Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: leonid on February 08, 2001, 09:00:00 AM
-
Democrats rip into 'charming' Bush
February 7, 2001
Web posted at: 3:51 PM EST (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has charmed a number of Democrats on Capitol Hill with his engaging personality, yet many have begun to revolt against what they see as his heartless proposals.
On the eve of Bush presenting to Congress a recommendation to cut taxes by $1.6 trillion over 10 years, Democrats were up in arms on Wednesday, charging the package would cost too much, go largely to the rich and, despite promises to the contrary, leave a number of children behind.
"There is going to be one hell of a fight over this and there should be," vowed U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Whip David Bonior of Michigan.
"George W. Bush is not going to be able to charm himself in to a big tax cut," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
"I think the White House and Republicans up here have underestimated the resolve by Democrats to take them on," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democratic.
The White House and congressional Republicans have been openly giddy over Bush's ability to reach out to Democrats, often one on one, since taking office on Jan. 20.
House Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas has credited Bush with helping set a new bipartisan tone in the Republican-led Congress.
"This is what we have long needed," DeLay said last Friday after Bush addressed a Republican retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he preached cooperation, not confrontation.
Yet it is an open question how much cooperation there will be when it comes to cutting taxes, improving education and expanding Social Security and Medicare -- all Bush priorities.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democratic who joined Bush for a movie at the White House last week, said he expects to work with the new president on education.
But Kennedy called a news conference on Wednesday to announce introduction of a bill to increase the federal minimum wage, and to denounce Bush's stand on the issue.
"President Bush supports raising the minimum wage, but only if the states have the option of rejecting the increase," said Kennedy, the leading liberal voice on Capitol Hill.
"Allowing states to opt out violates the nation's 60-year-old commitment to the principle that working men and women are entitled to a fair minimum wage," Kennedy said.
On Tuesday, Kennedy challenged Bush on a campaign promise to bring Republicans and Democrats together on a patients bill of rights.
Kennedy did so by joining Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who had competed against Bush for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, in introducing a bill of their own.
Bush promptly raised objections to the measure, opposed by industry groups, and said he wanted more time to craft his own legislation.
"George W. Bush, like many people born with a silver spoon in his mouth, can be very charming," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat.
"He can smile and he can tell a joke, but let's not confuse substance with charm," Hinchey said. "And he's not half as smart as (former Democratic President) Bill Clinton."
Hinchey was among a dozen members of the congressional Progressive Caucus who held a news conference on Wednesday to denounce the Bush tax cut.
They charged that the proposed tax relief would go mainly to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and not leave enough for a number of federal efforts, particularly ones to improve education.
"He says he doesn't want to leave any child behind, but his tax cut would force us to leave a number of children behind," said Wellstone.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle sent Bush a letter on Wednesday, asking him to vow not to dip into the Medicare surplus to fund tax cuts or spending plans.
In the letter, co-signed by Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, Daschle asked Bush to "reconsider your position ... and take a pledge to safeguard both the Social Security and Medicare surpluses with 'lockbox' protections."
Speaking with reporters, Daschle and Conrad also argued that the real cost of Bush's proposed tax cut would be $2.6 trillion, and said the nation cannot afford it.
"I don't think think we can persuade him" to back off the proposal, Daschle said.
"But our hope is that we can persuade Republican colleagues and the American people about the ill-advised approach that this represents," Daschle said.
"Ill-advised because of (uncertain) projections, ill-advised because of unfairness and ill-advised because it is far more expensive than we can afford," Daschle said.
-
Nice to see we have our own politicians drawing lines in the sand...thus creating more friction between the parties, and less offered to the american public.
The Dems evidently are going to fight this whether the citizens want it or not, just to save face of their party.
-
You can delete a third of that, all of alcoholic teddy's spew, who cares what that womanizer thinks or wants.
As for McCain, I think he needs to change parties. He just sore he lost the Republican nomination.
All Bush can do is try, if the handsomehunk-crats filibuster - so be it.
Eagler
Yea! the spellchecker works (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
When it comes down to it who cares if the Demos like it or not? Can they do anything about it? NO!
At least Bush has made the effort to get along with everyone which is more than what can be said about the Demos.
The die-hards Demos are going to be against Bush no matter what he does so screw em.
-
From the KC Star:
""Essentially, everyone who currently earns enough to pay income taxes would see their tax bills go down," said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst with CCH Inc., a tax law analysis firm in Riverwoods, Ill.
The average family of four might receive a $1,600 tax cut, but the results would vary considerably with income differences from family to family. For example, a typical two-child family earning $150,000 would see its income taxes fall to $25,580 from $31,395, a savings of $5,815, according to a CCH study. Income taxes for a two-child family earning $50,000 would drop to $1,645 from $3,620, a savings of $1,975.
Proportionally, that's a bigger cut than the wealthier family would receive, as Bush pointed out -- 55 percent for the family earning $50,000 a year vs. 19 percent for the family earning three times that."
This is just so UNFAIR!!
Why should anyone who makes less than $150,000 have to pay ANY taxes? They should have a 0% tax rate and anyone making more than $150K should have a 95% tax rate!
It's the only fair way to do it!
Imagine giving a 55% cut to the <$50K bracket and giving those d*mn >$150K bastiges 19%!!!!
It's truly, truly a disgrace. Why should the >$150K's get ANYTHING??
...and I'm still confused about this:
Since the <$50K taxpayers are getting a 55% cut and the >$150K taxpayers are getting a 19% cut...
How come those who pay the most in taxes still would get more money back than those who pay less taxes?
It's all sooooooooo confusing!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I like the democrat analogy ... the guy making $300,000 a year can buy a Lexus with his tax break, while the $50k family can only get a new muffler for their used car (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
two words:
CLASS ENVY
A dumbocrat favorite trick, pit the rich against the poor, the white against everyone else, the dumb against the intelligent, so on and so on....
Eagler
-
class envy ,dumocrats get a life the day a person who would say that is taken seriously is a sad day for a democacy.
eagler i hope you are a ignorant kid cause if you are adult talking like that its sad.you have missed the whole point of a democracy.
the democrats are gonna fight the standard rich folks tax cut cause the majority of people in this country arent rich , the vast majority. they republicans have dressed this one up nicely. but its is their same old crap.
the fight is starting and you are outnumbered.
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
class envy ,dumocrats get a life the day a person who would say that is taken seriously is a sad day for a democacy.
eagler i hope you are a ignorant kid cause if you are adult talking like that its sad.you have missed the whole point of a democracy.
the democrats are gonna fight the standard rich folks tax cut cause the majority of people in this country arent rich , the vast majority. they republicans have dressed this one up nicely. but its is their same old crap.
the fight is starting and you are outnumbered.
Sorry, not a kid, just ignorant .. thanks for pointing that out (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Is your answer the reallocation of wealth, the ole robin hood mentality? Sounds like communism to me.
So in your world, there shouldn't be any tax cuts? The rich (what's that over $300,000 a year - when I was a kid I thought $50k a year was rich) should pay all the taxes? Maybe every "rich" family should adopt and fund two poor families? The democrats do not want to curb their spending on entitlement programs (their voting base) thus they do not want any tax cut...
Don't you see that towd?
(http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/bush.tax/story.gephardt.daschle.jpg)
No class envy here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
From each according to their abilities.
To each according to their needs.
that about what you espouse -towd- ?
-
Allowing people to accumulate wealth without penalty is wrong. Wealth is an excess of financial means, usually attained by absorbing the financial means of other people through an ingenious form of economic bribery, called supply and demand. And if you're a person of christian persuasion it's also a good way of going to hell. At least, that's my interpretation of that thing Jesus said about pushing a camel through the eye of a needle being an easier task than a rich guy making it to nirvana.
-
Leonid, what about us that started our adult working lives with $100 and a suitcase full of clothes 1700 miles from the nearest relative, renting a room for $50 a month, sleeping on the floor near a hot plate for warmth, a pile of broken bricks used for tossing at the drunken and drugged bums trying to climb in the window from the nearby alley while flicking cockroaches out from the tattered blanket, eating snickers candy bars for lunch and dinner because I could not afford real food until I found a job?
