Forum Thread

Rush Limbaugh quote.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is taken out of context but here is what Rush said: "You can't pay people who produce nothing for you. And you c ggsfan't pay a whole bunch of them over and over again". That was taken out of context from what he wrote about the UAW pension account. But the essence is he is talking about people getting paid for not working. Keeping that in mind there has been a surge and resurgence in perpetual trust for heirs. States are seeking that business offering laws and incentives. Is it fair to question why dynasty trusts are being set up to give money without people having to work for it. In the case of the auto workers they did work for and negotiate their pensions. Rush defended the executives for receiving bonuses and defended their pensions and severance plans. Is he contradicting himself?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What a private citizen does with their money is different than a contract signed between a business and a union.

    I have no problem with rich people handing down money to their heirs because they are private citizens and can do what they want with their money. Some rich people are promising to give very little of their riches to their heirs and others aren't, but that's their decision.

    It's a whole other story when it comes to pensions, corporate bonuses, and severance packages.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The "private money and they can do what they want with it" is not a fair defense. In the first place the country is in debt. The surplus money from when the highest progressive tax rate is money that should be given back to the government. The country did better with the money. There is no justification for cutting taxes when the country needs the money. The trickle down theory did not, does not and will not work. As I mentioned earlier a trust is a trust and has the same effect private or business. There were laws against perpetual trusts. There were reasons . Now Those laws are being changed and just like laws agsinst gambling are being changed there is no good reason. The billionaires that are giving there money away have an excellent cause in Flint, Michigan. Hillary had an excellent opportunity to involve the Clinton Foundation and apparently missed it. The right wing talk stars have just about irradiacated any sense of the country is more important than an individual for having a right to designate the use and purpose of wealth. The right of an individual is not greater than the right of a country. Countries do not exist at the pleasure of individuals. Countries operate to benefit countries. The billionaires have lost sight of the countries . They forget that they only exist because of the country and especially this country. Do you want to examine their charity as a percentage of discretionary income? Big enough to change policy is too big.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The "private money and they can do what they want with it" is not a fair defense. In the first place the country is in debt. The surplus money from when the highest progressive tax rate is money that should be given back to the government. The country did better with the money. There is no justification for cutting taxes when the country needs the money. The trickle down theory did not, does not and will not work.

    It is absolutely a fair defense because it's their money and they can do what they want with it. The country is in debt for many reasons, but one of those reasons isn't because a handful of rich people want to leave their heirs some money.

    You get no disagreement from me when it comes to our tax code needing a major overhaul and that the ultra rich need to be paying their fair share, but these are two entirely different arguments.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: As I mentioned earlier a trust is a trust and has the same effect private or business. There were laws against perpetual trusts. There were reasons . Now Those laws are being changed and just like laws agsinst gambling are being changed there is no good reason.

    Not all trusts are created the same and there's no uniform trust law that covers all fifty states. Trust laws are set at the state and not the Federal level.

    There's also no such thing as a perpetual trust. Maybe the receiver of a trust decides to form a trust for their dependents, but that's different than a perpetual trust.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The billionaires that are giving there money away have an excellent cause in Flint, Michigan. Hillary had an excellent opportunity to involve the Clinton Foundation and apparently missed it. The right wing talk stars have just about irradiacated any sense of the country is more important than an individual for having a right to designate the use and purpose of wealth. The right of an individual is not greater than the right of a country. Countries do not exist at the pleasure of individuals. Countries operate to benefit countries. The billionaires have lost sight of the countries . They forget that they only exist because of the country and especially this country. Do you want to examine their charity as a percentage of discretionary income? Big enough to change policy is too big.

    If the Clinton Foundation got involved in Flint then the Hillary campaign can be accused of vote buying.

    And I'm having a hard time understanding what the rest of this has to do with trust funds. There's a big difference between reforming the tax code to make it more fair and saying that rich people should have to give the government all of their money when they die.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Jefferson understood the danger dynastic wealth poses to democracy. Kevin Phillips, a conservative, wrote about the impact of dynastic wealth in his book "wealth and democracy." No one says the wealthy must give everything to the government. That is nonsense. Reform of the tax code disguises the issue that the private sector is incapable of performing the functions of government. This is the key issue. If you want things done for society as a whole then they must be paid for.

    The myth of the invisible hand must be kicked the philosophical curb. The same goes for the myth of exceptionalism and so-called rugged individualism. They have no place in society.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is no Billionaire that did not make their billion other than through a system that was lacking in establishing worth for asction. Trial lawyers started out with a percentage that seemed an equitable compensation for their services . Taking advantage of a system that lacks compensatory adjust for changing conditions is the source of all great wealth . Essentially taking advantage of instead of performing for. No different than winning the lotto.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just as an example on how weird this country is, the following. A woman staying in a Marriott Hotel got 55 million, repeat 55million, because someone made pictures of her through the door peephole while she undressed. So you can get rich in a flash and you don't have to even work for it. As I said many times as well Bernie, introduce the European sliding scale tax system; then you still have billionaires, but everyone pays their fair share, poor people max. 1%, rich people max 75%
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Just like Thomas Paine (one of the founders, great friend of Benjamin Franklin) showed them they could easily afford to give help to widows, orphans, wounded soldiers, etc out of excess taxes, (Agrarian Justice) -- written near 1792 --- it sounds like many people (then & now) were against any Pensions, etc --- since they opposed people getting paid for "not working." Just think of it this way ---- WHY do we continue paying Congressmen in the U. S. Senate (from 2010 on) who frequently refuse to do their work, frequently "walk out" on their duties, & "insist on shutting down the U.S. Government" -- for insignificant & often "irrational" reasons (?). We should not "pay THEM for "NOT Working" -- either!

    Refusing to do their work while in the Senate bldgs, & often walking out of the building altogether for a long PAID absence -- s/b considered disruption, of a very subversive nature, (especially since being of a GOP "partisan" group, that has no respect of our Founding Father's ideals or intentions). Might I even say -- it is TREASON? If they do not respect our Govt laws, -- then WHO are they working for? --- And why should WE the People have to pay them a salary for "not" working? Maybe they should send the bill to Russia, or to Red China? -- or to whatever Govt they seem to most respect & sympathize with?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    You've gotta be kidding me. Was it Lushie Limburger who actually said nobody should get paid without working for it? (ha)

    Rush has probably worked less & rec'd more pay for it, than anybody else in the USA. First of all, his father was a millionaire in Missouri, a lawyer, who owned an airport, & a radio station. When Rushie got out of high school, it was either go to college or be drafted into the Army to go to VietNam. All the rich kids went to college, of course. But Rushie was not used to having to provide "sources" or "references" for his information, & thus did not get very good grades. He also spent a lot of his time in drinking & dope parties. So this put him into some peril at the Draft Board.

    Fortunately, being too fat to fit into a uniform, made it difficult to send Rushie to Viet Nam. Even though the sight of a very obese white man, running naked thru the jungle, would be a great deterrent to the "enemy"-- our Generals decided against it. And he would be "too heavy" to put into a helicopter, for obvious reasons. So Rushie was given a "4-F" classification. & was saved from Viet Nam. Some people are just born lucky -- & rich. Now Rush can sit all day eating bon-bons, & expounding on the half-truths of the radical Right. And it is never going to matter if he flunked out of English, or if he temporarily majored in studying clandestine growing of "weed" in hidden jungles. His buoyant personality & slightly wicked sense of humor will always see him through any hard times, so he will always remain vastly popular among conservative Republicans.