Author Topic: Red states are welfare queens? (Read 2359 times)

Toad · « **Reply #120 on:** May 19, 2004, 11:43:24 PM »

I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with you. I think your tax ideas are idealistic, unfair and unrealistic. But I realize that must seem the same as an attack to you. You may be a nice fellow; your tax ideas are....... lacking.

Don't want to spend other people's money? Why sure you do! Either that or you didn't mean all that "raise the rich guy's taxes" stuff you posted. You're all too willing to see someone else pay for the things you think should be done. But you're a little slow with the wallet yourself, eh? More on that later.

You still haven't answered the question; maybe you missed it all these times. Here you go:

Quote

How much until Strk figures they "give a little something back"? Obviously ~37% isn't enough.

How much Strk? How much more of someone else's money do you propose they take?

All you've talked about is how the "rich" can afford to "pay a little more". You can't tell us how much more you think is right, you can't tell us if just one more little bit would be enough, you can't tell us how many times you'll propose further tax increases.

In short...... you just want the OTHER GUY to fund the ideas you think are good.

Just like the National Debt thing. You think it'd be a GREAT IDEA if we paid it down. Who doesn't? But you're unwilling to just take the lead and make a payment. Oh, no...... you have to make sure someone else's money goes first.. mine.

Jebuz.... it's too funny. Guess that wallet is glued in your pocket, eh?

Here, Mini left something for you.. u must have skipped over it.

Quote

Mini

Here is the simple fundamental flaw with increasing taxes:

You're giving money to the government who has consistantly shown that they have no idea how to manage it.

Why would you want to give them more money? Why is the solution always to give them more money? Why not simply mandate that they spend less?

I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income.

Ta.

strk · « **Reply #121 on:** May 19, 2004, 11:51:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, gee...... I'm so sorry for you. I mean, I'm sure you didn't deserver to be banned.

I'm not an expert but couldn't you get a new ISP if it meant that much to you? I mean, you got back this time after 2/2 didn't you?

I probably did deserve it, Saurdecker brings out the worst in me I think.

I can see that your anger goes deeper than the words in your post, and I say grab a beer, roll a doob or whatever floats your boat and relax a little because life is too short and leaves little time to grouch.

Look, if what I said before bothers you, then I apologize, Toad. It wasn't fair of me to say that anyone was 5 times the man that you are, because I dont really know who you are. I just see what you post and that sure isnt the whole picture of any of us.

So please accept my apology and lets just put it behind us. I will try not to be such an ******* in the future but I cant promise it. I know you cant either, of course.

So - what do you say?

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #122 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:01:17 AM »

The fundamental flaw in MiniD's argument is noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars, thats not the point at alll. The government will collect a total amount of tax lets call it the 100% national tax burden. I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.

Flat taxes would be the most simplistic. Why do we think corporations and the like do not rally behind this call?

dude

strk · « **Reply #123 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:01:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with you. I think your tax ideas are idealistic, unfair and unrealistic. But I realize that must seem the same as an attack to you. You may be a nice fellow; your tax ideas are....... lacking.

Don't want to spend other people's money? Why sure you do! Either that or you didn't mean all that "raise the rich guy's taxes" stuff you posted. You're all too willing to see someone else pay for the things you think should be done. But you're a little slow with the wallet yourself, eh? More on that later.

You still haven't answered the question; maybe you missed it all these times. Here you go:

All you've talked about is how the "rich" can afford to "pay a little more". You can't tell us how much more you think is right, you can't tell us if just one more little bit would be enough, you can't tell us how many times you'll propose further tax increases.

In short...... you just want the OTHER GUY to fund the ideas you think are good.

Just like the National Debt thing. You think it'd be a GREAT IDEA if we paid it down. Who doesn't? But you're unwilling to just take the lead and make a payment. Oh, no...... you have to make sure someone else's money goes first.. mine.

Jebuz.... it's too funny. Guess that wallet is glued in your pocket, eh?

Here, Mini left something for you.. u must have skipped over it.

Ta.

I think we have been doing just fine with a top marginal rate of 37.5 for income, and the cap gains rate is fine right now too. Bush* wants to roll that rate back to 30 and have NO capital gains tax and NO tax on dividends. I have not looked this up, its late and Im tired, so please someone let me know if I am incorrect here.

What we have in place now is what Clinton enacted with the deficit reduction act, I believe. It worked, the deficits were less and less, and we were just beginning to pay down some of the debt, a hundred billion or so of it. If we had continued on that course, we were projected to pay off some 2.6 trillion in 10 years. That would have been great, as you say, who wouldnt want to pay down the debt,

BUsh* used that projected surplus to argue for the tax cuts. Guess what, the economy went south, we got wars in 2 countries going, the surplus never materialized, and Bush* still wants to cut taxes - twice.

That doesnt make sense to me. That is bad government

strk · « **Reply #124 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:02:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
The fundamental flaw in MiniD's argument is noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars, thats not the point at alll. The government will collect a total amount of tax lets call it the 100% national tax burden. I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.

Flat taxes would be the most simplistic. Why do we think corporations and the like do not rally behind this call?

dude

flat tax on goods or income? And deciding on that magic number would be hard indeed for income tax.

psst - good to see ya buddy! you still flyin?

Mini D · « **Reply #125 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:15:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
The fundamental flaw in MiniD's argument is noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars, thats not the point at alll. The government will collect a total amount of tax lets call it the 100% national tax burden. I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.

You may want to re-read what I wrote. This is exactly what I stated.

"I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income."

The really funny part is that you just don't realize that aplies to the tax the "rich" arguments levied in this thread.

MiniD

Toad · « **Reply #126 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:18:35 AM »

Believe me, I'm not in the least angry. I find this BBS entertaining an theraputic. In many cases it's far better than HBO's Comedy channel.

I accept your apology. I try to make it a point to remain as polite as possible in these discussions. To that end, you won't find me calling folks names or cursing them. It is possible to cause me to sharpen my tone with stuff like "five men". Generally, I "mirror" the other person as much as possible. Just a thing they taught in "negotiation" school.

BTW, I'm not in favor of tax cuts at this time either. But you never asked me that. You been talking mostly about getting "the rich" to pay more.

A projected surplus is just that: projected. Secondly, figures lie and liars figure and that's never more true than when anyone in DC talking taxes.

As far as "on track to pay off the deficit"... well, stuff happens. 9/11 absolutely kicked this country's rear econonomically. The Iraq war sure didn't help. But life is what happens while you're making other plans, right?

So, I'm happy to go on from here. I never got my shorts in a wad about this... I have real life problems that do that for me.

mietla · « **Reply #127 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:21:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
sheesh... this is plain silly.. stabby and his liberal friends have bemoaned Bush giving us all, especially those who live "paycheck to paycheck" $300 back but claims that $50 is a big deal to them an not 50k to the rich?

This is also silly in that stabby, mz and strk (all libs and all hiding behind shades) all can't tell the difference between a corporation and an individual. mz even goes so far as to say that corporations prospering doesn't do him a "damn bit of good"... he must have no interest in stocks or insurance or retirement or even getting paid.

when you are young and naive... or a son of rich people with not a care in the world and think you will allways be that way or... when you have nothing and no hope....

then, soaking the rich sounds like a good idea. when you get older and realize that making ends meet means you are now rich by your former defenition.. or, worse yet... you wake up in a socialist country where the poverty is shared equaly... then you realize.. but of course... way too late..

you already voted for kerry and democrats for a decade or so.

lazs

You said it better than I would.

A rampant class envy.

At my very humble beginning, when I saw a guy driving a luxury car while I was walking to work (not being able to afford one), I thought to myself... I'm not afraid of a hard work so one of these days I'll be driving a car as well...

A typical attitude today seems to be: I don't feel like breaking my back, so if I can't have a car, at the very least let's take the other guy's car away. Screw the morals, we'll just redefine them.

Property theft => paying "fair share"
pissing tax revenue on useless gov programs => investment in a future
work for welfare => indignation and slavery
etc.

Equality in misery always better than disparity in success.

Toad · « **Reply #128 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:21:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars,.....

...I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.

dude

I think you must have missed something. I saw no call to raise percentages on "the rich" while simultaneously lowering them for "the poor".

What I saw was a call to have "the rich" pay more tax.

Maybe I missed it. Show me what post/s you read that are different.

strk · « **Reply #129 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:26:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
You may want to re-read what I wrote. This is exactly what I stated.

"I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income."

The really funny part is that you just don't realize that aplies to the tax the "rich" arguments levied in this thread.

MiniD

the corollary to your argument is
"Unless the rich class can use their wealth and influence through the media and schools and lotteries and the mass-market fast food culture to falsely convince just enough of the poor that they may too one day be rich"

And saying that the poor are going to take the income(as in ALL of it as you imply) of the top 50% is a bit of a straw man now isnt it?

strk · « **Reply #130 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:30:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Believe me, I'm not in the least angry. I find this BBS entertaining an theraputic. In many cases it's far better than HBO's Comedy channel.

I accept your apology. I try to make it a point to remain as polite as possible in these discussions. To that end, you won't find me calling folks names or cursing them. It is possible to cause me to sharpen my tone with stuff like "five men". Generally, I "mirror" the other person as much as possible. Just a thing they taught in "negotiation" school.

BTW, I'm not in favor of tax cuts at this time either. But you never asked me that. You been talking mostly about getting "the rich" to pay more.

A projected surplus is just that: projected. Secondly, figures lie and liars figure and that's never more true than when anyone in DC talking taxes.

As far as "on track to pay off the deficit"... well, stuff happens. 9/11 absolutely kicked this country's rear econonomically. The Iraq war sure didn't help. But life is what happens while you're making other plans, right?

So, I'm happy to go on from here. I never got my shorts in a wad about this... I have real life problems that do that for me.

I appreciate your graciousness and agree with most of what you are saying. That is about as close to a warm/fuzzy as you get on the BB. But lets face it, if all we did was agree with each other then we would be here so much now would we? hehe

Fighting is in our nature. THat is what brought us to AH in the first place.

strk · « **Reply #131 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:34:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
You said it better than I would.

A rampant class envy.

At my very humble beginning, when I saw a guy driving a luxury car while I was walking to work (not being able to afford one), I thought to myself... I'm not afraid of a hard work so one of these days I'll be driving a car as well...

A typical attitude today seems to be: I don't feel like breaking my back, so if I can't have a car, at the very least let's take the other guy's car away. Screw the morals, we'll just redefine them.

Property theft => paying "fair share"
pissing tax revenue on useless gov programs => investment in a future
work for welfare => indignation and slavery
etc.

Equality in misery always better than disparity in success.

\

that attitude is nothing new. It was around 50 years ago and it was around when Plato and Aristotle walked the earth.

So was the guy who busted his bellybutton to make his lot in life better for himself and his family. So was the guy who busted his bellybutton but couldnt make ends meet.

I dont think its wrong to help folks who need it. I know that people will take advantage of it. Its hard to eliminate the latter and preserve the former, but that is what we should strive for.

You cant just throw out the baby with the bath water.

mietla · « **Reply #132 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:49:50 AM »

show me a person in need of help and I'll volunteer to help, steal my property because someone, somewhere probably needs help and suddenly it is my obligation to feed them, and I'm out.

No one has a right to someone else's property just because he wants it. That's theft.

Ask, and you might get it (if I decide you deserve it). I you try to demand it, you better bring the feds with guns and threat of violence, you won't see a penny otherwise.

And this is what you seem to be pretty happy to do. Instead of stealing yourself, you use the gov. to steal for you. And then... poof... a theft not only it becomes legal, not only moral, but it actually becomes noble.

strk · « **Reply #133 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:56:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
show me a person in need of help and I'll volunteer to help, steal my property because someone, somewhere probably needs help and suddenly it is my obligation to feed them, and I'm out.

No one has a right to someone else's property just because he wants it. That's theft.

Ask, and you might get it (if I decide you deserve it). I you try to demand it, you better bring the feds with guns and threat of violence, you won't see a penny otherwise.

And this is what you seem to be pretty happy to do. Instead of stealing yourself, you use the gov. to steal for you. And then... poof... a theft not only it becomes legal, not only moral, but it actually becomes noble.

But who has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving? I mean, if that isnt your job. You set the bar too high by requiring your own approval of every case.
Remember a society is judged, as is a person really, on how they treat the weakest among them.

on edit - it is hard to take you seriously with that icon. Its a good one, but that guy just looks so incredibly shrecking butt stoned stupid that it detracts from what you say somehow.

Hey I pay taxes too. Im not posting from the welfare line, or using foodstamps to pay HT and Pyro. I pay my own way and always have, and I would help out someone who needed it if I could as long as my family was taken care of. Dont try to make me into some kind of devil because you dont agree with me.

mietla · « **Reply #134 on:** May 20, 2004, 01:02:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by strk
But who has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving? I mean, if that isnt your job. You set the bar too high by requiring your own approval of every case.

It's my money , so it is my decision.

Don't tell me that the income redistribution by the feds is implemented for my "convenience", so I don't have to worry my little head with the complex issues like who gets my property.