Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT Rush threatens Tom!


Recommended Posts

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]And if you wonder where the other voices are, just remember Bill Maher. You know why he no longer has a show dont' you?[/b][/quote]Maher just finished a deal with HBO. He'll be back soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[quote] Fear of a Democrat-created Socialist state is why we should support the current assault on our country's political structure? [/quote]chris, knowing you, you are refering to the current Prez.. Am I wrong? Did you agree with anything in that long ass post I did? I did not write that by the way, it was a cut and paste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Kringle: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]And if you wonder where the other voices are, just remember Bill Maher. You know why he no longer has a show dont' you?[/b][/quote]Maher just finished a deal with HBO. He'll be back soon.[/b][/quote]Now that is some good news. Thanks.

Jotown:)

 

"It's all good: Except when it's Great"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by our moderator: [b]Republicans need to remember that the upsurge in conservatism is NOT a mandate. They made that mistake in 1995. It is an upsurge by default, because the Democrats haven't offered anything better.[/b] With all respect, the Dems [i]did[/i] offer [i]something[/i] :the usual weak answers to questions that they are preoccupied with (and which the Republicans co-opted and ran on!). It shows fairly transparently in the way the latest polling Q's are asked and in the strategy the Dem's have for winning next time, i.e., be more strident, acerbic, and to lean to the left more than they did [i]this[/i] time. Sure the Republicans blew it in 1995- let's see what happens now with a moderate in the White House... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]let's see what happens now with a moderate in the White House... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And who would that be? [/quote]His name is George Bush. Do we have to explain everything to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most republican ideas/issues these all seem reasonable on the surface but when you take them to their logical conclusions the republicans just look like a bunch of selfish bigots. Incidentally I used to be a republican, but then I got smart. Lets take them one by one shall we. All quotes are from CM. [quote]The ploy is simple. Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security. It's an old trick, tried and true. The Democrats roll this one out every single election. This time the point men are Richard Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe. They're both telling voters that the evil Republicans have a "secret" plan to reduce Social Security benefits as soon as they are reelected.[/quote]I'm not sure people need convincing - Republicans say they want to do this and have a history of actually doing it. I wish I had access to my library right now but I'm on call at the hospital so I will only be able to give 1 example - privatizing social security. This was the repulicans "great idea" before the dot-com bubble burst, what would have happened if we had put that money in the market then? I'll tell you - it would be gone. Another fabulous Republican idea. [quote]Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes[/quote]-and- [quote]Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"[/quote]These are really true - good for you CM! I know that this would take away some of the money you so rightly deserve but allow me to argue the oposition: There is only X amount of money in the world. True you can print more or whatever but the value of money depends on there being a finite amount of it. Now you and I go to work everyday for about the same amount of time. I work at McDonalds and earn about $1500 a month (I'm the manager) and you go to your law firm and earn $20,000 a month. What's the difference? Well, me, and about 100 other people like me earn and spend the money and make the products that makes your $20,000 possible. True, maybe I didn't do so well in school, or work as hard as you, but there is no doubt that if you moved to a desert island by yourself you would be making a lot less! Now I'm not saying that everyone should earn the same amount of money, but I am saying that those that earn the most do it on the backs of the americans that earn the least, and taxes should reflect that. Then you can get pragmatic - have you ever tried to live on ~$15,000? It's not easy. Lets say that we go with something Repubs like to talk about now and then - a flat tax, lets say %10. Now you would pay about ~24,000 on your $240,000 and have 216k left to live on. I would say that you won't have any problems. However I will only have $13,500 left over from 15k, and that might mean a few months rent! Hmm, so the rich keep more money (that they're not hurting for any anyway) and the poor go without food (because they really do - I work with them). And I have lived on 15k a year and less. It's not easy on 25k a year and I don't live in an expensive part of the country. It would be impossible to live on it if I had to pay for my own health insurance. And someday I expect to earn a lot more, and I won't bitch about taxes a bit, because my money will come from poor people and hundreds of other americans, and they deserve to be able to feed their families too. Now I