented to the house and senate are too full of party politics. If a piece of legislation is presented and voted on, I believe it should have to support of at least part of both parties. Otherwise it is written too far left, or too far right. So, as far as passing by a simple majority, that isn't good government, that is party politics. I don't know what would be a fair number or percentage, but I do know when I was in high school in debate and legislative forum, in order to pass the first level of a presented bill/resolution, it was a simple majority and then to pass the next was a 2/3 vote. If I remember right, it's the House first, then the Senate? Then it could be vetoed by the acting president. Is this applicable to our current administration?



A simple majority in the House has been the rule for the longest time. Clinton's economic plan that called for balancing the Federal Budget passed by one vote. The Affordable Care Act was passed by the House by a small majority. If we required a 2/3 vote for every law nothing would get passed in the polarized conditions of today. If it is good enough for the House why not the Senate? Citizens are tired of government that doesn't work, it is costing us as a nation. You can bet that Mitch McConnell if he had the juice would use it. He did in the Supreme Court nominations, ramming them home, and not requiring a 60 vote margin. If he uses his political tools to further his goals, others would be fools not to do the same. If the laws passed are unpopular with the voters, they only have to vote the rascals out next election cycle. America will continue to decline, and the gap will increase between the very poor and the very rich, if the Democrats don't fight as hard as the other side. What is it they say about Democrats, if given the power they don't use it. They have a two year window of opportunity to show what they can do, if they don't use it, then that's on them.

P.S. There is an old saying in the military, "When in command, Command"!


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:53 am 
Online
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2076
Been Liked: 229 times
All I am saying is that a simple majority when it comes to passing laws or legislation isnt going to put party politics aside. Yes it would be harder to get legislation passed, but it would be much less divided.... maybe 60%??? I dont know what number would work, but 51% doesn't show me that it's good for all, only all of one party.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:40 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:
All I am saying is that a simple majority when it comes to passing laws or legislation isnt going to put party politics aside. Yes it would be harder to get legislation passed, but it would be much less divided.... maybe 60%??? I dont know what number would work, but 51% doesn't show me that it's good for all, only all of one party.



That is what the ballot box is for, if the voters don't like legislation, they simply vote out it's author's. Otherwise we will be stuck in endless gridlock, while our country's infrastructure, health care system, and social safety net continue to collapse. Not to mention now covid-19 relief, nothing done on climate change, etc. etc. etc. Some of this we are running out of time on, by 2050 the Oceans of the world will be dead. When that happens a major source of food, and oxygen production will be gone. Eating and breathing are important, not so much for me, I will be dead by then or over 100 years old. You will probably still be here. Besides what is more perfect than passing the law with the party in power, if the policies fail who will get the blame? What are you afraid of, if it doesn't pan out the Republicans will be back in power, unless Trump does form his own party and splits the Right.

P.S. Using your argument then the current Supreme Court Justices should not have been approved, since it was done without 60 votes. I don't recall Mitch objecting then to a simple majority.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:14 am 
Online
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2076
Been Liked: 229 times
4 years at a whack of poor legislation could and would devastate families and economy. That is why I think laws and legislation should have at least some sort of support from both parties. Otherwise anything and everything could be attached to Bill's that might be detrimental to the whole. It's really not solving much of anything when laws are only one sided. That goes for both parties. The truth it, it happens way too much already.

As far as the Supreme Court nominations, those decisions are not creating new laws, only choosing people who are in positions of authority, just like elections for senators and congressmen. Otherwise nobody would ever be elected.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:25 am 
Online
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2076
Been Liked: 229 times
There needs to be a sense of reason and progress in all legislation that is for all citizens, not just one political party


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:46 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:
There needs to be a sense of reason and progress in all legislation that is for all citizens, not just one political party



You mean like what the Republicans did passing tax cuts for the rich, corporations, building a wall, and ramming home three Supreme Court Justices?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:54 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:
4 years at a whack of poor legislation could and would devastate families and economy. That is why I think laws and legislation should have at least some sort of support from both parties. Otherwise anything and everything could be attached to Bill's that might be detrimental to the whole. It's really not solving much of anything when laws are only one sided. That goes for both parties. The truth it, it happens way too much already.

As far as the Supreme Court nominations, those decisions are not creating new laws, only choosing people who are in positions of authority, just like elections for senators and congressmen. Otherwise nobody would ever be elected.



I thought the last 4 years was whack the poor, and it did devastate families and the economy. It is impossible given the divide today to form a consensus. Notice how there is a call for moderation once a party is out of power. It seems to me the last 4 years the Democrats were calling for consensus, Mitch wasn't going for it. You can't expect the other side to play nice when they have been on the ground, and the party in power was stepping all over them. If the policies work then the ruling party will stay in power, in a Democracy.

I submit the Supreme Court nominations aren't like elections, since they are appointments for life. If you get a judge on the bench they will be there 30 or 40 years, no chance for a do over. That is why the standard should be higher, and it was actually lowered during Mitch's time, as majority leader.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:37 am 
Online
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 2076
Been Liked: 229 times
Both parties have made choices that they wont budge in admitting they were misguided. That's where common ground isnt being met.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:59 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 5367
Been Liked: 608 times
mrscott wrote:
Both parties have made choices that they wont budge in admitting they were misguided. That's where common ground isnt being met.


The choices made might not be totally by the parties, but rather by the super packs that give money and buy influence. There is no common ground because it is in the interest of the special interests to keep the voters divided, so they can continue to control things and make money, behind the scene.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:22 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5040
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1238 times
Attachment:
congress-nascar-jackets-sponsors-who-bought-them.jpg
congress-nascar-jackets-sponsors-who-bought-them.jpg [ 149.91 KiB | Viewed 13338 times ]

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 256 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech