Conservative's issues with Obama tax breaks?

[deadheadskier]

What is it? Throughout the entire election season all I heard from conservatives etc was that you better prepare for higher taxes with Obama at the helm. That the republican party has the far better plan for keeping more of americans hard earned money in their pockets.

It's news, it could be total BS, but the Obama bail out contains significant tax relief for a very large percentage of our populous.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/obama.meetings/index.html

what's the problem with what he proposes?

I'm eager to listen with an open mind, but it sounds like a pretty darn good deal to me for 'most' american people. The only issue I see is that 'most' of american money is possessed by very 'few' actual people.

I guess I just can't wrap my mind around trickle down....which seems to have always been the conservative platform.

I've got an open mind here.....tell me what you think the problem is.

[Phishfolk]

Some of what I have been hearing is the problem many conseratives have with the current financial stimulus package, which isn't really Obama's but Pelosi's is that it looks like people will recieve tax breaks above what their tax liability is. It also is outwayed by government spending compared to cutting taxes to stimulate the economy.

[SunshineDrummer]

Some of what I have been hearing is the problem many conseratives have with the current financial stimulus package, which isn't really Obama's but Pelosi's is that it looks like people will recieve tax breaks above what their tax liability is. It also is outwayed by government spending compared to cutting taxes to stimulate the economy.

That's my issue with it as well. I don't understand how giving tax breaks while at the same time planning to spend trillions more is going to help our economy. If you're cutting taxes, where is that money coming from? Or are we just driving ourselves even further into debt?

[mule64]

I also think the tax break, while nice they are trying, will not help stimulate anything. With the average middle class person getting about $4 extra a week, how much more $ will actually get into the system.
I would not have a problem paying a little bit more in taxes if it would help shrink the deficit.

[Phishfolk]

That's my issue with it as well. I don't understand how giving tax breaks while at the same time planning to spend trillions more is going to help our economy. If you're cutting taxes, where is that money coming from? Or are we just driving ourselves even further into debt?

The problem I have with it is that government spending is less efficient as an economic stimulus then tax cuts. Taking the money out of our paychecks eliminates the first round of consumer spending and ultimately that money multiplies at a lower rate then if it was just left in the economy to begin with.

[SunshineDrummer]

The problem I have with it is that government spending is less efficient as an economic stimulus then tax cuts. Taking the money out of our paychecks eliminates the first round of consumer spending and ultimately that money multiplies at a lower rate then if it was just left in the economy to begin with.

Make sense. Like the stimulus check we got last year-- we didn't run out & buy anything, I paid bills with it. So the economy got no stimulation from us at all and I'm sure we're not the only ones.

[deadheadskier]

Make sense. Like the stimulus check we got last year-- we didn't run out & buy anything, I paid bills with it. So the economy got no stimulation from us at all and I'm sure we're not the only ones.

doesn't that go against what Phishfolk is trying to say though? The stimulus check was essentially a tax cut all at one time instead of over the course of a year. I too paid down debts with the check I received. No economic stimulation.

However, government spending on infrastructure does at least get people off unemployment and back to work and in turn they spend their money in stores etc.

I'm not saying I have the right answer or that I really know if the Obama bail out plan is the right choice. I just hear / read so many conservatives that are vehemently against it. Rush Limbaugh wanting his policies to fail etc.....

So, that's what I'm trying listen to with an open mind. I suppose I could just turn on Rush or Hannity, but I'd actually like to hear rational thought, not the hyperbole they spew.

[Phishfolk]

Make sense. Like the stimulus check we got last year-- we didn't run out & buy anything, I paid bills with it. So the economy got no stimulation from us at all and I'm sure we're not the only ones.

But I bet since you were able to pay those bills you were able to maybe go out to eat or go to a show at some point right? The thing is when we directly spend the money it does more for the economy then it does when it runs through the burocracy of our government and comes out as less money then it was when it went in.

[SunshineDrummer]

But I bet since you were able to pay those bills you were able to maybe go out to eat or go to a show at some point right? The thing is when we directly spend the money it does more for the economy then it does when it runs through the burocracy of our government and comes out as less money then it was when it went in.

Honestly, the stimulus money came when things started to go south at my old job and all I cared about was getting our debts paid in case I ended up without a job so honestly, no stimulus at all from us. We hardly eat out or go to shows at all lately because even though I didn't lose my job and all signs point to both of us staying employed, we decided that we want our debts gone as quickly as possible just in case. No figuring what this crazy economy will do next.

Of course, I can only speak for us. I'm sure there are others out there who took their check & did something else with it. But I'm sure there are just as many if not more who also used their stimulus money for bills.

[deadheadskier]

If I recall Phishfolk used his stimulus check to buy a new cold water heater :lol:

Maybe his stance on how to stimulate the economy is biased because he needs another new appliance :lol:

[Phishfolk]

If I recall Phishfolk used his stimulus check to buy a new cold water heater :lol:

Maybe his stance on how to stimulate the economy is biased because he needs another new appliance :lol:

Yeah I ended up paying bills and going to shows :lol:

[Blendix 007]

The problem with stimulus checks is they aren't really tax cuts. They are spending. Redistribution. A real tax cut wouldn't remove the money from the economy in the first place.

Another problem with Obama's plan is that, in case no one noticed, this type of spending hasn't worked the last 3 times we've tried it. Stimulus checks didn't work, TARP hasn't worked, the Fed loans haven't worked.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Also, I think it's just plain immoral to say to our children that we screwed up but we're afraid of the consequences so we're going to force you to bail us out. We hope you didn't have any plans because you're going to spend your lifetimes repaying our debts.

Only in Washington would folks seriously entertain the idea that to fix a problem caused by people borrowing more than they can afford to pay back, we'll borrow more money than we can afford to pay back.

Wake Up! The USA is broke, we can't afford to be spending like this.

[seany]

Wake Up! The USA is broke, we can't afford to be spending like this.

While I agree in sentiment, drastic times call for drastic measures unfortunately.

The Fed has already dropped lending rates to 0 - 0.25%. They can't go any lower to stave off recession.

Major economies around the world are in recession and an unprecedented contraction of the world economy is predicted - the first since WWII http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/4361570/Warning-over-collapse-in-capital-flows.html

The majority of leading economists - even those that previously subscribed to the Friedman school of thought - are all saying a Keynesian-style government stimulus is needed. One of grand proportions.

Given our current debt (the majority of which primarily lies square on the shoulders of the previous Republican administration), the whole debate over personal tax cuts should be moot at this point. But that's the Republican rallying cry - starve the government, less taxes. That's all well and good, but it's not going to solve the current economic woes. And it's not going to solve our crumbling infrastructure problem, that pretty much began w/ Reagan.

Right now, the only tax cuts that make sense are the ones that spurn new business and create new jobs, help us work towards energy independence (i.e., "green" or energy saving initiatives), etc. Personal tax cuts should be off the table.

[staggerlee024]

I think Obama is making a big mistake by making tax cuts such a large part of the bill.

I would like to see tax increases on those making over $250,000
I would like to see more money for infrastructure
That is it

[Me and Richard Pryor]

I also think the tax break, while nice they are trying, will not help stimulate anything. With the average middle class person getting about $4 extra a week, how much more $ will actually get into the system.
I would not have a problem paying a little bit more in taxes if it would help shrink the deficit.

Sure...me too...but only if the government spent the money wisely..

I can only hope Pres. Obama will try to cut some wasteful spending created over the last 50 years.

[Deadshow Dan]

Right now, the only tax cuts that make sense are the ones that spurn new business and create new jobs, help us work towards energy independence (i.e., "green" or energy saving initiatives), etc. Personal tax cuts should be off the table.

I agree. Generally, the tax breaks are the bad part of the bill.

The spending will create jobs, those jobs will keep people off unemployment and will keep the people they pay their money to off unemployment too.

We have solid proof now:
Tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy
Spending helps the economy

I know the rebate check I got... The funds are still in the account I transferred into.

Don't cut my taxes, not now.

In fact I can think of one new tax I'd like to see that I think we all (except maybe Royal) can agree would benefit the economy

[TEO]

I've heard some alarms in regard to creating social programs, that will be overly burdensome to sustain in the long term.

[Shake Yer Bones]

... Right now, the only tax cuts that make sense are the ones that spurn new business and create new jobs, help us work towards energy independence (i.e., "green" or energy saving initiatives), etc. Personal tax cuts should be off the table.

Do you really think we should spurn new business? Or is that just a typo?

[Phishfolk]

We have solid proof now:
Tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy
Spending helps the economy



What solid proof do we have that government spending helps the economy more then tax cuts while tax cuts for the wealthy (and how do you define wealthy) hurt the economy?

[mule64]

I just wish Obama would call this eco stimulus what it really is, pork filled legislation with some stimulus thrown in.
So much of the money will not be spent until late 2010.
Much of it goes to his liberal agenda (which is fine, but put it in another bill and do not call it stimulus).
The tax cuts/rebates are small enough and spread out as to not stimulate anything quickly, or at all.

[Phishfolk]

I agree mule...we should be investing in infrastructure. We should be investing in alternative sources of energy. These are not investments that are going to stimulate the economy in the short term and turn stop the free fall the economy is in.

[Shake Yer Bones]

We have a spending problem. I just don't understand how spending more will fix a spending problem. That's kinda like trying to cure an alcoholic by having him drink more.

[Blendix 007]

I agree. Generally, the tax breaks are the bad part of the bill.

The spending will create jobs, those jobs will keep people off unemployment and will keep the people they pay their money to off unemployment too.

We have solid proof now:
Tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy
Spending helps the economy

I know the rebate check I got... The funds are still in the account I transferred into.

Don't cut my taxes, not now.

In fact I can think of one new tax I'd like to see that I think we all (except maybe Royal) can agree would benefit the economy

You can always pay extra without stepping on the toes of us that disagree. Imagine if all liberals volunteered an extra $1,000 to the IRS, yearly. We'd all be riding unicorns on rainbows in no time.

[Nevrmore]

You can always pay extra without stepping on the toes of us that disagree. Imagine if all liberals volunteered an extra $1,000 to the IRS, yearly. We'd all be riding unicorns on rainbows in no time.

even just the ones in Hollyweird :D

[deadheadskier]

You can always pay extra without stepping on the toes of us that disagree. Imagine if all liberals volunteered an extra $1,000 to the IRS, yearly. We'd all be riding unicorns on rainbows in no time.

......so, it's up to the proletariat or in your words, liberals? The 'liberals' then would have 5K (as a percentage of 100) vs. the patrician's (conservatives) 95K.