bet we agree as far as people who won't work for whatever reason - I don't support a free ride, but how do you decide who is playing the system and who needs help? I don't know. [quote]Democrats have been after this income tax deduction for decades. They call it a "subsidy." Now the more intelligent among us will clearly understand that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earn can hardly be called a "subsidy." But we're talking about the more intelligent among us. These people aren't likely to be voting for Democrats anyway! [/quote]Hmm, think of it this way: 1. The government taxes your income (I know, you don't like this already) 2. The government decides not to tax the portion of income people spend on paying for property (government-"hmm, it is good for people to own property, we will not tax this) 3. Therefore, people who own property pay less taxes than those who earn the same but do not own property 4. Deduction for mortgage = subsidy (money that the govt gives you in the form of reduced taxes). Now I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, and I think that society at large does as well since it has endowed me with the priveledge of prescribing medication and making life and death decisions etc, and I can see how this would be a subsidy, so I don't see where you're going with the intelligence thing. Now onwards. Democrat logic: 1. rich people make their money on the backs of the poor 2. rich people have tax deductions not available to the poor, shifting the burden of taxes (at least in this instance) to the poor. 3. =The rich get richer, the poor get poorer Now, if you don't have a problem with this then fine. I do. [quote]Socialized Medicine[/quote] [quote]Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition. This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush's economic stimulus plan. There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance. They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium. Democrats wanted federal funds to be paid to employers to encourage employers to extend health insurance benefits to laid-off workers. Democrats knew that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price.[/quote]Oh my God, have you been asleep for the last 20 years? Are you confused? You do realize that right now we DO have a market driven health care system right? You do know about the health care reform act in the '70s that legalized HMO's right? You do realize that EVERY indicator since then has showed that the quality of health care has gone down while the cost of health care goes up right? Oh, let me take a deep breath. In the 70's people noticed that health care costs were skyrocketing, so the smart republicans said "lets let the market take over, since it's so good at improving quality while reducing costs" and the HMO was born. The problem is that HMO's are businesses, and they want to make money. So what they do is carve out a profit by restricting the amount of care their subscribers can get for their money. If profits are not high enough (i.e. not enough margin) they raise premiums. If profits are great the savings are not passed back to the subscriber in the form of reduced premiums or better care - it goes to the shareholders. Incidentally, did you know that HMO's can drop people from coverage if they become too expensive? While it is well known that they cannot drop individuals from coverage while they are within their contract, companies can drop regions from coverage, we had a few episodes of this in PA in the last couple of years. All for a profit. So we've tried competition in the free market - it has been a miserable failure. Now practically - do you know how much insurance costs? If I (a healthy young male, no smoking, no chronic diseases) were to go out and attempt to purchase insurance it would cost at least $500 a month [i]just for me[/i]. $6,000 a year on insurance. How many people can afford that? Not many, although some have to. Those that can't still get sick and this is where I will interject some first hand experience. In fact, we often see people who earn in that range who no longer qualify for medicaid but cannot afford insurance and then they get sick. What do you do? Either they have to stop working (and paying taxes) to get medicaid, or they have to be declared disabled to get disability. How fucked up is that? Now you would say "just send them the bill!" THEY CAN'T PAY IT. EVER. So you do. Joe Schmoe comes into the emergency room with a heart attack. He gets about $10,000 in treatment and is sent home on several medications whose cost totals about $100 a month. Joe cannot pay the bill and so the hospital loses that money. If this hospital sees 1,000 Joe's in a year the hospital cannot pay it's way and closes (look in the news for how many hospitals closed last year-I don't remember the number). If Joe had insurance he could have been seen in the Dr.'s office when he was just having chest pain and his heart attack would have been prevented. This would cost about $200. These are real numbers from our hospital, I'm not making this up. Now let's back up a minute - who pays Joe's $10,000 ER bill? Guess what - You Do! The cost gets bounced back through medicare and other government subsidies that taxpayers pay for. Now, you might say that the government shouldn't subsidize health care but then you would have to pay for it directly through increased charges to your insurer to cover the costs of the uninsured. "Fine" you say, "Don't treat people who can't pay!" Ahh, nice counter. Well, most civilized countries have determined that health care is not a priveledge of the wealthy, and that everyone should have access to doctors. If someone comes into the ER I have a professional obligation to treat them. If we stopped treating all the uninsured there would be dead people laying in the streets (thats a public health hazard you know). So why is universal health care a good idea? Well, it would reduce costs and taxes, or at least slow the rise in taxes. You see, as I already demonstrated, you are already paying for the healthcare of the uninsured, but it's like paying to get your engine rebuilt instead of paying to change the oil every 5k miles. Now, I don't care if the gov't runs it or someone else, but we are paying twice as much as any other industrialized nation for healthcare that doesn't rank in the top 5. A free market success? I think not. Now Canada's system has it's problems because they took their healthcare money and spent it on something else, but England and Sweden's systems are good models of what's possible. Besides, as I already said, you're already paying for it. [quote]Tax your pension funds[/quote]Did you hear about this from Rush? [quote]The Magic of Imputed Income[/quote]Now I heard that one on Rush, I was ROTFL that day, wasn't he on to something about a cat then too? [quote]Fact is, you've already paid taxes on this income once. The bill would just punish you for not forking it over to the ex wife by making you pay tax on it a second time. Today, child support. Tomorrow, that money you could be making if you would only rent your home instead of live in it. [/quote]Hmm, I hope you're not defending deadbeat dads here. Otherwise I have never heard of this, although I'm far from omniscient. [quote]Economically Targeted Investments[/quote] [quote]The Democrats will simply pass laws requiring fund managers to invest in corporations building low income housing; or companies who are hiring workers off welfare roles. Other "allowed" investments will be in such things as environmental protection, waste recycling and other causes popular with the left.[/quote]Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that companies are in a big hurry to do these things. I forgot that things like making sure that those people who make 15k a year who we should tax more and help less, who make your shoes and food and car, should have a place to live and be able to drink clean water. How silly of me. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but history has showed that business is interestedinmaking money, and these things don't make money or cause them to make less money than they would otherwise. So I guess you propose that these people live on the street, get asthma and emphysema, and drink from a sewer, and then die. Is this compassionate conservativism? I think it is! [quote]Force employers to pay for “family leave.”[/quote]A standard practice in all other industrialized nations. Good for the families. Why not cut down on the fraud by requiring proof? I mean really? A woman shouldn't be able to stay home with her new baby for a few weeks without going on welfare or losing her apartment? Nice. [quote]Seizure of property of those who flee Democratic tyranny[/quote]Never heard of it, but if you want to make money off the people here without paying back in, then I'm all for it. [quote]Government paid childcare for majority of voters[/quote]Dude, shit happens. It costs more to have them on welfare than to pay childcare! [quote]Government control of all childhood education[/quote]Hmm, our children are already among the dumbest in the industrialized world. Your great idea is to take MORE money out of the already cash strapped schools so your kids can go to private school at less cost to you, while Hilda's kids down the street have to keep going to public school since show doesn't have the extra bit of cash to cover that private school tuition, and now there's one less teacher there because you took your kids out. Nice for you, sucks for her. If you don't like public schools take your kids home! Of course, I don't think it's unreasonable to pass some regulations to make sure they learn more there than what station Rush is on and how much Liberals want to take their money. [quote]Government imposed limits on executive income[/quote]Because they sooooo deserve that 10 million dollar salary. Honestly, they are sucessful because of the employees, but at Enron the emplyees got the shaft, and the execs got the cash. Isolated incidence? Look at the news. [quote]Repealing the Second Amendment [/quote]yes, because you just have to have that assault rifle for "protection." Do you have any idea how many kids I see who shoot each other with their parents guns? I don't mind responsible ownership, but that is not what we have in the US. [quote]Destroy talk radio[/quote]Well why not! In summary, Republicans (republicanus moneyhungryus) seem to believe that the money they have mysteriously appeared from somewhere, or that they could have made as much from pluck and determination despite being stuck in the middle of outer space. I am a medical student. I could not have become one without patients, teachers, etc. who will all make less than I do when I am done. Likewise my living will be sustained by the money of the poor and sick or the otherwise sick. If there were no sick people I would have no money. Therefore it is in my best interest to make sure that these people have money, jobs, and homes so that they in turn can give me money, a job, and a home. It is the same for any job be you the chairman of GM or the aforementioned manager of McDonalds. If you you are somehow entitled to the money you have you are crazy, and greedy. So ends my counter-rant. Casey, tired, have to go to the ER.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cg1155 , I did not write that post, it was a cut and paste, I stated that in a post above. You do make some valid points but it always seems to be the person that goes out and actually makes money that has to pay for the people that sit on their ass and do nothing. I dont know if I should answer you point by point until you realize that I did not write that post, I did post it because it seems to bring up some good points. [quote] Democrat logic: 1. rich people make their money on the backs of the poor 2. rich people have tax deductions not available to the poor, shifting the burden of taxes (at least in this instance) to the poor. 3. =The rich get richer, the poor get poorer [/quote]1. the poor would have no job if it were not for the rich guy employing him/her. 2. the poor have all kind of credit deductions,that is why they pay almost no tax. People get money back and call it a tax refund, you cant get a refund when you dont pay any taxes, its called a handout. 3. if this were true there would be no middle class. I want you to talk to me again in a few years when you are making alot of money and I can guarantee that your tune will change when the Gov. starts taking 50% of your income. [quote]quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Repealing the Second Amendment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yes, because you just have to have that assault rifle for "protection." Do you have any idea how many kids I see who shoot each other with their parents guns? I don't mind responsible ownership, but that is not what we have in the US. [/quote]Repealing the second amendment does not just mean assalt rifle's, it means all guns. Hell, while we are at it, why dont we just get rid of the first amendment also. OH, I forgot the Dems are gonna try this here real soon when they go all out after talk radio. Why stop at talk radio, go for fox news and anybody else who does not agree with the democratic agenda. This is an assalt on the first amendment, plain and simple. Most Dems/libs dont like talk radio because it is ruled by conservatives. And just for the record, besides the fact that Bill mahar(sp) wants to legalize pot, he doesnt have a single good political idea in his fatass head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b] [quote] Fear of a Democrat-created Socialist state is why we should support the current assault on our country's political structure? [/quote]chris, knowing you, you are refering to the current Prez.. Am I wrong? Did you agree with anything in that long ass post I did? I did not write that by the way, it was a cut and paste.[/b][/quote]Do I [i]agree[/i] with any of that? The Grand Liberal Conspiracy, that is so rife with contradiction that every victory would be a failure? No way - it sounds like paranoia to me. There's no plausible motivation for it - what, a bunch of politicians are going to "capture" us all with this grand deception, in order to bolster their egos and ensure their continued employment? I wouldn't necessarily put it past many of them - but being Democrats has no bearing on that. Republicans are not honorable by default, and they have plenty of dirt and blood on their hands as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]CM: I did not write that post, it was a cut and paste, I stated that in a post above. [/quote]Really, I can't find it, but you put those ideas out there either way, so I don't think that really matters. Or are you trying to say that you don't believe that stuff? [quote]1. the poor would have no job if it were not for the rich guy employing him/her. [/quote]And if all the poor people die off then the rich will have no one to work for him/her, and will cease to be rich. [quote]2. the poor have all kind of credit deductions,that is why they pay almost no tax. People get money back and call it a tax refund, you cant get a refund when you dont pay any taxes, its called a handout. [/quote]And you think that these deductions are wrong. Anyway, the rich also have lots of ways to deduct from their taxes, and in any case in this instance we were talking about the deduction for mortages, not other deductions. [quote]3. if this were true there would be no middle class. [/quote]And census data shows that the middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the poor and the wealthy is increasing. This is a link to actual census data that shows who gets what percent of available income. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the poorest fifth of the population got 3.9% of the income in 1990 and is getting 3.6% in 2000 (that's less) and that the richest 5% got 18.6% of available income in 1990 and got 22.1% in 2000. [url=http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h02.html]Census Data[/url] [quote]I want you to talk to me again in a few years when you are making alot of money and I can guarantee that your tune will change when the Gov. starts taking 50% of your income. [/quote]Funny, this is what every well off Republican I meet says when this issue comes up. Also funny, the well off Democrats I meet don't say this, so I'll be happy to talk to you again in about 3 years. I'm sure I'll still be around here. Anyway, even if not for that I'll remember that for a time [i]I was poor[/i] and that my life would have been impossible to maintain without some of the income adjustments the governement makes possible. [quote]Repealing the second amendment does not just mean assalt rifle's, it means all guns. Hell, while we are at it, why dont we just get rid of the first amendment also. OH, I forgot the Dems are gonna try this here real soon when they go all out after talk radio. Why stop at talk radio, go for fox news and anybody else who does not agree with the democratic agenda. This is an assalt on the first amendment, plain and simple. Most Dems/libs dont like talk radio because it is ruled by conservatives. [/quote]Yeah, I know, but you guys don't want us to do ANYTHING about guns - no registration, no restrictions on purchasing, NOTHING. So it doesn't really seem to be about the second ammendment since none of these issues have anything to do with the right to bear arms - just the right to own any kind of gun you want. I don't see THAT in the constitution. Nuff said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, cg1155, after you go to the trouble of this very well thought out response to an unattributed copy and paste (filibuster?), there are no real refutations of your points. What it basically boils down to is that many people want to be greedy self-serving jerks and will find whatever way they can to justify/rationalize it. And then they tell you, "just wait until you're in the club, you'll see how great it is too." Of course as you correctly point out, this view is short-sighted and doomed to failure, since in the long run it doesn't even serve those who think they are benefitting. Yet still, so many people who will never be admitted to 'the club' buy into this with the pathetic hope that one day they will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Now practically - do you know how much insurance costs? If I (a healthy young male, no smoking, no chronic diseases) were to go out and attempt to purchase insurance it would cost at least $500 a month just for me. $6,000 a year on insurance. How many people can afford that? Not many, although some have to. Those that can't still get sick and this is where I will interject some first hand experience. In fact, we often see people who earn in that range who no longer qualify for medicaid but cannot afford insurance and then they get sick. What do you do? Either they have to stop working (and paying taxes) to get medicaid, or they have to be declared disabled to get disability. How fucked up is that? Now you would say "just send them the bill!" THEY CAN'T PAY IT. EVER. So you do. [/quote]Do you have health insurance? I take it you dont. Why not? Because it is one of the things you can get the Gov. to pay for that you dont have to. Where is your "health care" on your list of priorities? It is low because you can get someone else (me) to pay for it. Think about all the stuff that you have that you dont NEED to survive in this world that you put above health coverage. How about the net connection at your house? You pay for it but WILL NOT pay for health coverage. WHY? The answer is that the government will take MY money at the point of a gun and give it to you in the form of health coverage. They wont take it and give it to you for the other stuff you deem more important than your health coverage, example: Do you have cable tv? Dont need it to survive but it comes before your health coverage. Do you wear name brand shoes ? Do you drink alcohol? Do you go to the movies? Do you have 2 or 3 instraments that you play? Do you drive a car over 5,000 bucks? You get the point. Where does health coverage come on your list of priorities? Probably pretty low because all of the other stuff is more important to you and hell someone else can pay for it. I have to go out and work 4 months out of the year to pay taxes so you can have health coverage when you put all of this other stuff infront of your health. Damn that and damn you for thinking shit should be given to you by others. Sal, you call me greedy when I paid over 100,000 bucks in taxes last year, pardon me while I say FUCK YOU. What fucking club are you talking about. I didnt ask to be in a club where 50% of my money is taken away and given to helpless shits like yourself. Get off your ass and get a second job if your life is so fuckin bad and quit whinning to the people that actually work for a damn living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]Sal, you call me greedy when I paid over 100,000 bucks in taxes last year, pardon me while I say FUCK YOU. What fucking club are you talking about. I didnt ask to be in a club where 50% of my money is taken away and given to helpless shits like yourself. Get off your ass and get a second job if your life is so fuckin bad and quit whinning to the people that actually work for a damn living.[/b][/quote]My post was not an attack toward you but rather a general comment. Why not try responding to the points in a civil, intelligent manner rather than this shrill rhetoric? As if you had any idea about me or my personal situation :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's getting hot- I have two questions: 1. How do I "do" an avatar like all the rest of you? I must be missing a bolt somewhere and... 2. Can anyone 'splain to me how it is [i]not[/i] at least [i]somewhat[/i] tyrannical for an entity (say, oh I don't know, uh- the government?)to take anyone's money from them and just give it to anyone else, regardless of the situation? Even if the person recieving the money [i]can[/i] work? Or to tax an inheritance? Something that people spend a lifetime working and saving for- for their children's children- and *poof*- it's taxed [i]again?