Fair share? Fine- How's THIS for FAIR SHARE?!? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Fair share? Fine- How's THIS for FAIR SHARE?!?


Skyhook
10-10-2012, 06:40
".. the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes."

Read more: PICKET: New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/9/picket-new-book-shows-us-top-earners-pay-larger-sh/print/#ixzz28tpRxK9M
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Brucev
10-10-2012, 07:20
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

Skyhook
10-10-2012, 07:48
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

You're serious, right? :supergrin:

How do you feel about 50% of the population contributing nothing? Is that fair?

valvestem
10-10-2012, 07:57
My thoughts are a flat tax, on everyone, no exceptions, and if you do not work, you do not get a say (vote). By do not work, I mean freeloaders, who should and can work, but choose not to.

aircarver
10-10-2012, 08:04
'Fair share' means 'you pay' ... :upeyes:

.

beforeobamabans
10-10-2012, 08:06
I am aware of a company that does $12 billion per year of sales in the US. Because of a major warranty problem a decade ago, they have not paid one dollar in federal income taxes due to the Loss Carry Forward provision of the tax code. With the LCF consumed, they will begin paying 35% next year. Two extremes, eh? If Romney can eliminate this "loophole" then lower the corporate rate to 25%, that seems a good compromise to me and provides an excellent example of his model generating more income for the Treasury.

FLIPPER 348
10-10-2012, 08:07
You're serious, right? :supergrin:

How do you feel about 50% of the population contributing nothing? Is that fair?



It's been that way for decades.

Skyhook
10-10-2012, 08:19
It's been that way for decades.


So, the present system is historically unfair?

Ok.

What ever happened to 'Nobody rides for free'?:whistling:

ChuteTheMall
10-10-2012, 08:24
We didn't even cross the 40% threshold until the Obama regime; 42% in 2009, 41% in 2010.

http://i50.tinypic.com/be95yo.png

http://taxfoundation.org/article/putting-face-americas-tax-returns-chart-6

aircarver
10-10-2012, 08:25
So, the present system is historically unfair?

Ok.

What ever happened to 'Nobody rides for free'?:whistling:
It simply wasn't well known how unfair it was until recently, because of media complicity.

The damn-nocrats are fine with it, and the republi-can'ts didn't want to have to do anything about it ... :steamed:

.

Skyhook
10-10-2012, 08:37
Folks the excellent input here has me thinking when Obama says "fair share" he must be talking some kind of code.

To whom is he speaking that code, huh? :headscratch:

Zombie Surgeon
10-10-2012, 08:41
It's been that way for decades.
:whistling:
So was slavery.
That didn't mean it was right.

nursetim
10-10-2012, 08:45
Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass it unto the consumer of whatever product. Can't afford a vacation? Thank corp. taxes. Food cost skyrocketing, than corp. taxes. Want to see phenomenal growth in GDP, do away with corp. taxes and make our country attractive to foreign investment and business.

I turned down an opportunity recently to start my own practice. The thing that stopped me was the hostile business environment. Are others starting and running successful businesses in the hostile environment? You bet. I just do not have the confidence to do so.

series1811
10-10-2012, 10:31
It's been that way for decades.

Not exactly a smashing rebuttal there.

countrygun
10-10-2012, 10:58
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

"From those with the greatest ability, to those with the greatest need"

Bruce H
10-10-2012, 17:34
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.


Let me guess, you have an MBA. Is it from Harvard because all of theirs don't have a clue.

podwich
10-10-2012, 17:46
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

Wow. You really are evil.

Cool that is not.

Snowman92D
10-10-2012, 17:47
Let me guess, you have an MBA. Is it from Harvard because all of theirs don't have a clue.

Sounds more like the University of Havana. Wonder who signed his sheepskin...Raul, or Fidel? :supergrin:

Chronos
10-10-2012, 17:50
IMO, brains are not "paying their fair share" of resources to the cancerous tumor in the lungs.

Brucev
10-10-2012, 20:19
You're serious, right? :supergrin:

How do you feel about 50% of the population contributing nothing? Is that fair?

"Feel?" Feeling hasn't got anything to do with it>

"Fair?" Even those who spout about the "fair tax" are careful to stipulate a floor for income. So... why is it fair to have a floor for the fair tax but, surprise... to not tax the income of poor people is an outrageous affront to the twits who get their shorts in a wad about such things... but have absolutely no problem with those (people and those faux corporate persons) who park their money off-short to dodge paying taxes?

Brucev
10-10-2012, 20:20
"From those with the greatest ability, to those with the greatest need"

Why do you read such stuff?

countrygun
10-10-2012, 20:21
Why do you read such stuff?

To get to the roots of your inspiration

Brucev
10-10-2012, 20:23
Let me guess, you have an MBA. Is it from Harvard because all of theirs don't have a clue.

The little boys with their harvard mba's, whatever, are the ones who did such an expert job of crashing the U.S. economy. Blue collar Americans were busy going to work each day.

Why are you so impressed with the mba screw-up?

Brucev
10-10-2012, 20:27
Wow. You really are evil.

Cool that is not.

Evil? In the post-modern world, evil is just a silly word used by moralists. It has no place in discussions about business... or taxation. After all, if one cannot expect businesses to act in a morally but to always and only be concerned about their bottom line regardless of who gets hurt, then why oh why would anyone expect that a tax code would be moral, regardless of who gets hurt.

Louisville Glocker
10-10-2012, 20:28
More people going after the 47%.

Have you examined who they are? Largely the elderly, who have worked for decades and are no longer working so do you really expect them to be paying income tax? And also the working poor. Who are working, and ARE contributing in the form of payroll taxes (Social security, medicare) as well as state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. As a percentage of income, even with zero federal income tax, many are still paying a reasonably high percentage towards taxes.

So you're saying the elderly and working poor don't contribute? Well boo hoo...go cry in your bedroom....most of those have worked, or are currently working, just as hard as the average person around here. And those two categories are the bulk of the 47 percent you and romney dismiss.

Brucev
10-10-2012, 20:29
Sounds more like the University of Havana. Wonder who signed his sheepskin...Raul, or Fidel? :supergrin:

You obviously are delusional. You don't have to live that way. There is help available. Contact your physician and see if he will call a prescription in for you.

Hef
10-10-2012, 20:49
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

The only reason to collect taxes in a free society is to fund the operation of government. All other purposes are immoral, being nothing more than theft using the threat of the force of government as a weapon.

muscogee
10-10-2012, 20:57
".. the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes."


But they control 90% of the wealth. Therefore, they should pay 90% of the taxes. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Chronos
10-10-2012, 21:15
Evil? In the post-modern world, evil is just a silly word used by moralists. It has no place in discussions about business... or taxation. After all, if one cannot expect businesses to act in a morally but to always and only be concerned about their bottom line regardless of who gets hurt, then why oh why would anyone expect that a tax code would be moral, regardless of who gets hurt.

When you're collecting money at gunpoint, the last thing you want is to be dragged into a discussion about the morality of it all. The above is a tacit admission that taxation is morally no different than mob-extracted "protection money."

countrygun
10-10-2012, 21:20
But they control 90% of the wealth. Therefore, they should pay 90% of the taxes. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

You have, wilfully been led into confusing "creating" with "controlling". The Create companies that have multi-million dollar payrols. obviously that payrol becomes the employees to "control".


Why are the wealthy not entitled to keep the rewards from their efforts at the same proportion as everyone else? Are they LESS valuable than their employees BECAUSE they created the employee's jobs? I would argue that the person who creates, say, 100 taxpaying jobs, ought to get a "break" to reward him, not punished for doing it.

muscogee
10-10-2012, 21:29
You have, wilfully been led into confusing "creating" with "controlling". The Create companies that have multi-million dollar payrols. obviously that payrol becomes the employees to "control".


Why are the wealthy not entitled to keep the rewards from their efforts at the same proportion as everyone else? Are they LESS valuable than their employees BECAUSE they created the employee's jobs? I would argue that the person who creates, say, 100 taxpaying jobs, ought to get a "break" to reward him, not punished for doing it.

So the rest of us have to take up the slack?

Chronos
10-10-2012, 21:33
So the rest of us have to take up the slack?

How about we solve the moral dilemma by noting that taking money from individuals by threats of violence is primitive, evil, and we just stop doing it?

muscogee
10-10-2012, 21:39
How about we solve the moral dilemma by noting that taking money from individuals by threats of violence is primitive, evil, and we just stop doing it?

So how do we finance the government?

Chronos
10-10-2012, 21:42
So how do we finance the government?

As any other service is financed by civilized, non-violent people.

countrygun
10-10-2012, 21:44
So the rest of us have to take up the slack?

More money in the hands of the private sector creates more taxpaying, wealth creating jobs. giving it to the government to redistribute does just the opposite.

G17Jake
10-10-2012, 21:48
More people going after the 47%.

Have you examined who they are? Largely the elderly, who have worked for decades and are no longer working so do you really expect them to be paying income tax? And also the working poor. Who are working, and ARE contributing in the form of payroll taxes (Social security, medicare) as well as state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. As a percentage of income, even with zero federal income tax, many are still paying a reasonably high percentage towards taxes.

So you're saying the elderly and working poor don't contribute? Well boo hoo...go cry in your bedroom....most of those have worked, or are currently working, just as hard as the average person around here. And those two categories are the bulk of the 47 percent you and romney dismiss.

So you're arguing that we have too many taxes?

Gunnut 45/454
10-10-2012, 22:08
Easy - 10-15-25 corperate! Over and done zero loopoles-no deductions ! Then everyone has a little skin in the game ! A one page tax code- not 18000 pages!:supergrin:

Bruce H
10-11-2012, 05:04
The little boys with their harvard mba's, whatever, are the ones who did such an expert job of crashing the U.S. economy. Blue collar Americans were busy going to work each day.

Why are you so impressed with the mba screw-up?


MBA is supposed to stand for Master of Business Administration, not Master of Business Assassination.

eracer
10-11-2012, 05:10
We didn't even cross the 40% threshold until the Obama regime; 42% in 2009, 41% in 2010.

http://i50.tinypic.com/be95yo.png

http://taxfoundation.org/article/putting-face-americas-tax-returns-chart-6You mean to tell me that during the reign of GWB from 2000-2004 the percentage of zero or negative tax liability filers went up 8%?

And during Obama's administration 2008-2012 it went up an astounding 8%?

Oh, the humanity...:rofl:

pugman
10-11-2012, 07:59
More people going after the 47%.

Have you examined who they are? Largely the elderly, who have worked for decades and are no longer working so do you really expect them to be paying income tax? And also the working poor. Who are working, and ARE contributing in the form of payroll taxes (Social security, Medicare) as well as state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. As a percentage of income, even with zero federal income tax, many are still paying a reasonably high percentage towards taxes.

So you're saying the elderly and working poor don't contribute? Well boo hoo...go cry in your bedroom....most of those have worked, or are currently working, just as hard as the average person around here. And those two categories are the bulk of the 47 percent you and Romney dismiss.

Objectively speaking, the elderly may very well be one of the largest areas of concern. Why? As one of the ones under the age of 45 I realize all the money I’ve paid into social security and Medicare will never be received or at the very least nowhere close to what I have contributed. As the elderly continue to push for “getting what’s mine” they show absolutely no regard for future generations. Selfishly, I understand this perspective. Realistically, the idea of “retirement” in this country needs a serious redefinition. My BIL’s father retired as a teacher at 55 with full pension and medical benefits – he is 73 now. An elderly lady I visit weekly is 99 – she retired after 27 years on federal pension and has been drawing benefits and pay for 44 years. She has been paid more in retirement than she ever made while working. What happened 100 years ago when people got old…they continued to work or their families helped out. I’m not saying have these people starve in the streets – but at some point the choices THEY made in regards to health, lifestyle and education should be held accountable to them. Case in Point: that 99 year old invested well, had no children and lived her entire life as if it was the Great Depression as it relates to spending. Even today in her assisted living facility (which SHE pays $7,000 a month for) she asks me to constantly turn off her AC or heat even though she doesn’t directly pay for it. As one of the 53%, I’m sick and tired of paying for other people’s bad choices.

When I need to try and reform someone’s flawed thinking as it relates to the poor I have found I need to start small. Answer this simple question: If someone is making minimum wage, working full time and making a gross salary of $15,080 a year is it fair to ask this person to pay $1 in federal taxes? The obvious answer is yes. If you can’t answer yes then you haven’t thought through since this is the same person who drives on the same roads you and I do, went to the same schools, uses the same post office, is protected by the same military etc. If you can answer yes….then congratulations…you have elevated your thinking past the b.s class warfare politicians thrive off of and you are FOR raising taxes on the “poor.” Remember, these 47% of Americans have no legal tax liability yet use all the services I mentioned just like the guy who makes $100K.

The second problem is poor shouldn’t be a “category” but a moment in time – however, many Americans have made this a career. My wife’s grandma’s neighbors- FOUR generations under the same roof on welfare. The great grandfather is 53…do the math.