Guilianni lashed back at Obama today regarding his comments of 'shameful' bonuses on Wall Street. I believe the figure was 18 Billion last year in bonuses. Gulianni's claim was that if the big Wall Street bonuses are done away with, unemployment would rise because the 'patrician's' would spend less in restaurants, stores, yada, yada, yada....

It just doesn't add up to me. The whole trickle down thing doesn't work.

In the most simple terms, such thinking suggests that if you give 5 children $95 dollars to spend at the candy shop, they'll spend more than if you give 95 children $1 a piece. Bull shit. Those five kids will squander away $80 when it's all said and done where as the 95 would probably spend $85 of it.

I'm trying, but I just don't buy the trickle down theory.

We're supposed to be a society built on getting paid for our merits. From what I see, genetic lottery still for the most part controls one's financial standing/comfort in the world for the vast majority of people.

.....old money needs to go away. And yes, I know Obama is catering to plenty of old money.

[Phishfolk]

In the most simple terms, such thinking suggests that if you give 5 children $95 dollars to spend at the candy shop, they'll spend more than if you give 95 children $1 a piece. Bull shit. Those five kids will squander away $80 when it's all said and done where as the 95 would probably spend $85 of it.



You have a point but also if you gave 95 children $1 a piece 70 of them probably would keep the dollar and not spend any of it.

[SunshineDrummer]

You have a point but also if you gave 95 children $1 a piece 70 of them probably would keep the dollar and not spend any of it.

Especially since you can't buy anything in a candy store for a dollar these days.

[PeaceFrog]

I agree mule...we should be investing in infrastructure. We should be investing in alternative sources of energy. These are not investments that are going to stimulate the economy in the short term and turn stop the free fall the economy is in.

This is only the beginning. He's been in office for just over a week and you're expecting miracles.

He said this is just "one leg of a multiple legged stool"

Of course, Republicans will attempt to obstruct his agenda for the entire duration of their stay. Fortunately for us they are now impotent.

[Blendix 007]

......so, it's up to the proletariat or in your words, liberals? The 'liberals' then would have 5K (as a percentage of 100) vs. the patrician's (conservatives) 95K.


So what are you saying? You're all for higher taxes as long as you (proletariat) don't have to pay them? That seems hypocritical to me.

IE, I have no problem volunteering someone else's income for the tax burden.

And I guess I'm not a proletarian since my political philosophy doesn't typically align with yours? OK

[Blendix 007]

We're supposed to be a society built on getting paid for our merits. From what I see, genetic lottery still for the most part controls one's financial standing/comfort in the world for the vast majority of people.

.....old money needs to go away. And yes, I know Obama is catering to plenty of old money.

This is not true for the last two generations of my family. My mother and father have been able to make a rather nice living without a formal education. As I have done for my family without a formal education or any financial help. Hard work is all you need.

It can be done, but if you're constantly telling your children that their dreams can't come true without a certain surname then that's what your children will believe.

If you tell them that anything's possible with hard work and the sky is the limit, then they'll believe it.

[staggerlee024]

Hard work does not always cut it in the US

Sometimes, yes.

Sometimes, no.

[SunshineDrummer]

Hard work does not always cut it in the US

Sometimes, yes.

Sometimes, no.

But it certainly gives you more if a fighting chance than sitting around on your ass doing nothing ever would.

[PeaceFrog]

I don't think anyone chooses to live in poverty.

And I don't think anyone expects to have everything handed to them for nothing.

But wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a fighting chance at life by having a decent education and health care for starters?

Of course that would level the playing field for dumbasses like GWB, making it less likely for his kind to take advantage of those less fortunate... which really is the crux of the issue.

[deadheadskier]

This is not true for the last two generations of my family. My mother and father have been able to make a rather nice living without a formal education. As I have done for my family without a formal education or any financial help. Hard work is all you need.

It can be done, but if you're constantly telling your children that their dreams can't come true without a certain surname then that's what your children will believe.

If you tell them that anything's possible with hard work and the sky is the limit, then they'll believe it.

That is the message my parents gave to me. I got an education, I've worked hard and I'm doing pretty well for myself.

We are on the same page that Hard Work should be all it takes.

However, when 45 + million Americans don't have health insurance, when lord knows how many hundreds of millions of people in this world are on the verge of starvation and a girl who just happens to have been born with the last name Hilton can live in the lap of luxury having done NOTHING in terms of hard work, than yes, I think the gov't should tax the hell out of her. And no, I don't think sucking dick on a blurry home video is hard work :lol:

We should be a society based on merit, not pedigree. Of that 5% of the populous that controls 95% of the wealth, I'd wager more than 75% of them were born into it, not self made.

[syd_25]

However, when 45 + million Americans don't have health insurance, when lord knows how many hundreds of millions of people in this world are on the verge of starvation and a girl who just happens to have been born with the last name Hilton can live in the lap of luxury having done NOTHING in terms of hard work, than yes, I think the gov't should tax the hell out of her. And no, I don't think sucking dick on a blurry home video is hard work :lol:


So if I leave my kids a large amount of money, they should have to pay more tax because they didn't personally "earn it"?

[PeaceFrog]

So if I leave my kids a large amount of money, they should have to pay more tax because they didn't personally "earn it"?

If you have a large amount of money to leave your kids, you should be grateful to the country that allowed you to accumulate that sort of wealth, and not mind leaving a portion of it for the advancement of human civilization.

And, if you were able to accumulate wealth on your own, why can't your kids do the same? Why do they need an inheritance?

[staggerlee024]

So if I leave my kids a large amount of money, they should have to pay more tax because they didn't personally "earn it"?


absolutely

[Phishfolk]

What is the incentive to work hard and earn that money then when you can let someone else work hare and get a share by default?

[staggerlee024]

Huge incentive. We are not talking about making the rich poor. Nor are we talking about making the poor rich.

A big inheritance tax on the wealthiest people is good for the economy. It encourages that people spend what they have before they die.

[PeaceFrog]

It has been proven that government revenue increases up until the point when citizens are taxed 50%

check out the "Laffer Curve"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[Blendix 007]

If you have a large amount of money to leave your kids, you should be grateful to the country that allowed you to accumulate that sort of wealth, and not mind leaving a portion of it for the advancement of human civilization.

And, if you were able to accumulate wealth on your own, why can't your kids do the same? Why do they need an inheritance?

It's somewhat hypocritical though, no?

Just because you're born a citizen of the USA, you're more entitled to my money than my own children?

Sounds like envy to me.

[PeaceFrog]

It's somewhat hypocritical though, no?

Just because you're born a citizen of the USA, you're more entitled to my money than my own children?

Sounds like envy to me.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Not all tax money goes toward entitlement programs. Besides, entitlement programs benefit everyone.

[Blendix 007]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Not all tax money goes toward entitlement programs. Besides, entitlement programs benefit everyone.

Well, more than a third of it does. And if I'm killed in a accident, I'd prefer my money goes to paying the bills for my family rather than the single mom that intentionally brought 12 kids into the world without a father or a job.

[PeaceFrog]

Well, more than a third of it does. And if I'm killed in a accident, I'd prefer my money goes to paying the bills for my family rather than the single mom that intentionally brought 12 kids into the world without a father or a job.

Well then, you ought to vote Democrat to ensure that your family will be cared for in such tragic circumstances.

You can rest assured knowing they will have adequate healthcare and education so they can be productive and sustain themselves.

Why doesn't "Give a man a fish..." apply to your family?

Do they really need you for survival? I think they would be better off if they were independent, and I think your reasons for being Republican are really just excuses for being selfish and uncaring.

[Shake Yer Bones]

Huge incentive. We are not talking about making the rich poor. Nor are we talking about making the poor rich.

A big inheritance tax on the wealthiest people is good for the economy. It encourages that people spend what they have before they die.

That, or hide what they earn.

For years, I have really tried to understand this specific tax. It makes no sense to me. Plain and simple, it punishes achievement, and the freedom to achieve (or not to achieve) is one of the bedrocks of this country. Seriously, though, I have tried and tried to understand it ... and it just doesn't "click" for me. It defies all the logic in my head. Just because I have something does not entitle it to someone else who doesn't.

[staggerlee024]

Interesting.
It is the tax that makes the most sense to me.
The person that makes the money suffers absolutely no loss from it.
I am all for leaving the inheritance tax on estates over $1 million.
Leave the smaller estates alone.

I can see an argument against all sorts of taxes.
I may not agree with them.
But I can see them.
But the inheritance tax is pretty cut and dry.
For me.

[staggerlee024]

Well, more than a third of it does. And if I'm killed in a accident, I'd prefer my money goes to paying the bills for my family rather than the single mom that intentionally brought 12 kids into the world without a father or a job.

A. That does not make any sense.

B. Nobody is having children just to take your money.

C. Whoever told you that lied.

D. I am going to be you first heard it from that great purveyor of misinformation Ronald Reagan.

(I originally used a much nastier term for Reagan. But I took it back. Keep it PG)

[Blendix 007]

Well then, you ought to vote Democrat to ensure that your family will be cared for in such tragic circumstances.

You can rest assured knowing they will have adequate healthcare and education so they can be productive and sustain themselves.

Why doesn't "Give a man a fish..." apply to your family?

Do they really need you for survival? I think they would be better off if they were independent, and I think your reasons for being Republican are really just excuses for being selfish and uncaring.

Why must you attack me personally. You wouldn't say that if I were standing in front of you.

I would love for my 2 year old to provide for my family but there are physical limitations. She can't run a chainsaw, chop wood, operate a tractor, shoot a rifle or gut a deer. In time, she will, but she's two.

You're an antagonist and it gets under my skin.

I'm not a republican anyway. You're a democrat because you're lazy and you'd rather collect unemployment than work. It's an excuse to be a *** smoking, loser, piece of shit.

[Blendix 007]

A. That does not make any sense.

B. Nobody is having children just to take your money.

C. Whoever told you that lied.

D. I am going to be you first heard it from that great purveyor of misinformation Ronald Reagan.

(I originally used a much nastier term for Reagan. But I took it back. Keep it PG)

I said nothing about having children to take my money. Here's a wonderful example of what I was talking about.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-octupletssider_01nat.ART.State.Edition1.4c4a4fb.ht ml

She has no way to provide for these kids and opted to have them anyway.

[staggerlee024]

That is a tragic story.
But not the ordinary.
You must admit.
Should we base policy for everyone because of the mistakes of a few?

Regarding the car accident...