[/i]! I mean, I'm sure Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson are just doing 360's right now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]2. Can anyone 'splain to me how it is not at least somewhat tyrannical for an entity (say, oh I don't know, uh- the government?)to take anyone's money from them and just give it to anyone else, regardless of the situation? Even if the person recieving the money can work? [/quote]Everyone gets something from the government, from protections for business to police etc. So you get something from the government. The government may decide that it is in everyone's best interest for the burden for paying for government to be shifted to certain individuals - for republicans this is the poor and middle class, for democrats this is the more well off and middle class. Now, you may decide that it's not in your best interest, or that their rationale is wrong, but it can be argued that it is just and reasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]you call me greedy when I paid over 100,000 bucks in taxes last year, pardon me while I say **** YOU. What ****ing club are you talking about. I didnt ask to be in a club where 50% of my money is taken away and given to helpless s***s like yourself. Get off your ass and get a second job if your life is so ****in bad and quit whinning to the people that actually work for a damn living. [/quote]Hey, if you don't like it why don't you just move to another country? Oh wait. Now I remember. There is no other industrialized nation that taxes its citizens as little as the US. To do better you would have to go live in some third world country where you (gasp) COULDN'T MAKE AS MUCH MONEY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We pay taxes to live in a country with a high standard of living. Bringing up those around you who are less fortunate improves YOUR world. Part of the price is that some people take advantage, but the alternative - where if you don't have, then you don't get, no chance, no alternative - is worse. I lived for years with no medical insurance. Why? Because I could not afford it, plain and simple. I did not get free care - I did without it. G Let me ask you this: given the choice between making $25,000/yr and paying no tax, and making $250,000/yr and paying 50% - which would you pick? How much is it worth to you to live in a country where you have the opportunity to make that kind of money, rather than one where you get paid less than 1 dollar a day?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Everyone gets something from the government, from protections for business to police etc." What protections for business are you talking about? Tariffs?? The point is that the police, a standing army, clear and passable roads, etc... are constitutionally mandated, whereas social security, "free" health care, welfare, business and farm subsidies, etc... are NOT. "So you get something from the government. The government may decide that it is in everyone's best interest for the burden for paying for government to be shifted to certain individuals - for republicans this is the poor and middle class, for democrats this is the more well off and middle class." Nonsense- if you take the govt. teat out of the public mouth you will see how much govt. milk is just wasted and spills all over the place (bad analogy? Well it's gross, anywhoo...) Besides- Rupulicans know that they can't get taxes from the poor and the Dems know that they can't campaign on raising taxes and win elections. "Now, you may decide that it's not in your best interest, or that their rationale is wrong, but it can be argued that it is just and reasonable." The arguments shouldn't come from what some pol decides will get them re-elected- it should come from the Constitution- politically-invented law is arbitrary and God help you if you're on the "donating" side of the fence on the particular day that a pol or judge decides that you can "afford it". "We pay taxes to live in a country with a high standard of living. Bringing up those around you who are less fortunate improves YOUR world." We have a high standard of living not because of taxes (?!), but because of 2 things: property rights and the rule of law. Without both of these there is no chance of economic development, let alone prosperity. How is anyone's world improved by creating dependents anyway? "Part of the price is that some people take advantage, but the alternative - where if you don't have, then you don't get, no chance, no alternative - is worse." The country in which there is "no chance" is the country where there is no liberty. Everyone has the chance to make it here- when I was on the road (in a band- duh...) we managed to "make it" on 10k a year- that's rare, I know, but somehow our little family (me, wonderful wife, and 3 children) managed to get by without using the govt. programs. Now you tell me that I should give up part of my hard-earned income to provide for people who don't work for a living?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<2. Can anyone 'splain to me how it is not at least somewhat tyrannical for an entity [say, oh I don't know, uh- the government] to take anyone's money from them and just give it to anyone else, regardless of the situation? Even if the person recieving the money can work?