I have been poor – I had a grocery budget of $20 a week…a ˝ gallon of milk was a luxury. I also had no a/c, cell phone, cable, video game consoles, health insurance and put exactly $5 in gas in my car every week – BTW, the car was an old Escort hand me down which carried no insurance. I worked hard – like a regular 40 hour a week job and tended bar every Friday and Saturday night for 4 years then switched to adding alternating Sundays for another two years in my 20’s (do the math that’s 58-70 hours a week). I work hard now-last year I was on a project working between 65-80 hours a week from February through August. I can do the math – the elderly today are basically robbing me of my money tomorrow.

You are right though…the poor do pay taxes. No one said they don’t pay anything – the point is they don’t pay Federal Tax which is a point no one can argue against because they don’t. However, as someone who isn’t poor guess what…I pay federal tax along with everything else the poor do…sales, property, state income, etc.

Citizens for Tax Justice produces an overall tax burden every year based on income – this is what percentage of your income ends up back in the government’s hands (Federal, State or Local). Ironically, the percentages are pretty similar at it relates to the total income made in this country. The richest 1% make about 20% of the income…and pay about 20% of all taxes….the richest 10% make about 46% of the income..and pay about 48% of the total taxes. The poor? Make about 3.4% of the income and pay about 2.1% of the overall taxes.

The point is people demonize the rich…or in this case the ones of us who pay into the system…guess what: We pay our fair share of taxes. The poor don’t – why? Our income is based off of working where the “income” of the nonworking poor is based off of what the government takes from my check. A nonworking member of the poor should not live better than a working member – but guess what, in many many cases they do. My MIL is one of them. On disability at 55 she gets food stamps, her disability check, heating and electric assistance for a time, low rent housing ($276 a month which includes utilities now) and her Medicaid coverage and benefits is better than what I get working. She spends her days gardening, reading all the books she wants, watches all the movies and TV she wants. Is she driving a Mercedes-no. Does she live basically a carefree lifestyle because of her own choices (aka smoking)…yep. Are you and me paying for it..yep. I saw the medical bills and payments for her inpatient stays over the past two years. She exhausted what she paid into the system after her 10th month.

You can’t lift the poor by penalizing the rest…and candidly its not my job to take care of someone else I don’t care to or someone who doesn’t want to take care of themselves

And for the record: let me introduce you to Pauline (aka the 99 year old) and let her talk to you about the Great Depression…this country needs to redefine “poor.” When being without a cell phone, cable and internet makes you “poor” we have serious problems.

Might as well throw this in: what do you think is going to happen to all those 47%’ers when the system crashes; it hard to predict but mathematically we are close to a system reboot…don’t think so…look at Greece, Spain. France, Ireland, etc.

muscogee
10-11-2012, 08:55
More money in the hands of the private sector creates more taxpaying, wealth creating jobs. giving it to the government to redistribute does just the opposite.

Then why did the economy crash under Bush and the Republicans?

JFrame
10-11-2012, 09:06
Then why did the economy crash under Bush and the Republicans?


Why was the U.S. entering a recession under Clinton?


.

aircarver
10-11-2012, 09:12
Then why did the economy crash under Bush and the Republicans?

Obamao took a normal dip in the business cycle, and ran it into a depression by implementing communism.

.

Brucev
10-11-2012, 09:51
The only reason to collect taxes in a free society is to fund the operation of government. All other purposes are immoral, being nothing more than theft using the threat of the force of government as a weapon.

Delusional thinking is spreading. Are you a disciple of the faux-prophet ayn rand? Perhaps that is why, beyond your own personal preference, you equate any taxation as theft. And as to your complaint of force, the folks in Little Rock, etc. also complained. Reckon why?

Brucev
10-11-2012, 09:55
When you're collecting money at gunpoint, the last thing you want is to be dragged into a discussion about the morality of it all. The above is a tacit admission that taxation is morally no different than mob-extracted "protection money."

There is a chinese turtle that passes waste through it's mouth. Here we have proof positive that there are people who have also mastered the ability to do exactly the same thing.

Brucev
10-11-2012, 09:55
MBA is supposed to stand for Master of Business Administration, not Master of Business Assassination.

Exactly!

Brucev
10-11-2012, 09:59
Obamao took a normal dip in the business cycle, and ran it into a depression by implementing communism.

.

Let's get this straight. The financial shock of 2007/2008 was a "normal dip" in the business cycle?

Hef
10-11-2012, 10:43
Then why did the economy crash under Bush and the Republicans?

Because America gave Congress to the Democrats in 2006.

Bruce H
10-11-2012, 11:30
Let's get this straight. The financial shock of 2007/2008 was a "normal dip" in the business cycle?

It was when they let every idiot with a pencil get a loan for a house. There is no way in hell that anybody can pay for an over inflated big ticket item. When normal business cycles started to slow down layoffs began and house payments ceased.

Skyhook
10-11-2012, 11:59
Then why did the economy crash under Bush and the Republicans?

I'm gonna make a WA guess- Democrat congress with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pulling with good ole momma Harry Reid?
How'd I do? :dunno:

Skyhook
10-11-2012, 12:05
Objectively speaking, the elderly may very well be one of the largest areas of concern. Why? As one of the ones under the age of 45 I realize all the money I’ve paid into social security and Medicare will never be received or at the very least nowhere close to what I have contributed. As the elderly continue to push for “getting what’s mine” they show absolutely no regard for future generations. Selfishly, I understand this perspective. Realistically, the idea of “retirement” in this country needs a serious redefinition. My BIL’s father retired as a teacher at 55 with full pension and medical benefits – he is 73 now. An elderly lady I visit weekly is 99 – she retired after 27 years on federal pension and has been drawing benefits and pay for 44 years. She has been paid more in retirement than she ever made while working. What happened 100 years ago when people got old…they continued to work or their families helped out. I’m not saying have these people starve in the streets – but at some point the choices THEY made in regards to health, lifestyle and education should be held accountable to them. Case in Point: that 99 year old invested well, had no children and lived her entire life as if it was the Great Depression as it relates to spending. Even today in her assisted living facility (which SHE pays $7,000 a month for) she asks me to constantly turn off her AC or heat even though she doesn’t directly pay for it. As one of the 53%, I’m sick and tired of paying for other people’s bad choices.

When I need to try and reform someone’s flawed thinking as it relates to the poor I have found I need to start small. Answer this simple question: If someone is making minimum wage, working full time and making a gross salary of $15,080 a year is it fair to ask this person to pay $1 in federal taxes? The obvious answer is yes. If you can’t answer yes then you haven’t thought through since this is the same person who drives on the same roads you and I do, went to the same schools, uses the same post office, is protected by the same military etc. If you can answer yes….then congratulations…you have elevated your thinking past the b.s class warfare politicians thrive off of and you are FOR raising taxes on the “poor.” Remember, these 47% of Americans have no legal tax liability yet use all the services I mentioned just like the guy who makes $100K.

The second problem is poor shouldn’t be a “category” but a moment in time – however, many Americans have made this a career. My wife’s grandma’s neighbors- FOUR generations under the same roof on welfare. The great grandfather is 53…do the math.

I have been poor – I had a grocery budget of $20 a week…a ˝ gallon of milk was a luxury. I also had no a/c, cell phone, cable, video game consoles, health insurance and put exactly $5 in gas in my car every week – BTW, the car was an old Escort hand me down which carried no insurance. I worked hard – like a regular 40 hour a week job and tended bar every Friday and Saturday night for 4 years then switched to adding alternating Sundays for another two years in my 20’s (do the math that’s 58-70 hours a week). I work hard now-last year I was on a project working between 65-80 hours a week from February through August. I can do the math – the elderly today are basically robbing me of my money tomorrow.

You are right though…the poor do pay taxes. No one said they don’t pay anything – the point is they don’t pay Federal Tax which is a point no one can argue against because they don’t. However, as someone who isn’t poor guess what…I pay federal tax along with everything else the poor do…sales, property, state income, etc.

Citizens for Tax Justice produces an overall tax burden every year based on income – this is what percentage of your income ends up back in the government’s hands (Federal, State or Local). Ironically, the percentages are pretty similar at it relates to the total income made in this country. The richest 1% make about 20% of the income…and pay about 20% of all taxes….the richest 10% make about 46% of the income..and pay about 48% of the total taxes. The poor? Make about 3.4% of the income and pay about 2.1% of the overall taxes.

The point is people demonize the rich…or in this case the ones of us who pay into the system…guess what: We pay our fair share of taxes. The poor don’t – why? Our income is based off of working where the “income” of the nonworking poor is based off of what the government takes from my check. A nonworking member of the poor should not live better than a working member – but guess what, in many many cases they do. My MIL is one of them. On disability at 55 she gets food stamps, her disability check, heating and electric assistance for a time, low rent housing ($276 a month which includes utilities now) and her Medicaid coverage and benefits is better than what I get working. She spends her days gardening, reading all the books she wants, watches all the movies and TV she wants. Is she driving a Mercedes-no. Does she live basically a carefree lifestyle because of her own choices (aka smoking)…yep. Are you and me paying for it..yep. I saw the medical bills and payments for her inpatient stays over the past two years. She exhausted what she paid into the system after her 10th month.

You can’t lift the poor by penalizing the rest…and candidly its not my job to take care of someone else I don’t care to or someone who doesn’t want to take care of themselves

And for the record: let me introduce you to Pauline (aka the 99 year old) and let her talk to you about the Great Depression…this country needs to redefine “poor.” When being without a cell phone, cable and internet makes you “poor” we have serious problems.

Might as well throw this in: what do you think is going to happen to all those 47%’ers when the system crashes; it hard to predict but mathematically we are close to a system reboot…don’t think so…look at Greece, Spain. France, Ireland, etc.


Oh, Where'd we put that whiner-of-the-year award?

Ya know, pugman, if you were another Jobs, you'd not be so whiny. You had opportunity- opportunity insured by those old farts you despise- what did you do with it?

You are envious of the old, but seem to have forgotten they were getting up every day and going to work long before you stopped crappin' yellow in your 'nappies'.

Just sayin' :upeyes:

Chronos
10-11-2012, 12:55
Delusional thinking is spreading. Are you a disciple of the faux-prophet ayn rand? Perhaps that is why, beyond your own personal preference, you equate any taxation as theft. And as to your complaint of force, the folks in Little Rock, etc. also complained. Reckon why?

You seem really, REALLY enthusiastic about using violence against the innocent to fund your preferred programs. What was your childhood like?

pugman
10-11-2012, 17:05
Oh, Where'd we put that whiner-of-the-year award?

Ya know, pugman, if you were another Jobs, you'd not be so whiny. You had opportunity- opportunity insured by those old farts you despise- what did you do with it?

You are envious of the old, but seem to have forgotten they were getting up every day and going to work long before you stopped crappin' yellow in your 'nappies'.

Just sayin' :upeyes:

This is where the older generation, which I assume based on your post you are part of, just don't get it.

Whiner-no. Realistic-yes.

There was a thread the general section which went on forever titled "Retirement is not a right" guess what...its not.

The only thing which offends me is stupidity and ignorance. While those hittting the social security/Medicare rolls daily keep saying "protect my social security"...I've never heard one single one say "oh yeah, and protect it for my kids."

Simple truth: Social Security will be bankrupt by 2033. It started paying out more in 2010 than it took in. If the elderly are so noble, please tell me your plan to make sure I get my money - which by the way is paying for those on SS right now. Again, the simple truth is social security is a pyramid scheme. When it started there was 33 paying for every one receiving...fast forward and its now 1 to 7 and by the time the last of the baby boomers retire its 1 to 4. Yeah, its a good plan :dunno:

Politicans fool the elderly into saying "we need to keep social security afloat" when in reality they should be saying "how do we sunset it."

I've never seen good come out of putting more money in the hands of government; which is where this all started. The problem is in part the poor don't pay any federal taxes - the bigger problem is the Fed continues to spend like a drunken sailor. Simply put WE ALL PAY TOO MUCH INTO GOVERNMENTS. When you consider up to 30% of your pay ends up back in their hands; hell the vig for the mob is usually only 20%-25%

I don't resent the elderly - I simply think any one of them which give me that "working when you were crapping in your pants" b.s forgets they were young once at well.

Maybe their age is affecting their memory :supergrin:

Chronos
10-11-2012, 17:15
I don't resent the elderly - I simply think any one of them which give me that "working when you were crapping in your pants" b.s forgets they were young once at well.

It's been known for generations that social security is eventually a dead end. And it's also true that the boomers are the richest generation in the history of mankind.

It's a little hard to really feel that sorry for people who invested into a known Ponzi scheme, and who, when confronted with that reality, demand to take their losses out of their kids hides.

Hef
10-11-2012, 20:38
Delusional thinking is spreading. Are you a disciple of the faux-prophet ayn rand? Perhaps that is why, beyond your own personal preference, you equate any taxation as theft. And as to your complaint of force, the folks in Little Rock, etc. also complained. Reckon why?

So if I am wrong, please explain why. I'd like to hear what exactly you feel is the reason taxes are collected. Enlighten me.

podwich
10-11-2012, 21:37
Evil? In the post-modern world, evil is just a silly word used by moralists. It has no place in discussions about business... or taxation. After all, if one cannot expect businesses to act in a morally but to always and only be concerned about their bottom line regardless of who gets hurt, then why oh why would anyone expect that a tax code would be moral, regardless of who gets hurt.

You advocate taking from those who earn until they're "out of business." You advocate theft. You advocate destruction of incentive to work. You are evil.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 21:53
So how do we finance the government?

Make less government and it won't be so challenging.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 21:56
More people going after the 47%.

Have you examined who they are? Largely the elderly, who have worked for decades and are no longer working so do you really expect them to be paying income tax? And also the working poor. Who are working, and ARE contributing in the form of payroll taxes (Social security, medicare) as well as state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. As a percentage of income, even with zero federal income tax, many are still paying a reasonably high percentage towards taxes.

So you're saying the elderly and working poor don't contribute? Well boo hoo...go cry in your bedroom....most of those have worked, or are currently working, just as hard as the average person around here. And those two categories are the bulk of the 47 percent you and romney dismiss.

The elderly? You mean the wealthiest demographic in the country?

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 21:57
So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

I used to think you were just a Progressive. I was wrong. You're a straight up Marxist.

muscogee
10-11-2012, 22:08
The only thing which offends me is stupidity and ignorance. While those hittting the social security/Medicare rolls daily keep saying "protect my social security"...I've never heard one single one say "oh yeah, and protect it for my kids." I have.

Simple truth: Social Security will be bankrupt by 2033. It started paying out more in 2010 than it took in. If the elderly are so noble, please tell me your plan to make sure I get my money - which by the way is paying for those on SS right now. Again, the simple truth is social security is a pyramid scheme. When it started there was 33 paying for every one receiving...fast forward and its now 1 to 7 and by the time the last of the baby boomers retire its 1 to 4. Yeah, its a good plan :dunno:

Propaganda, not truth. The viability of Social Security has nothing to do with the number of children the Baby Boomers had. It has to do with the number of high paying jobs there are in the U.S.

I don't resent the elderly - I simply think any one of them which give me that "working when you were crapping in your pants" b.s forgets they were young once at well.

When I young I was paying a substantially higher percent of my income in taxes and SSI than you are. Man up. Stop whining.

countrygun
10-11-2012, 22:13
Propaganda, not truth. The viability of Social Security has nothing to do with the number of children the Baby Boomers had. It has to do with the number of high paying jobs there are in the U.S.

Quite wrong old chap. Since SS is supposed to be a "return on investment" for the individual, the pay rate has nothing to do with it's viability. It is the robbing from it that has severely damaged it.



When I young I was paying a substantially higher percent of my income in taxes and SSI than you are. Man up. Stop whining.

i can agree with the last two sentences however:supergrin:

Brucev
10-11-2012, 22:29
You seem really, REALLY enthusiastic about using violence against the innocent to fund your preferred programs. What was your childhood like?

I'm just telling it like it is. Sometimes the truth is like gravy and icing. Sometimes it's sour. It goes down hard. But there it is. Ain't nothing going to change it. Hyperbolic spouting about the innocent, etc. is about like a cat stretching and then going back to sleep. Because when you get right down to the ground about it... fair is not ever rationally associated with economics, taxation, govt., etc. It's all about power. Those that have it use it. Those who don't have it have to take the dumping of those who do have it... until they can get power. Then, the bottom rail goes up on top and the top rail gets a taste of living lower down. That's just the way it is. And fair is not remotely involved in the process, one way or the other.

Brucev
10-11-2012, 22:39
You advocate taking from those who earn until they're "out of business." You advocate theft. You advocate destruction of incentive to work. You are evil.

I do not idolize business. It is a convenience that serves the customer. Otherwise, it serves no purpose. There is no obligation the part of the taxpayer to privilege or subsidize business. If it can't make it, it dies. Someone else steps in and fills the demand.

Those who make money pay taxes. Tomorrow I will pay the taxes on my properties. Big deal. Everyone who owns property does exactly the same thing. Can't see a problem with it.

Those who make money pay taxes on their income... unless of course they are a multinational hiding their income overseas in a off-shore account. If they don't pay, strip them of assess and auction them to pay the bill. Someone else will step in and address demand. Fine. Meantime treat the pirates of commerce like pirates used to be treated when they wanted to rule the seven seas... give them the modern business/economic equivalent of a short rope and a long drop.

Now... is that evil? What do you think? Is it evil to play hard ball with those who want to play hard ball? Is it evil to take those who ignore any supposition of right and wrong and give them a dose of what they shove down the neck of everyone else? Evil? No, not at all. Justice... of the most poetic sort.

Brucev
10-11-2012, 22:43
I used to think you were just a Progressive. I was wrong. You're a straight up Marxist.

I was wrong. Yes in so many ways... you are so very wrong. You are like a blind man trying to describe an elephant.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 23:18
I was wrong. Yes in so many ways... you are so very wrong. You are like a blind man trying to describe an elephant.

You're a duck Bruce. Quack.

You used to rant against Obama. Call him the squatter. I've yet to see a post from you where you two actually disagree on anything.

Brucev
10-11-2012, 23:38
You're a duck Bruce. Quack.

You used to rant against Obama. Call him the squatter. I've yet to see a post from you where you two actually disagree on anything.

You are blind. And... you are obviously having hearing problems.

The squatter? He is like yourself wrong on so many things. I do not feel any obligation to treat him or you with anything except the tenderness of 80 grit sandpaper.

Why? Because the squatter and his cabal of supporters are enemies of the state, demonstrated domestic terrorists. While you and your gang are more like the old boys who sit around sucking their inspiration from a brown bag bottle and blowing smoke... never doing anything beyond offering opinions of life blearily observed.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 06:17
You are blind. And... you are obviously having hearing problems.

The squatter? He is like yourself wrong on so many things. I do not feel any obligation to treat him or you with anything except the tenderness of 80 grit sandpaper.

Why? Because the squatter and his cabal of supporters are enemies of the state, demonstrated domestic terrorists. While you and your gang are more like the old boys who sit around sucking their inspiration from a brown bag bottle and blowing smoke... never doing anything beyond offering opinions of life blearily observed.

What do you and "the squatter" disagree on, Bruce. I haven't seen anything yet.

Redistribution of wealth is big for "the squatter" and you're keen on it too.

aspartz
10-12-2012, 08:19
So how do we finance the government?


Fee for service:
Anything that has a direct individual beneficiary, fee for service.
If you want to go to the park, pay an entrance fee that supports the park service.
Drive on a road, pay a use fee that pays for the wear and tear you do to the road. This includes EVERY vehicle, POV, transit bus, school bus and every not-for-profit vehicle.
Ride on government owed transit, pay a ticket price that fully covers the cost to operate the system.
Want to watch Sesame Street or listen to NPR, put up with commercials like everybody else
Get the government out of business:
Why should the government operate a transit system in the first place. I don't oppose infrastructure, but let a private company run the railroad.
If you and you friends want nature, band together and buy the land with funds from willing donors

Get the government back to doing only what it was founded and empowered to do. People don't mind paying for essential services like defense and safety, but balk at paying an endless stream of people who feel entitled to someone else's money due to some imagined social contract.

ARS

aircarver
10-12-2012, 08:45
3. Get the government 'off our backs, and out of our pockets' ....

.

Brucev
10-12-2012, 08:52
What do you and "the squatter" disagree on, Bruce. I haven't seen anything yet.

Redistribution of wealth is big for "the squatter" and you're keen on it too.

If you don't see the points of divergence, then it's time for you to see a eye doctor.

Redistribution? No. Simply not willing to go along with the concentration of wealth in the hands of only a few individuals. That is not good for the whole of society. It is about the same as feudalism, primogeniture and similar structures. A egalitarian structure in which wealth and political power is broadly rather than narrowly held is much to be preferred. If this chafes the post-modern equivalents of Louise and little Marie (Antoinette), well that's just to bad for them.

muscogee
10-12-2012, 11:55
I'm just telling it like it is. Sometimes the truth is like gravy and icing. Sometimes it's sour. It goes down hard. But there it is. Ain't nothing going to change it. Hyperbolic spouting about the innocent, etc. is about like a cat stretching and then going back to sleep. Because when you get right down to the ground about it... fair is not ever rationally associated with economics, taxation, govt., etc. It's all about power. Those that have it use it. Those who don't have it have to take the dumping of those who do have it... until they can get power. Then, the bottom rail goes up on top and the top rail gets a taste of living lower down. That's just the way it is. And fair is not remotely involved in the process, one way or the other.

Good post.

muscogee
10-12-2012, 12:03
Fee for service:
Anything that has a direct individual beneficiary, fee for service.
If you want to go to the park, pay an entrance fee that supports the park service.
Drive on a road, pay a use fee that pays for the wear and tear you do to the road. This includes EVERY vehicle, POV, transit bus, school bus and every not-for-profit vehicle.
Ride on government owed transit, pay a ticket price that fully covers the cost to operate the system.
Want to watch Sesame Street or listen to NPR, put up with commercials like everybody else
Get the government out of business:
Why should the government operate a transit system in the first place. I don't oppose infrastructure, but let a private company run the railroad.
If you and you friends want nature, band together and buy the land with funds from willing donors

Get the government back to doing only what it was founded and empowered to do. People don't mind paying for essential services like defense and safety, but balk at paying an endless stream of people who feel entitled to someone else's money due to some imagined social contract.

ARS

And if it's not profitable in some places to build roads or maintain post offices, or run fiber, we let them turn Third World? Won't those places turn into havens for terrorists and outlaws?

muscogee
10-12-2012, 12:08
If you don't see the points of divergence, then it's time for you to see a eye doctor.

Redistribution? No. Simply not willing to go along with the concentration of wealth in the hands of only a few individuals. That is not good for the whole of society. It is about the same as feudalism, primogeniture and similar structures. A egalitarian structure in which wealth and political power is broadly rather than narrowly held is much to be preferred. If this chafes the post-modern equivalents of Louise and little Marie (Antoinette), well that's just to bad for them.

Since Reagan the redistribution of wealth has gone from the rest of to the super rich. Say anything about that and you're accused of being a Marxists.

aspartz
10-12-2012, 12:13
And if it's not profitable in some places to build roads or maintain post offices, or run fiber, we let them turn Third World? Won't those places turn into havens for terrorists and outlaws?
Notice I said the government should build infrastructure, just not offer service.

ARS

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 12:17
Since Reagan the redistribution of wealth has gone from the rest of to the super rich. Say anything about that and you're accused of being a Marxists.

Well, in fairness to people like me who have aptly labeled people like you and Brucev marxists, you have openly advocated here for democratic socialism.

Your words.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 12:20
If you don't see the points of divergence, then it's time for you to see a eye doctor.



Show me bruce. Point out a couple of places you disagree with Obama.

I'm beginning to wonder if it is really because Obama is black.

Redistribution? No. Simply not willing to go along with the concentration of wealth in the hands of only a few individuals. That is not good for the whole of society. It is about the same as feudalism, primogeniture and similar structures. A egalitarian structure in which wealth and political power is broadly rather than narrowly held is much to be preferred. If this chafes the post-modern equivalents of Louise and little Marie (Antoinette), well that's just to bad for them.

In other words, REDISTRIBUTION. :upeyes:

Brucev - there is nothing keeping you from becoming financially successful. Instead of whining about 'wingtippers' get off your butt and go produce something.

muscogee
10-12-2012, 12:53
Notice I said the government should build infrastructure, just not offer service.

ARS

So how does government pay for that? Most rural Post Offices aren't profitable. REC is socialistic.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 13:01
So how does government pay for that? Most rural Post Offices aren't profitable. REC is socialistic.

Bad example Hoss. The benefit of the Post office is the totality of the service. Not every portion of every business itself makes a profit, it is the sum of the parts.

But again the Post Office is turning in to a bad example due to technology and competition.

aspartz
10-12-2012, 15:18
So how does government pay for that? Most rural Post Offices aren't profitable. REC is socialistic.
As long as the use of the infrastructure is NOT free, it is not socialistic. The government should not run the ISP, but can provide the trunk wires (at a fee).
The problem comes when the government operates the ISP, and to "keep costs down" requires everyone to have an account regardless of demand or actual use.

ARS

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 15:40
Bad example Hoss. The benefit of the Post office is the totality of the service. Not every portion of every business itself makes a profit, it is the sum of the parts.

But again the Post Office is turning in to a bad example due to technology and competition.

You don't understand. When socialists get desperate they throw out roads, bridges and police protection.

They want to get their slimy thieving hands on your money and think that by equation common use infrastructure that they can equate the two and label you a socialist too.

They do this because they're lying thieving scum.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 15:50
You don't understand. When socialists get desperate they throw out roads, bridges and police protection.

They want to get their slimy thieving hands on your money and think that by equation common use infrastructure that they can equate the two and label you a socialist too.

They do this because they're lying thieving scum.


You're right. I keep forgetting about that "ends justify the means" thing with the socialists. I always make the mistake of thinking/hoping they mean what they say on the face of it.