I agree that your assets should go to your daughter and not the state. I agree with that 100%. However, if your assets were in the millions or billions of dollars I do not agree with that. If you have $50 million in assets and want to pass it along to your children that is great. The kids will get along fine if the state takes a hefty chunk of change on that. Children would survive on half of that or one quarter of that. No?

[PeaceFrog]

You're a democrat because you're lazy and you'd rather collect unemployment than work. It's an excuse to be a *** smoking, loser, piece of shit.

Well that didn't take much effort to get you to show your true colors.

Why can't your wife take care of your 2 year old without your help? Aren't you teaching her to fish?

[SunshineDrummer]

Well then, you ought to vote Democrat to ensure that your family will be cared for in such tragic circumstances.


With the variety of estate planning tools available to ALL people (not just the very wealthy) I can make sure my family is provided for and my final expenses taken care of if, God forbid, I meet an early end. I don't need a political party to do it for me, I can do it myself. Maybe if more people thought that way instead of relying on the government to do it for them, we'd all be in a better place.

[syd_25]

If you have a large amount of money to leave your kids, you should be grateful to the country that allowed you to accumulate that sort of wealth, and not mind leaving a portion of it for the advancement of human civilization.

And, if you were able to accumulate wealth on your own, why can't your kids do the same? Why do they need an inheritance?

Shouldn't it be my choice? I'm guessing you don't think so.

Why should you have any say as to how I raise and provide for my children???? :rolleyes:

[syd_25]

If you have $50 million in assets and want to pass it along to your children that is great. The kids will get along fine if the state takes a hefty chunk of change on that. Children would survive on half of that or one quarter of that. No?

Since when is it the goverments job to decide the max amount of money that I or my family need to live on?

[PeaceFrog]

With the variety of estate planning tools available to ALL people (not just the very wealthy) I can make sure my family is provided for and my final expenses taken care of if, God forbid, I meet an early end. I don't need a political party to do it for me, I can do it myself. Maybe if more people thought that way instead of relying on the government to do it for them, we'd all be in a better place.

If more people thought about helping each other, and not just themselves, we'd all be in a better place, too. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[SunshineDrummer]

:lol: Yeah, because being self-reliant and looking out for your family are such horrible qualities in a person.

Keep trolling, buddy. ;)

[Shake Yer Bones]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

Norman Mattoon Thomas, 1944 candidate for U.S. President (Socialist Party)

[staggerlee024]

That is a bad quote

[staggerlee024]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas

[Elphaba]

well. i don't think it is cool to tax the hell out of someone's inheritence. death is a very innappropriate time for taxes, wtf?

and thank god daschle and what's her name dropped the hell out for their tax fouls.

with as much as some of us disagree about the issues on this board we probobly could have already hammered out this stimulus, a healthcare plan, a banking plan, a housing plan, an iraq war plan, a plan on how to deal with afganistan and still planned a superbowl party by last sunday.

[PeaceFrog]

:lol: Yeah, because being self-reliant and looking out for your family are such horrible qualities in a person.

Keep trolling, buddy. ;)

Selfishness and greed aren't really virtues.

[Phishfolk]

an iraq war plan
Well that one was already negotiated and set into action by the Bush administration.

[SunshineDrummer]

Selfishness and greed aren't really virtues.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how looking out for your family is either selfish or greedy. I can't wait to hear what troll-esque spin you put on your answer. Should definitely be good for a few laughs. :lol:

[staggerlee024]

This thread is not really about looking out for your family.
Nor is it necessarily about greed.
It is about sound economic policy.

Read my "two santa clauses" thread.

[Shake Yer Bones]

That is a bad quote

How is that a bad quote? Bad as in "wrong and he didn't say that" or bad as in "out of context?"

[Arglebargle]

I'd love to hear your explanation of how looking out for your family is either selfish or greedy. I can't wait to hear what troll-esque spin you put on your answer. Should definitely be good for a few laughs. :lol:

I'll give it a try. I'm all for taxing huge inheritances. I see it like this. You have people in the world that have earned their wealth. You have other people in the world because their families are wealthy. It would be nice to have a wealthy family and never have to work for it. As time goes on, wealth tends to accumulate in one area, and bleed away from another. The more money one has, the more they can save. Less affluent people are unable to save as much, because they need to spend what they have to meet their basic needs. At some point, the unbalance is unjust. Then there is a system where the majority of the population works and works and works for meager scraps, where those at the top enjoy the bulk of the working classes toil. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system, until people are working and working but still barely hanging on and living in poverty. Eventually the hordes of wealth needs to be liberated and put back into the flow of money. This is why Robin Hood is a hero, and misers and scrooges are reviled.

I'm sure somebody else can splain this better.

[born_cross_eyed]

The real tax hike has already happened; it just hasn’t taken effect yet. It is a tax that hurts the poor the most and punishes those who have saved. It’s called inflation and it comes about from the Federal Reserve creating trillions of dollars out of thin air to give to their banking and corporate allies. Soon the jig will be up as this money trickles down and the dollar starts to buy less and less. Unfortunately, the greedy politicians and bankers won’t stop until they have stolen all of the people’s wealth. That’s what people need to understand…it’s not left versus it’s the state versus YOU.

[staggerlee024]

How is that a bad quote? Bad as in "wrong and he didn't say that" or bad as in "out of context?"

I am not sure of the context. I know some of the mans life. From what I know of him he did not advocate for liberalism or the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite.

If the quote is taken as it appears out of context it is just a bad idea all around. I am a socialist. But that is no way to get socialism. A: It will never happen. B: If it did happen it would not be the sort of democratic socialism I wish to see.

[Shake Yer Bones]

The way I see things, I thought his quote was spot-on. This country is moving closer and closer to socialism each day. And it's been doing so for 60-plus years. Each generation seems to become more and more reliant on government to fix things and solve things and for me, that's a bad thing. I think it goes against human nature and stifles motivation. Not in the sense that some extremists claim it does, but the current direction of our government is one that is becoming more and more invasive and creating dependency. I just don't think any good for a society can come of that.

[staggerlee024]

I do have to disagree with the direction that the country has been heading in.

I would argue that it has been heading in quite the opposite direction.

Over the last 60 years: welfare has been slashed, tax rates on businesses have gone down, tax rates on the wealthy have gone down, access to healthcare has shrunk, unions have gotten beat up on with no help from the government, laws have increasingly benefited transnational corporations over us citizens, real wages have gone down significantly, the value of the minimum wage has gone down significantly...


so on and so forth.

[Arglebargle]

The system is such that if you are on the bottom, you're just not going to make ends meet without help. It would be ideal if wealth was more fairly distributed so that even the janitors and dishwashers and waitresses and health aids could afford basic housing, food, heat, and transportation to get them to work, but sadly, that is not the case. Generations ago you could strike out and be self sufficient, now land is unaffordable to do so. Nor can you live as a hunter gatherer, today you'll be called a vagrant.

[mule64]

this sounds purely like class envy. The rich people are already paying huge amounts of tax on the money because it is invested and making money. They are paying their share.

[Shake Yer Bones]

I do have to disagree with the direction that the country has been heading in.

I would argue that it has been heading in quite the opposite direction.

Over the last 60 years: welfare has been slashed, tax rates on businesses have gone down, tax rates on the wealthy have gone down, access to healthcare has shrunk, unions have gotten beat up on with no help from the government, laws have increasingly benefited transnational corporations over us citizens, real wages have gone down significantly, the value of the minimum wage has gone down significantly...


so on and so forth.

Wow. We really are coming at this from opposite ends, eh? :lol:

It's all good, though. I won't call you names if you don't call me names. :tongue1: :lol:

[PeaceFrog]

I'll give it a try. I'm all for taxing huge inheritances. I see it like this. You have people in the world that have earned their wealth. You have other people in the world because their families are wealthy. It would be nice to have a wealthy family and never have to work for it. As time goes on, wealth tends to accumulate in one area, and bleed away from another. The more money one has, the more they can save. Less affluent people are unable to save as much, because they need to spend what they have to meet their basic needs. At some point, the unbalance is unjust. Then there is a system where the majority of the population works and works and works for meager scraps, where those at the top enjoy the bulk of the working classes toil. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system, until people are working and working but still barely hanging on and living in poverty. Eventually the hordes of wealth needs to be liberated and put back into the flow of money. This is why Robin Hood is a hero, and misers and scrooges are reviled.

I'm sure somebody else can splain this better.

This explanation is much better than I could have stated. Robin Hood is a great analogy.

The concentration of wealth is not fair. It is a throwback to medieval times.

[syd_25]

The concentration of wealth is not fair. It is a throwback to medieval times.

When I was a kid and said to my Dad "Thats not fair!" his response was "Who said life was fair?"

:funny1:

[SunshineDrummer]

I'll give it a try. I'm all for taxing huge inheritances. I see it like this. You have people in the world that have earned their wealth. You have other people in the world because their families are wealthy. It would be nice to have a wealthy family and never have to work for it. As time goes on, wealth tends to accumulate in one area, and bleed away from another. The more money one has, the more they can save. Less affluent people are unable to save as much, because they need to spend what they have to meet their basic needs. At some point, the unbalance is unjust. Then there is a system where the majority of the population works and works and works for meager scraps, where those at the top enjoy the bulk of the working classes toil. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system, until people are working and working but still barely hanging on and living in poverty. Eventually the hordes of wealth needs to be liberated and put back into the flow of money. This is why Robin Hood is a hero, and misers and scrooges are reviled.

I'm sure somebody else can splain this better.

So what about more modest wealth? Take my folks for instance. Mom & dad, both the kids of Irish immigrants who grew up pretty poor. Got educations, got decent jobs, worked hard, saved, lived within their means. Bought a house, had 2 kids, acted responsibly, made good investments, paid off their mortgage, now both retired & in their 70s. Don't have a shit-ton of money, but have a house that has appreciated in value over the years, plus a few other financial bits & pieces (most of which is their retirement savings, so that's what they're living on now). Myself & sis both have our own lives & jobs, both homeowners. I'm married, she will be shortly. We both seem to be following our parents' footsteps: work hard, save, live within your means.

As you can probably guess, neither of us is sitting around waiting for mom & dad to pass so we can get our mitts on their money. More like we're following the example they gave us and hopefully, each of us will have something to leave to the next generation once we're gone. If it helps make their lives more comfortable, so be it.

So should whatever inheritance our folks leave us be taken away via excessive estate or inheritance taxes just because we had parents who had a good work ethic, lived within their means, never screwed anyone and wanted to leave something behind for their children? That used to be a source of pride for parents--to leave something for the next generation after they're gone. Why is it considered a bad thing now?