>> Are you talking about the huge tax breaks, obtained through the hard work of an army of lobbyists and huge political contributions, for GE, General Dynamics, agribusiness, etc.? Are you talking about the thousands of dollars that were taken from me to bail out the savings and loan companies (and isn't it funny how we don't much hear about Neil Bush, who was such an integral part of causing Silverado to fail -- but whose Governor brother in Florida mandated state-wide testing that happens to require software made by a company owned by...son of a gun, what a coincidence! - Neil Bush?). Welfare is welfare, whether for individuals or corporations. The Republications are corrupt when it comes to helping out large corporations, and the Democrats are corrupt when it comes to helping out unions and their ilk. The Republications pay big business to stay in power, the Democrats pay big labor and big government. But both are shelling out the bucks to their buddies to hold on to the reins of power. Now, before all you Bush fans/Republicans jump on ME, suffice it to say that if Gore was in the White House, I'm sure I could find ample instances of corruption with which he and his cronies would be involved. I'm an equal opportunity Angry Dude. Right now, the Republicans have the power, so they're the ones busily abusing it. When the Democrats get in, they'll be the ones abusing it. It's simple, really. You both right about the other side, but you're both wrong about your *own* side. Wake up, people: we're *all* being taken for a ride, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative. And this is why things don't get solved: each side is convinced the other is screwing up. But the deal is that BOTH sides are screwing up, big-time. The only choice we have is in choosing what flavor of screwing up we want. Oh yes, about Rush Limbaugh's offer of a million dollars for anyone who can prove him wrong: please give me more details of the offer. I corrected him once when he was talking about something of which he knew nothing (the Pacific Lumber situation in Northern California) and sent him a fax advising him of the facts (I lived there and knew exactly what was going on)...he never offered to write me a check, but he never refuted what I said either, and he stopped talking about it after I sent the fax. Of course, it's pretty easy to make a bet like that because it is impossible to PROVE that someone's *opinion* is wrong. I could say it is my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, and although you could likely prove that the moon is not made out of green cheese, you couldn't prove that my opinion is wrong as long as I say I believe it. Limbaugh is an entertainer. It always strikes me as the height of hypocrisy that he doesn't like other entertainers offering their opinions on politics...unless the entertainer agrees with him, like Charlton Heston or Ronald Reagan. I think the dude should get a handle on the fact that this is America, and people have the right to voice their opinions, regardless of their day jobs...just like we are here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]Are you talking about the huge tax breaks, obtained through the hard work of an army of lobbyists and huge political contributions, for GE, General Dynamics, agribusiness, etc.? Are you talking about the thousands of dollars that were taken from me to bail out the savings and loan companies [/b] Craig- Yes I am- I agree 100%- welfare is welfare. Still, no "splainin'" about why it is ethical to transfer wealth (and this is coming from a guy who is in the 30k per year range supporting wife and 3 kids)... [b]And this is why things don't get solved: each side is convinced the other is screwing up. But the deal is that BOTH sides are screwing up, big-time. The only choice we have is in choosing what flavor of screwing up we want.[/b] Sure, but what does that have to do with the fundamental issue of wealth transfer and who gets the dole? I agree- both parties are crooks- so lets follow the "flavor" metaphor a bit further: The flavors that are currently on the menu are both distasteful and impossible to pay for. I suggest an alternative: it is one where the realities of economics (especially the law of supply and demand, so no more subsidies!) would be recognized and pols from both parties would be held liable for breaking the law (See article 1, section 10 of the US Constitution in regards to the gold and silver standard); the lie ("I will give you what you want and I will make someone else pay for it.") that is told by both sides would be exposed as a, well, lie. This scenario is both constitutional and non-tyrannical to either poor or rich. Just think- equality before the law- what a concept! So if company "A" gets tax breaks, so do you and I- if farmer "B" gets paid to "not raise hogs", so do you and I! After a while the whole subsidy/welfare issue would just look stupid, and be done away with. But what politition could [i]ever[/i] get elected or re-elected by saying that? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Craig: Wake up, people: we're *all* being taken for a ride, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative. [/quote]No question there, I just would rather be taken for a ride by the Democrats. FWIW I vote third party when poossible. [quote]Tbush: Still, no "splainin'" about why it is ethical to transfer wealth [/quote]Still no splanin' why it isn't. The Constitution also makes provisions for the congree to make OTHER laws since the framers of the Constitution knew that that document alone wasn't enough. It just sets the ground rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I think I sparked a good debate. Keep it up. I hate I had a little bitch out burst earlier and I wish to make am mends with the offended. My personal family occupation was brought into the conversation and what I maid as far as moneys go(pretty close), and it got a little personal for me. I have been so mad I have not checked the site in days. That said, When a country goes to a socialistic form of government, a certain amount of freedom is lost, not much, but enough that ALOT of Americans are gonna backlash(2002 elections). Once the freedom that America has to offer are tasted, then no less will be taken. This is the reason that Socialism will NEVER play in this country. Thats fair and balanced, I think. PS: I got so mad , I changed my name and avatar.I'm C.M..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]Still no splanin' why it isn't. The Constitution also makes provisions for the congree to make OTHER laws since the framers of the Constitution knew that that document alone wasn't enough. It just sets the ground rules. [/b] Seriously- do you think that the framers had the current convoluted tax structure and bewildering array of laws in mind when they wrote it? No way-and nobody will give me a proactive ethical reason for my first Q. Equality before the law...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw, I don't think they had it in mind but they did make it possible, so what's done is done. As for your fair tax thing, I'm still not quite exactly sure how that would work but what it comes down to I think would be a flat tax which I have already commented on. Casey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writers of the Constitution did not want the future to be hidebound to the past: "A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48 As far as as transfer of wealth through taxation or other means, government spending is an important factor of economic regulation. The fact that the business cycle has been greatly mitigated since the inception of New Deal programs is an ostensible proof. Indeed, government spending, unemployment insurance, welfare,etc., keep the economy steady; benefiting both the recipients of those programs and businesses which depend on demand (spending) for their services and goods. The idea that the government can care for those visited by tragedy or unfortunate circumstances is a political and social decision and is not inimical to a capitalist society. Certainly government programs and policies need to be different from 220 odd years ago when 90 percent of the people worked on farms and labored compared to 3% who work on farms today along with the replacement of labor by machines. The consequence of government programs has not only resulted in some modicum of care for those less able to fend for themselves but also has resulted in the rich getting richer thanks to a steady demand and a mitigated business cycle. Also, some modicum of welfare needs to be implemented because inflation is held in check by the Fed pursuing monetary programs that put people out of work when inflation is high and stimulate the economy when needed. When the government deliberately slows down the economy to spare us inflation, the people who benefit from these policies have an obligation to help those the government has burdened so greatly. The overall average tax rate for the US hasn't changed for a long time. It's been shifted to the middle class. Still the average tax burden of all taxes, including state taxes and tolls is about 27% or less, not 50%. The maximum federal tax rate of 39.1% is for those earning over $297,351 or more. The great majority of Americans have a federal tax rate of 15% with additional state, and local taxes of about 10 percent upping their total tax bill to 25%. http://www.bankrate.com/nsc/itax/2001taxrates.asp Now paying taxes hurts, but it's the price of civilization and we are all the beneficiaries. Certainly the richest are the greatest beneficiaries, not only of their hard work or good fortune but also of civilization's accumulation of knowledge and establishment of social and economic structures which enable them to accrue their riches. As a consequence the rich should pay in progressive proportion. The maintaining of a steady economy and and stable society is in their interest. Investments in education, infrastructure and effective programs to eliminate poverty is all our responsiblities and the results of those investments our something we all our recipients of. Doesn't mean we don't have corruption which needs be eliminated. Means we shouldn't be falling prey to unsound and idealistic philosophies (laissez faire Libertarianism) exploited by the aggressively opportunistic, irresponsible and self centered. By the way I'm in the 40% bracket and I hate paying taxes, I just understand their necessity. I also know we're not getting our money's worth from taxes, that much of the tax money gets spent on paying special interests, whether it's unnecessary military spending, mismanaged social programs or capital spending programs (pork).

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis

maintain their neutrality."

 

[Dante Alighieri] (1265-1321)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...