(you know, something stupid generally)

I forget they play the "Biden as clown" role to cover their thieving ways.

muscogee
10-12-2012, 15:55
Bad example Hoss. The benefit of the Post office is the totality of the service. Not every portion of every business itself makes a profit, it is the sum of the parts.
So you're argument is, "From each (post office) according to its ability to each according to its need"?

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 15:59
So you're argument is, "From each (post office) according to its ability to each according to its need"?

See. I told ya.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 16:02
So you're argument is, "From each (post office) according to its ability to each according to its need"?

You are not even close to the intellectual point you are swinging and missing at.

The Post Office is an entity and works as such. Certainly your business experience teaches you that not every part of every business entity pays for itself. In order for the Post Office to do it's whole job it has to have the rural Offices to deliver to.

You know all this, but in your Biden-like manner you are flailing around, and failing, to be clever.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 16:15
You are not even close to the intellectual point you are swinging and missing at.

The Post Office is an entity and works as such. Certainly your business experience teaches you that not every part of every business entity pays for itself. In order for the Post Office to do it's whole job it has to have the rural Offices to deliver to.

You know all this, but in your Biden-like manner you are flailing around, and failing, to be clever.

Ahem! His business failed.

muscogee
10-12-2012, 16:18
You are not even close to the intellectual point you are swinging and missing at.

The Post Office is an entity and works as such. Certainly your business experience teaches you that not every part of every business entity pays for itself. In order for the Post Office to do it's whole job it has to have the rural Offices to deliver to.

You know all this, but in your Biden-like manner you are flailing around, and failing, to be clever.

You're a selective socialists like everyone else. It's good when it fits your need and bad the rest of the time.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 16:32
You're a selective socialists like everyone else. It's good when it fits your need and bad the rest of the time.

Quit trying to justify your parasitic behavior. It's pathetic.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 17:01
You're a selective socialists like everyone else. It's good when it fits your need and bad the rest of the time.

Ahahahahaha

With your broad definition, (it won't really help you fell better about yourself BTW) a community potluck picnic is "socialist"

Just how far down the socialist rabbitt hole have you fallen that you have to paint the whole world as socialist to ease your conscience?

Brucev
10-12-2012, 17:08
[QUOTE=certifiedfunds;19511371]Show me bruce. Point out a couple of places you disagree with Obama.

You obviously confuse me with someone who cares what you think.

I'm beginning to wonder if it is really because Obama is black. There you go again. If this is the best you can do, then you'd best try to avoid thinking.

In other words, REDISTRIBUTION. :upeyes:

No. I simply don't consider that the status of any one generation should privilege their heirs above others. If that doesn't suit you, then that is your problem. Happily the majority seldom suffer the minority to cling to power just because the minority think it's fair.

Brucev - there is nothing keeping you from becoming financially successful. Instead of whining about 'wingtippers' get off your butt and go produce something. You ignorance of others is showing. There are many people who are successful financially and otherwise who at the same time do not subscribe to the everyman for himself and the devil take the hindmost mentality. There is nothing laudatory in such a frightened misanthropic anti-ethic.

Ridicule and disparagement of the wingtippers reflects a just appraisal of them. If they ever expect to be respected and applauded by the nation, they must produce good for the nation. Otherwise, reasonable men give them the same treatment they give to the stuff that commonly is flushed down a toilet.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 17:11
Ahem! His business failed.

Let me show you my shocked face sometime.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 17:43
[QUOTE=certifiedfunds;19511371]Show me bruce. Point out a couple of places you disagree with Obama.

You obviously confuse me with someone who cares what you think.

I'm beginning to wonder if it is really because Obama is black. There you go again. If this is the best you can do, then you'd best try to avoid thinking.

In other words, REDISTRIBUTION. :upeyes:

No. I simply don't consider that the status of any one generation should privilege their heirs above others. If that doesn't suit you, then that is your problem. Happily the majority seldom suffer the minority to cling to power just because the minority think it's fair.

Brucev - there is nothing keeping you from becoming financially successful. Instead of whining about 'wingtippers' get off your butt and go produce something. You ignorance of others is showing. There are many people who are successful financially and otherwise who at the same time do not subscribe to the everyman for himself and the devil take the hindmost mentality. There is nothing laudatory in such a frightened misanthropic anti-ethic.

Ridicule and disparagement of the wingtippers reflects a just appraisal of them. If they ever expect to be respected and applauded by the nation, they must produce good for the nation. Otherwise, reasonable men give them the same treatment they give to the stuff that commonly is flushed down a toilet.

Well, I guess its final then. Brucev and Obama see eye to eye.

Can't even offer a single point on which you differ? Wow. Bruce, are you really Bill Ayers?

Bruce - instead of whining about using the government to rob another man, why don't you join the productive class and make a little money for yourself? No matter what you read in the Daily Worker, when a capitalist gets richer it doesn't make another man poorer.

It takes a little effort....maybe a little risk but you won't die from it I promise.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 17:53
No. I simply don't consider that the status of any one generation should privilege their heirs above others. If that doesn't suit you, then that is your problem. Happily the majority seldom suffer the minority to cling to power just because the minority think it's fair.

.

Hey Slick, how is that going to work????

Suppose the owner of a successful restaurant chain wants to pass it down in the family? Do you think when he dies,The chain should be broken up and employees put out of work?
Do you think all of the assets should be divided among the employees? Should the governmet come in and take the business over? Sell it at government auction to who and who would benefit? An inheritance tax that puts the chain out of business and unemploys everyone "for their own good'?

Who would make these decisions?


Go off and cry because you didn't inheret the retaurant chain, but don't take it away from someone else to make yourself feel better.

I bet you were the kind of child who broke other kids toys if they were better than yours.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 17:55
[quote=Brucev;19512274]

Hey Slick, how is that going to work????

Suppose the owner of a successful rsestaurant chain wants to pass it down in the family? Do you think when he dies,The chain should be broken up and employees put out of work?
Do you think all of the assets should be divided among the employees? Should the governmet come in and take the business over? Sell it at goverment auction to who and who would benefit? An inheritance tax that puts the chain out of business and unemploys everyone "for their own good'?

Who would make these decisions?


Go off and cry because you didn't inheret the retaurant chain, but don't take it away from someone else to make yourself feel better.

I bet you were the kind of child who broke other kids toys if they were better than yours.

Hey, that's not my quote. Brucev is intellectually incapable of using the quote function properly.

I know it's simple but they don't teach it at Obama University.

kirgi08
10-12-2012, 18:03
:popcorn:

countrygun
10-12-2012, 18:04
[quote=countrygun;19512365]

Hey, that's not my quote. Brucev is intellectually incapable of using the quote function properly.

I know it's simple but they don't teach it at Obama University.