Its unfortunate that some have more than others, but I don't believe the answer is to punish those families who have worked hard all their lives to leave something to their kids by overtaxing them. Its not going make things even. All its going to do is kill whatever desire future generations might have to do the same things with their lives as the generations before them. Why work so hard and do the right things if the government is just going to come and take it all away at the end?

[staggerlee024]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

Please read this. There is so much misinformation that goes around about the estate tax.

Of note...

For amounts not greater than $10,000, the tax liability is 18% of the amount.
For amounts over $10,000 but not over $20,000, the tentative tax is $1,800 plus 20% of the excess over $10,000.
For amounts over $20,000 but not over $40,000, the tentative tax is $3,800 plus 22% of the excess over $20,000.
For amounts over $40,000 but not over $60,000, the tentative tax is $8,200 plus 24% of the excess over $40,000.
For amounts over $60,000 but not over $80,000, the tentative tax is $13,000 plus 26% of the excess over $60,000.
For amounts over $80,000 but not over $100,000, the tentative tax is $18,200 plus 28% of the excess over $80,000.
For amounts over $100,000 but not over $150,000, the tentative tax is $23,800 plus 30% of the excess over $100,000.
For amounts over $150,000 but not over $250,000, the tentative tax is $38,800 plus 32% of the excess over $150,000.
For amounts over $250,000 but not over $500,000, the tentative tax is $70,800 plus 34% of the excess over $250,000.
For amounts over $500,000 but not over $750,000, the tentative tax is $155,800 plus 37% of the excess over $500,000.
For amounts over $750,000 but not over $1,000,000, the tentative tax is $248,300 plus 39% of the excess over $750,000.
For amounts over $1,000,000 but not over $1,250,000, the tentative tax is $345,800 plus 41% of the excess over $1,000,000.
For amounts over $1,250,000 but not over $1,500,000, the tentative tax is $448,300 plus 43% of the excess over $1,250,000.
For amounts over $1,500,000, the tentative tax is $555,800 plus 45% of the excess over $1,500,000.
For years before 2007, additional tax brackets applied for amounts over $2,000,000 with marginal rates of up to 55%.

The tentative tax is reduced by gift tax that would have been paid on the adjusted taxable gifts, based on the rates in effect on the date of death (which means that the reduction is not necessarily equal to the gift tax actually paid on those gifts).

Although the above tax table looks like a system of progressive tax rates, there is a unified credit against the tentative tax which effectively eliminates any tax on the first $3,500,000 of the estate (or the first $3,500,000 on a combination of taxable gifts during lifetime and a taxable estate at death), so the federal estate tax is effectively a flat tax of 45% once the unified credit exclusion amount has been exhausted.

[staggerlee024]

If your "hard working" parents have 3.5 million dollars to give you then, yes, you should be taxed on that.

[PeaceFrog]

When I was a kid and said to my Dad "Thats not fair!" his response was "Who said life was fair?"

:funny1:

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

That's who.

[Arglebargle]

So what about more modest wealth?

If it were up to me, the first 500,000 dollars in property would be untaxed. And the people making less than 50K a year wouldn't have to pay income tax.

[PeaceFrog]

If it were up to me, the first 500,000 dollars in property would be untaxed. And the people making less than 50K a year wouldn't have to pay income tax.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[SunshineDrummer]

If it were up to me, the first 500,000 dollars in property would be untaxed.

OK, I can agree with you there. I must have misread some of what you said eariler. I don't think people should be punished for leaving something for their heirs. The government gets enough out of us when we're alive and it galls me that they can still take more after we're dead.

[Phishfolk]

The problem with estate taxes is that all those assets have already been taxed through income, property and capital gains tax.

And establishing justice and promoting general wellfare does not mean life is "fair".

[Arglebargle]

The problem with estate taxes is that all those assets have already been taxed through income, property and capital gains tax.

And establishing justice and promoting general wellfare does not mean life is "fair".

They have been taxed, but when property changes hands, it usually gets taxed again. It is changing ownership status, so the new owners get to pay. I am not for punishing regular folks who receive a normal sized inheritance, like a nice house and a bit of assets, but when millions of dollars fall into some ones lap that didn't even earn it in the first place, why are they entitled to just pocket a huge windfall and not pay taxes on it? They are still going to rich anyways, I don't believe in taking it all. Meanwhile the lower class gets hit with all these sales taxes and gas taxes and property taxes that take a much more significant chunk of their income than the people who earn far more. Life may not be fair, but the system should strive to be more fair. I don't think rich people should be taxed until they are bled dry. I am not for that at all.

[PeaceFrog]

The problem with estate taxes is that all those assets have already been taxed through income, property and capital gains tax.

And establishing justice and promoting general wellfare does not mean life is "fair".

Well the problem with sales tax is that I already payed tax on the money when I earned it, but it's two different taxes. One is income tax and the other is sales tax. The government needs revenue, which is generated by the collection of taxes when money is transferred. Do you have a better idea?

If "establishing justice" and "promoting the general welfare" doesn't mean that "we the people" should strive for fairness and help all citizens who need it, then what does it mean?

Establish - Bring about

Justice - The quality of being just or fair

Promote - Contribute to the progress or growth of

General - Applying to all or most members of a category or group

Welfare - A contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous

[Shake Yer Bones]

.... And the people making less than 50K a year wouldn't have to pay income tax.


But that's not fair to those whose incomes are taxed.

[PeaceFrog]

But that's not fair to those whose incomes are taxed.

Yes it is, because their first $50,000 wouldn't be taxed, either. Nobody's first $50,000 would be. Only the amount made after the first $50,000 would be taxed. So, you make $50,000 - no tax, you make $60,000 - you pay tax on only $10,000.

Of course there will be people who disagree. There always is, but they're probably the minority (and obviously doing well for themselves, so they can afford it).

Oh, well. You can't please everyone.

[deadheadskier]

I'll give it a try. I'm all for taxing huge inheritances. I see it like this. You have people in the world that have earned their wealth. You have other people in the world because their families are wealthy. It would be nice to have a wealthy family and never have to work for it. As time goes on, wealth tends to accumulate in one area, and bleed away from another. The more money one has, the more they can save. Less affluent people are unable to save as much, because they need to spend what they have to meet their basic needs. At some point, the unbalance is unjust. Then there is a system where the majority of the population works and works and works for meager scraps, where those at the top enjoy the bulk of the working classes toil. There is nothing inherently wrong with this system, until people are working and working but still barely hanging on and living in poverty. Eventually the hordes of wealth needs to be liberated and put back into the flow of money. This is why Robin Hood is a hero, and misers and scrooges are reviled.

I'm sure somebody else can splain this better.

pretty much how I feel to

because I feel this way, I'm a socialist pig looking to turn my country into Cuba according to the likes of Glen Beck.

[deadheadskier]

The problem with estate taxes is that all those assets have already been taxed through income, property and capital gains tax.

And establishing justice and promoting general wellfare does not mean life is "fair".

don't even get me started on 'capital gains' taxes. How they are not taxed as what they are, 'income' is beyond me. Even the smartest economic mind of our time, Warren Buffet, agrees with me there. He thinks it's completely wrong that his admin who makes 68K a year has a higher percentage of her income taken by the government than he does.

manipulation more than merit has resulted in the wealth disparity in this world getting as ridiculous as it has.

[Uncle Coulro]

the smartest economic mind of our time, Warren Buffet
Warren Buffet is a marvelously successful investor, but that doesn't make him an economist. That's like saying someone is the most brilliant physiologist of our time because they happen to be a remarkable athlete. Buffet bases his opinions on taxation on his political beliefs, not on his understanding of macroeconomics.

[SunshineDrummer]

don't even get me started on 'capital gains' taxes. How they are not taxed as what they are, 'income' is beyond me. Even the smartest economic mind of our time, Warren Buffet, agrees with me there. He thinks it's completely wrong that his admin who makes 68K a year has a higher percentage of her income taken by the government than he does.

manipulation more than merit has resulted in the wealth disparity in this world getting as ridiculous as it has.

Chris and I were just having this discussion last night re: capital gains. It just sucks that the government can't stand us little people making some money on investments without them getting their "fair share." :rolleyes:

[PeaceFrog]

Chris and I were just having this discussion last night re: capital gains. It just sucks that the government can't stand us little people making some money on investments without them getting their "fair share." :rolleyes:

You said "the government can't stand us little people making some money. "

I think what you really meant is "the rich and powerful elite can't stand seeing the working and middle class catch up to them."

After all, the government consists of representatives whom we elect. So, who do we really have to blame?

Oh yeah, like Uncle Coulro implied in another thread, it's the Masonic Jews. That's who they all answer to I guess.

[Blendix 007]

Keynes can't help us now
Governments cling to the delusion that a crisis of excess debt can be solved by creating more debt.
Niall Ferguson
February 6, 2009

It began as a subprime surprise, became a credit crunch and then a global financial crisis. At last week's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Russia and China blamed America, everyone blamed the bankers, and the bankers blamed you and me. From where I sat, the majority of the attendees were stuck in the Great Repression: deeply anxious but fundamentally in denial about the nature and magnitude of the problem.

Some foretold the bottom of the recession by the middle of this year. Others claimed that India and China would be the engines of recovery. But mostly the wise and powerful had decided to trust that John Maynard Keynes would save us all.

I heard almost no criticism of the $819-billion stimulus package making its way through Congress. The general assumption seemed to be that practically any kind of government expenditure would be beneficial -- and the bigger the resulting deficit the better.

There is something desperate about the way economists are clinging to their dogeared copies of Keynes' "General Theory." Uneasily aware that their discipline almost entirely failed to anticipate the current crisis, they seem to be regressing to macroeconomic childhood, clutching the Keynesian "multiplier effect" -- which holds that a dollar spent by the government begets more than a dollar's worth of additional economic output -- like an old teddy bear.

They need to grow up and face the harsh reality: The Western world is suffering a crisis of excessive indebtedness. Governments, corporations and households are groaning under unprecedented debt burdens. Average household debt has reached 141% of disposable income in the United States and 177% in Britain. Worst of all are the banks. Some of the best-known names in American and European finance have liabilities 40, 60 or even 100 times the amount of their capital.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferg6-2009feb06,0,6972232.column

[Deadshow Dan]

The problem with estate taxes is that all those assets have already been taxed through income, property and capital gains tax.
Sometimes they have, sometimes they haven't

For example, you buy a stock and hold it. You inherit a stock a stock and hold it.

Much like others here, I am for estate taxes. I would set the the exempt amount from estate taxes at something like $2.5 million

[Deadshow Dan]

yes, we've moved since Reagan towards a sort of Social Darwinism ... much to the detriment of the middle class.

a lot of folks have bought this line, pushed by places like the Heritage Foundation paid for by those against the middle class, against people's own self-interest.

I do have to disagree with the direction that the country has been heading in.

I would argue that it has been heading in quite the opposite direction.

Over the last 60 years: welfare has been slashed, tax rates on businesses have gone down, tax rates on the wealthy have gone down, access to healthcare has shrunk, unions have gotten beat up on with no help from the government, laws have increasingly benefited transnational corporations over us citizens, real wages have gone down significantly, the value of the minimum wage has gone down significantly...


so on and so forth.

[Deadshow Dan]

the single mom that intentionally brought 12 kids into the world without a father or a job.
This specifically shows why the money in this bill for family planning is apt and necessary.

[PeaceFrog]

Keynes can't help us now
Governments cling to the delusion that a crisis of excess debt can be solved by creating more debt.
Niall Ferguson
February 6, 2009

It began as a subprime surprise, became a credit crunch and then a global financial crisis. At last week's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Russia and China blamed America, everyone blamed the bankers, and the bankers blamed you and me. From where I sat, the majority of the attendees were stuck in the Great Repression: deeply anxious but fundamentally in denial about the nature and magnitude of the problem.

Some foretold the bottom of the recession by the middle of this year. Others claimed that India and China would be the engines of recovery. But mostly the wise and powerful had decided to trust that John Maynard Keynes would save us all.

I heard almost no criticism of the $819-billion stimulus package making its way through Congress. The general assumption seemed to be that practically any kind of government expenditure would be beneficial -- and the bigger the resulting deficit the better.

There is something desperate about the way economists are clinging to their dogeared copies of Keynes' "General Theory." Uneasily aware that their discipline almost entirely failed to anticipate the current crisis, they seem to be regressing to macroeconomic childhood, clutching the Keynesian "multiplier effect" -- which holds that a dollar spent by the government begets more than a dollar's worth of additional economic output -- like an old teddy bear.

They need to grow up and face the harsh reality: The Western world is suffering a crisis of excessive indebtedness. Governments, corporations and households are groaning under unprecedented debt burdens. Average household debt has reached 141% of disposable income in the United States and 177% in Britain. Worst of all are the banks. Some of the best-known names in American and European finance have liabilities 40, 60 or even 100 times the amount of their capital.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ferg6-2009feb06,0,6972232.column

Niall Ferguson

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215952/january-13-2009/niall-ferguson

[SunshineDrummer]

You said "the government can't stand us little people making some money. "

I think what you really meant is "the rich and powerful elite can't stand seeing the working and middle class catch up to them."


I said exactly what I meant, I don't need you to interpret for me. I'm one of the working/middle class trying to keep up & keep my head above water and it ain't easy when the government has its hand out every time I turn around.

[Prometheus]

So Sunshine Drummer, you don't think unearned income/profit should be taxed at all? It's already at a considerably lower rate than income that we actually have to do work or sell goods to earn. Plus, as far a I understand, the same rate is paid regardless of class status.

[SunshineDrummer]

So Sunshine Drummer, you don't think unearned income/profit should be taxed at all? It's already at a considerably lower rate than income that we actually have to do work or sell goods to earn. Plus, as far a I understand, the same rate is paid regardless of class status.

Capital gains tax just galls me. In a way it feels like being punished for doing well with your investments. And 15% may not sound like a lot, but it adds up. On top of what we already pay in:

Federal & state income taxes
Real estate taxes
School Taxes
Sales Tax
Gas tax
and I could go on & on & on with all the different taxes we pay day in & day out for doing nothing more than living our lives.

I understand the need for taxes, but it just gets to me every now & then. Its like the government has to find a way to take their cut from everything. I swear, sometimes it reminds me of paying mob protection money.

[PeaceFrog]

I said exactly what I meant, I don't need you to interpret for me. I'm one of the working/middle class trying to keep up & keep my head above water and it ain't easy when the government has its hand out every time I turn around.

The Government has been run by the rich and powerful elite for the past 8 years.

I think you confuse them to be one and the same, but they're not.

Wasn't that $600 bonus check enough? :funny1:

[staggerlee024]

this thread has gotten crazy!

[mule64]

The govt now is being run by the rich and powerful now too, the only difference is what the name of the party is. Oh I forgot, only Republicans are rich (or is that what Dems want us to believe?)

[PeaceFrog]

The govt now is being run by the rich and powerful now too, the only difference is what the name of the party is. Oh I forgot, only Republicans are rich (or is that what Dems want us to believe?)

The rich and powerful elite that run the Government now are less oppressive than the ones who ran it during the Bush Administration.

It's an entire different ideology.

There's only one pie, and the pie isn't growing in proportion to my piece of it. In fact, the pie is shrinking and I'm doing the best I can to hold on to the crumbs that I do have.

[mule64]

bullshit. When the dust settles, everyone will see it. GE is the new Halliburton. They run the pro Obama NBC new media, they make windmill parts, make the new lightbulb, push the global warming theory, stand to make gobs of money and the president of GE isnow an advisor to GE. Sure looks like change to me.

[PeaceFrog]

It sounds like you're anti-progress, and in denial (when the dust settles... lol).

GE will make a lot of money. Their stock was at a 10 year low last week. Maybe you should invest.

I'd much rather invest in clean energy, than war and destruction.

The dust (from the Bush Administration) has settled, and people have seen the error of their ways.

Reading your posts is like watching a one-legged spider.

[staggerlee024]

I hate GE
They are as bad as Haliburton
But there is no "global warming myth"
It is getting harder and harder to find a valid scientist to refute this.
NBC is not nearly as far to the left as FoxNews is to the right.

[mule64]

But there is no "global warming myth"
It is getting harder and harder to find a valid scientist to refute this.



Actually not true. There are more scientist than ever coming on board about global warming. I need to find it, but I thought i read that there is a world wide letter being circulated to govts refuting gw signed by prominant scientists.

[mule64]

I do think man has caused damage to this planet, but I question the "theory" of global warming. It is a theory because the planet has been here for millions of years and has gone through ice ages and periods of warming and cooling. The data being used was taken during only a fraction of this time. It can not be proven.

Alternative theory:
Sunspots and solar storms have a direct correlation to how warm or cold this planet is. During periods of few storms, the planet is cooler and during periods of many storms, it is warmer.

http://www.newsmax.com/hostetter/global_warming/2007/12/19/58187.html

[PeaceFrog]

I can't see how GE is as bad as Halliburton, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

GE is a big employer here in the Albany area. This area's economy relies on them pretty heavily.

They make turbines that generate power. As far as I know, they do not manufacture any weapons of mass destruction, as does Halliburton.

[staggerlee024]

http://savethehousatonic.org/?p=1
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0787118214

I grew up in Berkshire County.
I hate GE

[staggerlee024]

As far as global warming...

Most prefer the term "climate change"

But it is very hard to find a scientist not on the payroll of a major interested corporation to refute this.

[PeaceFrog]

http://savethehousatonic.org/?p=1
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0787118214

I grew up in Berkshire County.
I hate GE

I understand the problem with PCBs, and it sucks, but what is done is done. They aren't the only ones who have done this. At the time it was legal for them to do the dumping.

We can make GE clean up their mess, but not if they're bankrupt.

[staggerlee024]

I am much more upset that my father, both grandfathers, both uncles and every single male family friend got laid off at the same time.

I hate GE. It is personal.

[DifferentDrummer]

they're better off not working for that corrupt & criminal company.

[staggerlee024]

That is a good idea.
In theory.

Some stayed on unemployment for years.
Some of those went to welfare.
Some of those got hooked on drugs and ruined their lives.
My father was one of those.
Wal-Mart came to town the next year.
They hired hundreds.
Everyone was thankful.
It still thrives to this day.
Others up and left.

Still a good idea though.
In theory.

[PeaceFrog]

That is a good idea.
In theory.

Some stayed on unemployment for years.
Some of those went to welfare.
Some of those got hooked on drugs and ruined their lives.
My father was one of those.
Wal-Mart came to town the next year.
They hired hundreds.
Everyone was thankful.
It still thrives to this day.
Others up and left.

Still a good idea though.
In theory.

One could argue that GE was hurt by the environmental protectionists, which in turn caused the lay-offs.

What you're saying, though, is that you hate GE, and they are evil. Do you want them to go out of business so that what happened to your relatives can happen to everyone else in the country that is working for them?

GE is just a company. At least they're innovating in the right direction now. If Haliburton switched to making solar panels, I would think that is a good thing, too.

[Blendix 007]

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Thomas Jefferson

Taking half of my paycheck isn't exactly promoting the welfare of my family. James Madison penned the Constitution and if you read and understood his words you would find that he wouldn't agree with forcefully confiscating the labors of American citizens. Neither would any of the men that presided over the forming of this gov't. They understood that gov't is evil and oppressive by nature, necessary, but evil nonetheless. Gov't will always take advantage of it's citizens and that's why we must limit their power.

You have the right to pursue happiness not a right to happiness itself. You have to get up and make yourself happy. It's not my responsibility to provide any certain lifestyle for anyone but my family.

If spending was a way to strengthen an economy, Sweden and the USSR would run this world.

[Blendix 007]

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty."

Ben Franklin

[wowzers]

As far as I know, they do not manufacture any weapons of mass destruction, as does Halliburton.

Minigun, pretty destructive.

[PeaceFrog]

Minigun, pretty destructive.

I'm not surprised... there's exceptions to everything.

[PeaceFrog]

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Thomas Jefferson

Taking half of my paycheck isn't exactly promoting the welfare of my family. James Madison penned the Constitution and if you read and understood his words you would find that he wouldn't agree with forcefully confiscating the labors of American citizens. Neither would any of the men that presided over the forming of this gov't. They understood that gov't is evil and oppressive by nature, necessary, but evil nonetheless. Gov't will always take advantage of it's citizens and that's why we must limit their power.

You have the right to pursue happiness not a right to happiness itself. You have to get up and make yourself happy. It's not my responsibility to provide any certain lifestyle for anyone but my family.

If spending was a way to strengthen an economy, Sweden and the USSR would run this world.

People are willing to work. There aren't any jobs. Government spending creates jobs.

[Blendix 007]

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents."

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions"

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator"

James Madison

[Blendix 007]

People are willing to work. There aren't any jobs. Government spending creates jobs.

Our unemployment rate, in this recession, is still lower than socialist Europe's during good times. Europe has constant unemployment rates in the double digits.

[PeaceFrog]

James Madison didn't think the Federal Government should spend money on roads. I don't agree with him on that point, either.

Isn't the government "for the people, by the people?" If that is the case, then why should James Madison's opinion matter? He's dead.

He was a great man, and I do feel we should take his opinion into consideration, however I don't think we should deify him, or any other "founding fathers." They were human, too, and made mistakes.

[PeaceFrog]

Our unemployment rate, in this recession, is still lower than socialist Europe's during good times. Europe has constant unemployment rates in the double digits.

What does Europe's unemployment rate have to do with Americans' willingness to work?

[staggerlee024]

"Employment and Unemployment

Perhaps the most common argument is that contrasting the job-creating virtues of the US ‘flexible’ labour market with the sclerotic state of the EU, where unemployment is persistently high. Economics students attending US university (and increasingly those in the EU as well) learn that because EU labour is supplied at an artificially high wage rate, equilibrium employment in the EU is lower and unemployment higher.

Now while it is true that the US has a better employment and unemployment record, the key to understanding the difference between the EU and the US lies in disaggregating employment by age group. If we compare employment rates in 2005 of the 25-55 age group, there is virtually no difference; e.g., the employment rates are 86 and 88 percent for the EU-15 and the US respectively (ignoring differences in how the data are recorded). The US data show a higher employment rate for youth (15-24) and a much higher rate for preretirement (55-64) and post retirement (65 and over) groups. What the average employment and unemployment figures hide is the agespecific nature of the ‘European problem’. The picture remains much the same when comparing the US and the EU-25.

Making labour markets ‘more flexible’ (i.e. cutting wages) does not cure these problems…

Once again, the crucial element in understanding these differences is income distribution. At the youth end of the scale, young workers in the US get less education and those who go to university are more likely to work part-time than their European counterparts. At the older end of the scale, pension provision in the US is neither as broad nor as generous as in the EU, so people – particularly the poor who cannot afford to save for retirement – carry on working.

Making labour markets ‘more flexible’ (i.e. cutting wages) does not cure these problems; if anything, it makes the problem worse. By contrast, putting resources into active labour market policies such as improved education, retraining and high benefit provision contingent on job searching helps workers to find and retain high productivity jobs. This is the strategy pursued by the Nordic countries, one which has paid and will continue to pay handsome rewards in terms of prosperity and job security."

[Blendix 007]

James Madison didn't think the Federal Government should spend money on roads. I don't agree with him on that point, either.

Isn't the government "for the people, by the people?" If that is the case, then why should James Madison's opinion matter? He's dead.

He was a great man, and I do feel we should take his opinion into consideration, however I don't think we should deify him, or any other "founding fathers." They were human, too, and made mistakes.

James Madison drafted the Constitution. His opinion is relevant because the Constitution is a legal document that defines the powers of the federal gov't. The Constitution specifically states that all the federal gov'ts powers are laid out in it and the states and the people have jurisdiction over the rest.

I have no problem with social spending if the people decide to amend it to the Constitution but this business of sticking socialism in the middle of 1100 page "Emergency Stimulus Bill" and not providing enough time for lawmakers to read it before a vote, as to avoid proper debate is wrong and ultimately illegal, nullifying our contract with the federal gov't and dissolving the union.

If we the people wish to be socialist, then let's debate it, but we shouldn't be sneaking socialism into the system bit by bit. It's dishonest.

[Blendix 007]

"Employment and Unemployment

Perhaps the most common argument is that contrasting the job-creating virtues of the US ‘flexible’ labour market with the sclerotic state of the EU, where unemployment is persistently high. Economics students attending US university (and increasingly those in the EU as well) learn that because EU labour is supplied at an artificially high wage rate, equilibrium employment in the EU is lower and unemployment higher.

Now while it is true that the US has a better employment and unemployment record, the key to understanding the difference between the EU and the US lies in disaggregating employment by age group. If we compare employment rates in 2005 of the 25-55 age group, there is virtually no difference; e.g., the employment rates are 86 and 88 percent for the EU-15 and the US respectively (ignoring differences in how the data are recorded). The US data show a higher employment rate for youth (15-24) and a much higher rate for preretirement (55-64) and post retirement (65 and over) groups. What the average employment and unemployment figures hide is the agespecific nature of the ‘European problem’. The picture remains much the same when comparing the US and the EU-25.

Making labour markets ‘more flexible’ (i.e. cutting wages) does not cure these problems…

Once again, the crucial element in understanding these differences is income distribution. At the youth end of the scale, young workers in the US get less education and those who go to university are more likely to work part-time than their European counterparts. At the older end of the scale, pension provision in the US is neither as broad nor as generous as in the EU, so people – particularly the poor who cannot afford to save for retirement – carry on working.

Making labour markets ‘more flexible’ (i.e. cutting wages) does not cure these problems; if anything, it makes the problem worse. By contrast, putting resources into active labour market policies such as improved education, retraining and high benefit provision contingent on job searching helps workers to find and retain high productivity jobs. This is the strategy pursued by the Nordic countries, one which has paid and will continue to pay handsome rewards in terms of prosperity and job security."

As if avoiding higher education is a bad thing. My wife and I have no college degrees between us and we're thriving. Almost 100k/year. Not bad for 2 stupid, fishing, hunting, ignorant hicks, huh? It gets better every year. The more effort we put in, the more we get out.

Work harder! I have 3 jobs currently. I'll be damned if I'm working to support someone working half or a third as hard as me.

Stop the whining, playing the victim, pity party, poor me, I feel sorry for myself stuff and put in the work. If you spent as much time working as complaining, you'd be retired already.

Don't take it personally, either. I just don't want to hear it from anyone who hasn't experienced a 100 hour work week. If you haven't done that, then you aren't trying hard enough. If you do it and you still don't get anywhere, then your crying may be warranted.

[PeaceFrog]

It was discussed in the House and Senate, and you lost.

James Madison never made an appearance during the discussion. Go figure.

It's our government now, not his. I think I have more rights than a dead person. I don't care if he wrote the Holy Bible.

The constitution says what it says, and no one in their right mind believes it's perfect.

What is your source for these James Madison quotes, anyway? (Certainly not just some blog) How do I know those quotes weren't taken out of context?

[Blendix 007]

It was discussed in the House and Senate, and you lost.

James Madison never made an appearance during the discussion. Go figure.

It's our government now, not his. I think I have more rights than a dead person. I don't care if he wrote the Holy Bible.

The constitution says what it says, and no one in their right mind believes it's perfect.

What is your source for these James Madison quotes, anyway? (Certainly not just some blog) How do I know those quotes weren't taken out of context?

You're wrong. You only have the rights afforded to you by the constitution and it doesn't grant you the right to my paycheck. It's not perfect, that's why we have an amendment process. If you don't like it, change it.

[Blendix 007]

What is your source for these James Madison quotes, anyway? (Certainly not just some blog) How do I know those quotes weren't taken out of context?

Don't be lazy. WWW.GOOGLE.COM

You said it, James Madison is dead. He couldn't possibly be blogging from his grave.

[PeaceFrog]

Don't be lazy. WWW.GOOGLE.COM (http://WWW.GOOGLE.COM)

You said it, James Madison is dead. He couldn't possibly be blogging from his grave.

I think you should do a little more Googling yourself. If you did, you might find that Alexander Hamilton disagreed with James Madison and so did Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. I can name drop too.

If you were really interested in something other than facts that support your own opinion, you would read up on U.S. vs Butler of 1936.

Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Your opinion sucked then, and it still sucks now.

[Blendix 007]

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

[Blendix 007]

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

[PeaceFrog]

When are you going to let go of the past? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I don't think the "founding fathers" would have gotten our country into this trillion dollar debt or war in Iraq in the first place, so the whole argument is pretty irrelevant when you consider the current situation. I blame Ronald Reagan. He gave money to the Taliban in order to bring down the USSR, remember? Remember the trillions he spent on SDI (Star Wars, it was a joke then and it's still stupid now).

Times change. The opinion of politicians 300 years ago is pretty much irrelevant today.

[Blendix 007]

All laws are written in the past. Taxes are paid in the past. Are you going to forgo the collection of your tax refund as to 'let go of the past?' You're paid for work you did in the past. Are you going to neglect the collection of your payment?

The laws that you like are to be obeyed but the ones that you dislike should be ignored because they were penned in the past?

There is something to that but I'm not arguing on behalf of the republican party as much as you'd like to believe that I am. I do believe that they're the lesser evil of the 2 parties but in no way is that a confirmation of my endorsement of all republican policies.

If you really believe that then:
1) your math sucks
2) you must not value your inalienable rights that these politicians were thoughtful enough to include in the laws of this land.

[PeaceFrog]

There is something to that but I'm not arguing on behalf of the republican party as much as you'd like to believe that I am. I do believe that they're the lesser evil of the 2 parties but in no way is that a confirmation of my endorsement of all republican policies.

If you really believe that then:
1) your math sucks
2) you must not value your inalienable rights that these politicians were thoughtful enough to include in the laws of this land.

They were politicians, right? What makes you think they were any better than any of the politicians today?

[staggerlee024]

the debt really started with the reagan tax cuts

[PeaceFrog]

the debt really started with the reagan tax cuts

It's amazing how quickly Republicans have forgotten that and transformed him into an idol. He was the downfall of our country's economy.

[Prometheus]

3 jobs, 100 hour work week to almost make $50,000 a year per person... that's fucked up. There's nothing "thriving" about working that much to be barely middle class. Kudos on being such a hard worker, though.

[PeaceFrog]

I'm not a robot. I don't work 100 hours per week for a worthless paycheck and I never will. I would rather die because that type of life is slavery, not freedom. Call me lazy if it makes you feel any better... I work smarter, not harder. I'm not a fool. I don't have any extra mouths that I can't afford to feed, either.

My attitude is this: if you expect me to work 100 hours per week so I can just barely survive, then fuck you. I belong to an international brotherhood of tradesmen (IBEW) who all feel the same way.

[staggerlee024]

3 jobs, 100 hour work week to almost make $50,000 a year per person... that's fucked up. There's nothing "thriving" about working that much to be barely middle class. Kudos on being such a hard worker, though.


Agreed.
Kudos.
If you are happy with that.
I am not.
And will
whine
as you put it
until the cows come home.

[wowzers]

If it were up to me, the first 500,000 dollars in property would be untaxed. And the people making less than 50K a year wouldn't have to pay income tax.



So you should pay nothing into it, but get something out of it. I make less so the people who make more should pay for everything. How is that not asking for something for nothing?

[wowzers]

My attitude is this: if you expect me to work 100 hours per week so I can just barely survive, then fuck you. I belong to an international brotherhood of tradesmen (IBEW) who all feel the same way.


100,000 dollars is way more than barely surviving. I'm sure if he wanted to just barely survive he could cut down on the number of hours worked, but he obviously doesn't. He wants more so he works more.

[PeaceFrog]

100,000 dollars is way more than barely surviving. I'm sure if he wanted to just barely survive he could cut down on the number of hours worked, but he obviously doesn't. He wants more so he works more.

I don't believe he works 100 hours per week to begin with, but he should make more than $100,000 per year if he did.

[Blendix 007]

entitlement complex

[PeaceFrog]

You keep living in the Flintstone age. The rest of us want to make progress.

[mule64]

You keep living in the Flintstone age. The rest of us want to make progress.
progress? :funny1: you just want to shit on everybody, typical union bullshit by a tyoical union asshole.

[PeaceFrog]

thank you very much

[mule64]

you are welcome

[PeaceFrog]

no problem. any time.

[Arglebargle]

So you should pay nothing into it, but get something out of it. I make less so the people who make more should pay for everything. How is that not asking for something for nothing?

You know what, I'm not asking for anything. What is it I get out of all my tax dollars again? I'm looking around my house, everything I bought and paid for. I'm looking around my town and state, most of it comes from property taxes, not income taxes. I know some money goes into defense, but lately it should be renamed the offense department, that fights wars I do not agree with, nor do most free thinking non brainwashed people. The FDA and EPA used to be good, now they are corrupt, and are patsies to the corporations who pay them to look the other way so they can fuck us. In fact I work and work and give money that goes into propaganda I abhor and to persecute people I agree with, and the only other choice is to either go to prison or become a vagrant. And since I have a family to feed, I'm like all the other pawns who do nothing but bitch about it. Peace.

:joker:

[Blendix 007]

I'm not a robot. I don't work 100 hours per week for a worthless paycheck and I never will. I would rather die because that type of life is slavery, not freedom. Call me lazy if it makes you feel any better... I work smarter, not harder. I'm not a fool. I don't have any extra mouths that I can't afford to feed, either.

My attitude is this: if you expect me to work 100 hours per week so I can just barely survive, then fuck you. I belong to an international brotherhood of tradesmen (IBEW) who all feel the same way.

Slavery - The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

One could make the argument that the welfare system, by definition, is slavery. When you force a man to provide a living to another man, against his/her will, isn't that a form of slavery?

When I'm forced, by gov't, by you, by anyone, to provide resources for another, against my will (Gov't doesn't give me a choice, they'll incarcerate me for failing to pay taxes), then I've been enslaved.

If I was able to keep my total compensation then it's not slavery. You might think it's stupidity but you're entitled to that opinion and you are free to work as much or as little as you find necessary.

BTW...I belong to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and we, too, have slugs like you that feel like they shouldn't have to work hard for a living.

[wowzers]

You know what, I'm not asking for anything.

Yes you were. You said you shouldn't have to pay taxes if you make under 50 grand a year. So that leaves all the people that make over 50 grand picking up your portion of the bill. By the way I make way less than 50 grand a year so I am on your side of the fence. What you should really be wanting is not to have to pay for all the people who don't work. While I agree with you that defense takes a large piece of the pie, it is projects like the 30 million dollar mouse that you seem to be for that come from your tax dollars also. It hardly seems fair to ask other people to fund stuff your for, if you don't want to fund it.

[PeaceFrog]

Slavery - The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

One could make the argument that the welfare system, by definition, is slavery. When you force a man to provide a living to another man, against his/her will, isn't that a form of slavery?

When I'm forced, by gov't, by you, by anyone, to provide resources for another, against my will (Gov't doesn't give me a choice, they'll incarcerate me for failing to pay taxes), then I've been enslaved.

If I was able to keep my total compensation then it's not slavery. You might think it's stupidity but you're entitled to that opinion and you are free to work as much or as little as you find necessary.

BTW...I belong to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and we, too, have slugs like you that feel like they shouldn't have to work hard for a living.

Someday maybe you'll thank me for representing your best interests.

It's a shame you care more about the wealthiest 1% of the nation more than you do about yourself and your family.

[Elphaba]

if you think you are a slave then you have no freakin' clue. typical of your type, blendix agent 007.

[PeaceFrog]

I think he's a slave... working 100 hours per week to make only $100,000 per year.

That's like only $19 an hour.

[Elphaba]

good point. after watching the "right america feeling wronged" documentary last night it reminded me again why i am so perplexed as to why most of the people attending mccain rallies are against obama's ideas for tax cuts. they would benefit from them. these are people who have to work 100 hours a week to make a decent living. while your wealthy beaureaucrats are making the laws to make you believe that if wealthy people pay less tax you do better and they are laughing all the way to the bank. you think you have a sense of pride working all hard and being the heartbeat of america and they are sipping on drinks in the bahamas with little umbrellas in them watching their kids play in the surf of some white sandy beach while their bank accounts grow fatter.

[Blendix 007]

good point. after watching the "right america feeling wronged" documentary last night it reminded me again why i am so perplexed as to why most of the people attending mccain rallies are against obama's ideas for tax cuts. they would benefit from them. these are people who have to work 100 hours a week to make a decent living. while your wealthy beaureaucrats are making the laws to make you believe that if wealthy people pay less tax you do better and they are laughing all the way to the bank. you think you have a sense of pride working all hard and being the heartbeat of america and they are sipping on drinks in the bahamas with little umbrellas in them watching their kids play in the surf of some white sandy beach while their bank accounts grow fatter.

Wealthy people don't pay less taxes than I do. They pay a considerable amount more. They pay a smaller percentage but if someone makes 10 million and pays 10% tax on that 10 million, they're paying 1 million in taxes. You and I combined don't make enough to cover that tax liability. The wealthiest 10% in this country shoulder 70% of the tax burden. So to say that the wealthy pay less taxes is disingenuous.

In short, you have no freakin' clue. Typical of your type, I guess. Just another stupid liberal with no economic sense.

[staggerlee024]

They pay a smaller percentage


That is precisely the issue.

[wowzers]

I think he's a slave... working 100 hours per week to make only $100,000 per year.

That's like only $19 an hour.

Yeah why make 19 and hour when you can kick back and chill out?

[PeaceFrog]

My skills are worth much more than $19 an hour... sorry. It's my right to set my price.

I also believe in a 40 hour workweek and overtime. I won't let you bring this country back to the days of slavery.

[Blendix 007]

I love how you've made up a number and ran with it for a full page now. You have one hell of imagination. Similar to my 2 year old.

[Elphaba]

Wealthy people don't pay less taxes than I do. They pay a considerable amount more. They pay a smaller percentage but if someone makes 10 million and pays 10% tax on that 10 million, they're paying 1 million in taxes. You and I combined don't make enough to cover that tax liability. The wealthiest 10% in this country shoulder 70% of the tax burden. So to say that the wealthy pay less taxes is disingenuous.

In short, you have no freakin' clue. Typical of your type, I guess. Just another stupid liberal with no economic sense.


i understand the tax tables, more than you think i know. you are being snowed. do you think 14% of bill gates' salary means more to him than 14% of mine? hey did you hear the news? sarah palin has to pay taxes on her per diems of 17 grand for working from home. :Phishfolk:

[PeaceFrog]

I love how you've made up a number and ran with it for a full page now. You have one hell of imagination. Similar to my 2 year old.

you said you work 100 hours per week and make 100,000 per year. I'm not the greatest at math, but that figures to be $19 an hour.

If I'm wrong, then please correct me.

[staggerlee024]

i do not make $19/hr

[wowzers]

It is actually like 20.83 but close enough. Say he did only work 40 hours. He would still be making around forty thousand a year which is way more than I make. Hardly slavery.

[wowzers]

My skills are worth much more than $19 an hour... sorry. It's my right to set my price.

I also believe in a 40 hour workweek and overtime. I won't let you bring this country back to the days of slavery.



No one said you should have a forty hour work week. From what I can tell he voluntary works more so he can have more. 40 grand would be plenty to me.

[PeaceFrog]

$19 an hour straight time is fine, but this guy is claiming to work 100 hours per week!

He has three jobs, so he isn't getting paid time and a half.

Something about it just doesn't seem right to me. 100 hours per week hardly leaves you time to even sleep. Where does he find the time to bullshit on this message board all day?

Honestly, I find it all hard to believe. It sounds like another "Joe the Plumber" story.

[PeaceFrog]

Even if he is telling the truth, he's still getting a tax break.

[Blendix 007]

I don't feel that it's any of your business but I will say that I never said that I work 100 hours every week or on any sort of regular basis. It's something that I have done for extended periods of time and would do it again if I had to. Fortunately, I worked hard enough when I was younger and no longer have to, assuming that our gov't doesn't continue stealing large percentages of my income.

Aside from that your math is wrong. We have a federal overtime law.

[wowzers]

He said he had 3 jobs. Were leaving out the time his wife works in the equation. Also he doesn't say he works 100 hours every week. He just said don't ask for stuff if you have never worked a hundred hour week or something to that effect. So were missing to many variables to accurately determine hourly wage. I would still say if you figured out his hourly wage it would be fairly decent.

[PeaceFrog]

So he's special somehow because he's worked 100 hours in a week?

[wowzers]

Want more=Work More

[PeaceFrog]

Want more=Work More

That would be the idea situation in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, it's not that way. People are working more and earning less.

[wowzers]

And some aren't working period but still getting paid.

[PeaceFrog]

well if there wasn't guys working three jobs for the price of one, there'd be more jobs for the rest of us.

[wowzers]

That doesn't even remotely make sense. You argue he isn't getting paid enough, but then want him to give up the underpaid job for someone else to be "enslaved".

[PeaceFrog]

That doesn't even remotely make sense. You argue he isn't getting paid enough, but then want him to give up the underpaid job for someone else to be "enslaved".

he's doing the work of 3 people for the price of 1 (I figured $19 an hour straight time, but over 40 hours should be overtime... so when you include the overtime it's even less per hour). That is slavery, in my opinion.

If it were 2 people working 40 hour weeks and making $50,000 each, that would be a decent living.

I don't think it's that hard to understand. I'm sorry if it doesn't sound clear. It makes perfect sense to me.

[wowzers]

NO, you said by him giving up a job there would be an availability for someone else. THat someone would be getting paid the "slave wage" that he formerly made.

And if grasshoppers had machine-guns birds wouldn't fuck with them. Your not entitled through birth to make 26 dollars an hour. You want to make more work more.