Oops,sorry, I'll try to fix it, you know, we guys who have stuff are always having to compensate for those who can't do it themselves.....(sigh)

there, how's that?

Brucev
10-12-2012, 18:05
[QUOTE=certifiedfunds;19512346][quote=Brucev;19512274]

Well, I guess its final then. Brucev and Obama see eye to eye.

Obviously you are under the mistaken impression that your opinion is worth notice. If you insist on going around spewing failed assumptions you must not be offended when someone refuses to applaud.

Can't even offer a single point on which you differ? Wow. Bruce, are you really Bill Ayers? If you want to be entertained, go to Sesame Street. They have lots of games and videos for children.

Bruce - instead of whining about using the government to rob another man, why don't you join the productive class and make a little money for yourself? No matter what you read in the Daily Worker, when a capitalist gets richer it doesn't make another man poorer.

It takes a little effort....maybe a little risk but you won't die from it I promise.

Your assumptions about wealth, etc. are in error. This is understandable. You don't know what your talking about. There are many people who enjoy remarkable lives and afford to their families and others outstanding opportunities... all without surrendering to the routine of the frightened miser. If you get out more and associate with such people, you can live better than a dog in the manger lifestyle.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 18:55
[QUOTE=certifiedfunds;19512346][quote=Brucev;19512274]

Well, I guess its final then. Brucev and Obama see eye to eye.

Obviously you are under the mistaken impression that your opinion is worth notice. If you insist on going around spewing failed assumptions you must not be offended when someone refuses to applaud.

Can't even offer a single point on which you differ? Wow. Bruce, are you really Bill Ayers? If you want to be entertained, go to Sesame Street. They have lots of games and videos for children.

Bruce - instead of whining about using the government to rob another man, why don't you join the productive class and make a little money for yourself? No matter what you read in the Daily Worker, when a capitalist gets richer it doesn't make another man poorer.

It takes a little effort....maybe a little risk but you won't die from it I promise.

Your assumptions about wealth, etc. are in error. This is understandable. You don't know what your talking about. There are many people who enjoy remarkable lives and afford to their families and others outstanding opportunities... all without surrendering to the routine of the frightened miser. If you get out more and associate with such people, you can live better than a dog in the manger lifestyle.

Still not a single point of disagreement with Obama I see.

Are you that Indian guy he's seen snuggling with on the couch at Columbia? Sal Maqbool?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/barack-obama-wild-drugtaking-roommate

Brucev
10-12-2012, 19:09
[QUOTE=certifiedfunds;19512555][quote=Brucev;19512392][QUOTE=certifiedfunds;19512346]

Still not a single point of disagreement with Obama I see. Careful. You can get eye strain looking for things that don't exist.

Are you that Indian guy he's seen snuggling with on the couch at Columbia? Sal Maqbool? You have a lot in common with those sort of folks who go around looking down hoping to pick up some small change.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 19:10
edited

kirgi08
10-12-2012, 20:01
Easy.'08.

Skyhook
10-13-2012, 06:07
This is where the older generation, which I assume based on your post you are part of, just don't get it.

Whiner-no. Realistic-yes.

There was a thread the general section which went on forever titled "Retirement is not a right" guess what...its not.

The only thing which offends me is stupidity and ignorance. While those hittting the social security/Medicare rolls daily keep saying "protect my social security"...I've never heard one single one say "oh yeah, and protect it for my kids."
Let's blame that on your limited travels & conversations, ok?
Simple truth: Social Security will be bankrupt by 2033. It started paying out more in 2010 than it took in. If the elderly are so noble, please tell me your plan to make sure I get my money - which by the way is paying for those on SS right now. Again, the simple truth is social security is a pyramid scheme. When it started there was 33 paying for every one receiving...fast forward and its now 1 to 7 and by the time the last of the baby boomers retire its 1 to 4. Yeah, its a good plan :dunno:

Politicans fool the elderly into saying "we need to keep social security afloat" when in reality they should be saying "how do we sunset it."

I've never seen good come out of putting more money in the hands of government; which is where this all started. The problem is in part the poor don't pay any federal taxes - the bigger problem is the Fed continues to spend like a drunken sailor. Simply put WE ALL PAY TOO MUCH INTO GOVERNMENTS. When you consider up to 30% of your pay ends up back in their hands; hell the vig for the mob is usually only 20%-25%

I don't resent the elderly - I simply think any one of them which give me that "working when you were crapping in your pants" b.s forgets they were young once at well.

Maybe their age is affecting their memory :supergrin:

No matter, what has happened, and your thinking reflects it is effective, is the Democrat liars and propagandists have gotten to a lot of otherwise intelligent folks and have succeeded in pitting one group against another. In this case, you have chosen to exhibit a kind of age-related prejudice. See if you can 'get' that.

While we are busy kicking each other around for petty, short-sighted reasons- reasons originating in the evil minds of progressives and their ilk- those originators are giggling all the way to our collective destruction and their cemented elite positions.

Hef
10-13-2012, 08:06
Nothing will ever change so long as there are people who view government as a service provider. The only reason for government to exist is to protect our rights in such ways as individuals cannot. Our government was never intended to be, nor has ever demonstrated to be capable of, managing retirement funds, housing, feeding the poor, etc, nor should it be. Those are charitable acts that are best left in the hands of charities to carry out. Instead, they are treated by our politicians (and voters) as political footballs to be kicked and fought over.

Government is not the answer to all of society's ills. Until we stop looking for it to be, we will continue to be plagued by government run amok.

Bruce H
10-13-2012, 11:55
Nothing will ever change so long as there are people who view government as a service provider. The only reason for government to exist is to protect our rights in such ways as individuals cannot. Our government was never intended to be, nor has ever demonstrated to be capable of, managing retirement funds, housing, feeding the poor, etc, nor should it be. Those are charitable acts that are best left in the hands of charities to carry out. Instead, they are treated by our politicians (and voters) as political footballs to be kicked and fought over.

Government is not the answer to all of society's ills. Until we stop looking for it to be, we will continue to be plagued by government run amok.


Very well said, thank you.

countrygun
10-13-2012, 13:09
Nothing will ever change so long as there are people who view government as a service provider. The only reason for government to exist is to protect our rights in such ways as individuals cannot. Our government was never intended to be, nor has ever demonstrated to be capable of, managing retirement funds, housing, feeding the poor, etc, nor should it be. Those are charitable acts that are best left in the hands of charities to carry out. Instead, they are treated by our politicians (and voters) as political footballs to be kicked and fought over.

Government is not the answer to all of society's ills. Until we stop looking for it to be, we will continue to be plagued by government run amok.

Good work! +1