[PeaceFrog]

You're right. I was not entitled through birth to make the money I do. I had to go to school and then through an apprenticeship first.

I never said someone is entitled to anything from birth. In fact you're the one that said it was so when you brought up inheritances.

[Elphaba]

well, it's sometimes a good education or the right field of study, being in the right place at the right time, or maybe who you know. i read once that 99% of success is showing up. then again, you can't be afraid to take a risk now and then - and work hard, or not. some just fall into a pile of shit and come out smelling like a rose. others will complain forever about their sad state of affairs and do nothing about it. but entitled from birth? nah.

[deadheadskier]

Wealthy people don't pay less taxes than I do. They pay a considerable amount more. They pay a smaller percentage but if someone makes 10 million and pays 10% tax on that 10 million, they're paying 1 million in taxes. You and I combined don't make enough to cover that tax liability. The wealthiest 10% in this country shoulder 70% of the tax burden. So to say that the wealthy pay less taxes is disingenuous.

So by your philosophy:

Total $$$ is more 'fair' than Total '%'

I think that's the thing that I find most egregious with our nations tax policy with particular regards to capital gains not being counted the same as income tax.

I make a modest income, fall in the 25% tax bracket. When I'm married next year filing, we'll still fall in that bracket, which based upon your stated income for you and your wife, you do to.

I've got an 'emergency savings account' which earned $27 in interest last year, which I had no choice, but to claim as income and get taxed at 25%. If I was in the 35% bracket, that $27 would get taxed at 35%.


....but if I made that $27 through selling stock that I had held more than a year, it would only get taxed at 15%.

Further still to my point. The home my fiancee and I bought last year will in a couple of years become a rental property for us when we buy our 'real' home. Rather than rent, we bought as modest of a place as we could buy last spring, roughly a third the amount that we would've qualified for in a mortgage; it was what I view to be a very responsible investment/financial decision.

When this home becomes a rental, again we'll have to report it as income and that income could eventually bump us up into a higher tax bracket, so we'll end up paying 28% on all earnings. Yet, if the same return on investment was in the form of stock we held for over a year and sold, we'd only be taxed at 15%.

How is this fair? How is this good for the majority? How the hell is it even good for you as someone with a family income of 100K unless most of that income is made off of year plus old stock sales? Answer me how it's better for you, I'd love to hear it.

Seems to me that such a tax structure is highly favorably to the rich dudes, like dubya, who have fought hard to keep the laws that way.

Warren Buffet admits often that the tax system in this country is unjust when he routinely is one of the top three wealthiest men in the world, yet he pays less of percentage in income tax than does his administrative assistant who makes 68K a year.

50 Billion dollar guy says that, yet you the 100K guy doesn't agree. WHY?



In short, you have no freakin' clue. Typical of your type, I guess. Just another stupid liberal with no economic sense.

Why say this? You're not convincing anyone that you somehow have more of a clue than this individual and are somehow smarter. His philosophy differs from yours. Doesn't make him stoopit, but it does make you look like an asshole for what you wrote. And please, spare us your response for me calling you an asshole on this last statement; You're probably not, but such name calling, which your partner in crime mule64 did earlier in the thread is pretty lame.

....just read what I wrote and answer my questions. Maybe you'll convince me that I'm a stoopit liberal too somehow, but the way I see things, the tax structure in this country is completely unjust and you of the 100K income certainly aren't paying much more than a few bucks annually into welfare, thus 'enslaving' you like you say in your Glen Beckesque stumps.

[Blendix 007]

So by your philosophy:

Total $$$ is more 'fair' than Total '%'

I think that's the thing that I find most egregious with our nations tax policy with particular regards to capital gains not being counted the same as income tax.

I make a modest income, fall in the 25% tax bracket. When I'm married next year filing, we'll still fall in that bracket, which based upon your stated income for you and your wife, you do to.

I've got an 'emergency savings account' which earned $27 in interest last year, which I had no choice, but to claim as income and get taxed at 25%. If I was in the 35% bracket, that $27 would get taxed at 35%.


....but if I made that $27 through selling stock that I had held more than a year, it would only get taxed at 15%.

Further still to my point. The home my fiancee and I bought last year will in a couple of years become a rental property for us when we buy our 'real' home. Rather than rent, we bought as modest of a place as we could buy last spring, roughly a third the amount that we would've qualified for in a mortgage; it was what I view to be a very responsible investment/financial decision.

When this home becomes a rental, again we'll have to report it as income and that income could eventually bump us up into a higher tax bracket, so we'll end up paying 28% on all earnings. Yet, if the same return on investment was in the form of stock we held for over a year and sold, we'd only be taxed at 15%.

How is this fair? How is this good for the majority? How the hell is it even good for you as someone with a family income of 100K unless most of that income is made off of year plus old stock sales? Answer me how it's better for you, I'd love to hear it.

Seems to me that such a tax structure is highly favorably to the rich dudes, like dubya, who have fought hard to keep the laws that way.

Warren Buffet admits often that the tax system in this country is unjust when he routinely is one of the top three wealthiest men in the world, yet he pays less of percentage in income tax than does his administrative assistant who makes 68K a year.

50 Billion dollar guy says that, yet you the 100K guy doesn't agree. WHY?




Why say this? You're not convincing anyone that you somehow have more of a clue than this individual and are somehow smarter. His philosophy differs from yours. Doesn't make him stoopit, but it does make you look like an asshole for what you wrote. And please, spare us your response for me calling you an asshole on this last statement; You're probably not, but such name calling, which your partner in crime mule64 did earlier in the thread is pretty lame.

....just read what I wrote and answer my questions. Maybe you'll convince me that I'm a stoopit liberal too somehow, but the way I see things, the tax structure in this country is completely unjust and you of the 100K income certainly aren't paying much more than a few bucks annually into welfare, thus 'enslaving' you like you say in your Glen Beckesque stumps.

Well, I don't believe that the income tax, in general, is necessary or just. Beyond that, it could be argued that the Constitution strictly forbids it, rendering it illegal.

Think about it. Having a gov't that takes whatever portion of your income it sees fit before you even receive your check, doesn't that imply that your labors actually belong to the gov't and they allow you to keep what's left? How nice of them, no? Isn't that similar to a slave master working his slaves then giving them a portion of the crops they helped to harvest, to live off of?
And I thought my gov't worked for me, not the other way around. BTW...to reiterate, the gov't can adjust your tax liability anytime, to whatever level it sees fit. Not my idea of liberty or freedom.

Here's one more thing to chew on. California and Kansas. Both states are not issuing income tax refunds this year. These are pieces of individual's paychecks that were confiscated in excess of what's actually owed by the individual as outlined by tax laws. But since there are budget shortfalls in both states, the governments are refusing to return the money that belongs to the people from who's paychecks it was taken. Now if you or I withheld our tax liabilities, we'd be incarcerated because the law states that we owe it to gov't. But the gov't isn't held accountable at all for withholding it's obligations to return said monies. Those people will probably never see that money. Is that right? Double standard? Just?

And now you and I will be held responsible for other states' irresponsible budgeting.

Not only that they're taking over 1/3 of the federal budget and devoting it to those that are "incapable" of earning it or providing it to their families. That's right, the federal gov't expends over $1 trillion/year on welfare type programs (medicare, ss, and other HHS).

What's the best way to make someone self sufficient? Do you pay all of their bills for them an expect that they'll go out and get a job now? Or do you hold back until they're desperate enough to go find work? Who's more likely to go in search of food, a starving man or a full man?

Not only do they distribute our monies to groups of people that some group of elites decides are less fortunate than you or I but they waste billions on ridiculous shit, namely administration, in every sector they have a hand in. Defense included.

You say that you pay 25% of your income in taxes, right? Well, I guarantee that figure is wrong. I challenge you to keep track of your annual tax burden. Here's something to think about:
1) How much do you pay in gasoline taxes annually
2) Property taxes
3) State income taxes
4) prepared food taxes
5) vehicle taxes (registration, etc)
6) Fishing, hunting, etc taxes
7) Sales tax
8) Medicare taxes
9) SS taxes
10) Capital Gains

Now what do you get for what I'd imagine amounts to closer to 50% than 25% of your income?

This is without factoring in Corporate taxes that are worked into the final price of every good or service you buy.

All of this tax stuff aside. Most liberals aren't happy with our gov't either. Most of them feel that our gov't is over reaching into their lives as well. But the difference in philosophy is this, where I believe that we should work on reducing the of gov't as to reduce the power it wields. For some reason, and maybe you can explain this to me, Liberals want to expand gov't but only under the power of the party that represents them, as if there's no chance of some evil republican stealing power back and abusing the new power that's been granted by a liberal administration and/or Congress.

This is just a function of gov't. It has been for the entire history of the world. Gov't always feeds itself first and you and I take the backseat. I don't care what party is in control. They'll keep taking and taking until the people rise up and over throw it. It's in human nature to crave power over other humans and regardless of laws/regulations people will always figure a way to take advantage. It's Darwin's theory in action. This is exactly why we have the Constitution. This isn't a document that was intended to govern you and grant you your rights. It's a document intended to declare what rights all men are entitled to and granted by our creator, whoever or whatever it may be. And, it's intended to govern the gov't, in order to protect you.

As far as Buffett goes, nobody forces him to withhold his money from the gov't. He's liable for the taxes he's charged with but he can donate to the IRS anytime he feels compelled without forcing that view on others. But he doesn't. Instead he gives his extra money to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation because he's well aware of the inefficiencies associated with gov't programs.

As far as me being an asshole goes, that may be so. However, in this instance I'm only returning fire. If you're interested in being the moral scold here then perhaps you should look above my posts for the unrelenting insults hurled my way or at my family by a particular few. In no way does that make my insults just.
You won't catch me personally insulting you, Staggerlee or anyone else that doesn't strike first. I'm all for a healthy discussion/debate but I refuse to stand idly by while my character is assassinated by a few loons living in a fantasy land where anyone that disagrees with them deserves constant misery.

[PeaceFrog]

I think someone with health care and a place to live can find work more easily than someone who lives on the street and hasn't showered in a couple days. I don't believe in starving people to get what I want out of them. Someone with a full stomach will perform much better at an interview, and on the job I'm sure.

If you're feeling constant misery, maybe that's an indicator that something with you is wrong.

[staggerlee024]

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts


We will continue to see problems otherwise.

[PeaceFrog]

Some people want to put that asshole's head on Mount Rushmore.

I can't see that ever happening, though. I hope I'm not around if it ever does.