Those of us that payed for our own education by working not only late evenings but 2 jobs just so we could afford to attend morning classes with little or no sleep?
Those of us who worked our tulips off to attain a 6 digit income for our families?
Those of us that devote our time to the underpriveledged, that give cash to childrens hospitals for terminally ill children?
You gonna penalized us that have payed the price of poverty, but managed to work our fingers to the bone and pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and didn't quit?
That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats:
Republicans want to bring those in the lower class up, Democrats want to drag those in the upper class down.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Wealth without penalty is wrong? On what grounds? It is entirely possible that wealth can be accumulated without exploitation. It is just as possible the opposite can be true, but it seems a bit odd to automatically assume that all wealth is gathered through evil.
As far as your quote on "It is far easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" is concerned, it is out of context in my religion (Baptist). There is no evil in possession, only in valuing possessions over the will of God. The Bible has many examples of men who were rich and Godly, so these terms are not mutually exclusive. Abraham, Isiaih, Moses... all were very rich by the standards of the day, but they are pillars of the Old Testament.
I counter with this idea; it is not right to rip something out of the hands of one child and give it to another simply because one has and the other doesn't. You encourage sharing, sure, but you do not force it. The trouble with what some espouse wrt the distribution of wealth is that it is somehow the government's purpose to see that the wealth is redistributed. This is fundamentally flawed: it removes the incentive to acquire wealth, and; it removes the incentive to provide for yourself. After all, if you have nothing the goverment will give you something. As long as you set your standards low enough you may never need work a day in your life.
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Allowing people to accumulate wealth without penalty is wrong.
================
Im aghast at this one. Not so much for your intent leonid, because I think I get what your saying, mostly. What is repulsive to me is the manner in which you express it.
More and more people want to socialize our society, taking away the individuals right to pursue life liberty and happiness as that individual sees fit. Instead, socialists want to create and enforce a maximum level of acheivement that none of the participants can exceed.
I know what this mentality does to the human spirit. I do not want people with these types of views anywhere near my constitution.
It reeks and I wont accept it.
Yeager (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(the smiley face means Im just expressing myself freely and really dont care what anyone else thinks of my beliefs)
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Leonid, please give us an absolutely unequivocable definition of "wealth" or "wealthy" in this tax debate. What level would be the "excess of financial means"? At what height on Maslow's hierarchy does this occur?
LOL.
Leonid: "Allowing people to accumulate wealth without penalty is wrong."
Yeah...I see it now! This Progressive Tax thing is WAY TOO LENIENT!
If some bastige gets rich, I say we HANG the mo-fo! That'll teach the rest of them!
Especially the ones like Rip describes that started with nothing and got "rich". They deserve the MOST punishment! Uppity bastiges!
ROF, LM-F-AO!
You guys are sure entertaining!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Spot on Yeager and Kieren..this kind of talk just scares the living crap out of me...to think their are individuals living in a free enterprize country like this...un-be-lieveable...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Spot on Yeager and Kieren..this kind of talk just scares the living crap out of me...to think their are individuals living in a free enterprize country like this...un-be-lieveable...
I really don't think he nor towd believe 9/10's of what they type. They are like StSanta and just go for shock value and to stir the pot.. then again maybe I'm just trying to fool myself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
I'd like to add that when I was hired by the company I now work for...in the orientation meeting I had, there were 25 individuals...9 blacks, 8 of Asian background, 14 were women, 3 were hispanic, and 5 were white males...so don't try to say it was my color (white) that gave me some kind of advantage over others hired.
During my first month and 1/2 in Seattle, that room I rented...I also shared a hallway bathroom with 3 other 'tenant's , 2 hookers and a pimp...also working hard to get ahead..LOL!
-
...to think their are individuals living in a free enterprize country like this...un-be-lieveable...
That you say this is MORE scary.
Is uniformity of opinion your desire? Or just your particular concept of eden?
Are you some kind of communist? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
It's as easy as "pie" to see who's paying the overwhelming percentage of taxes in the US.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm (http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm)
Projected Income Tax Burden for 1999
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/legend.gif)
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/whopays-pie99.gif)
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/legend.gif)
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/whopays_area0.gif)
"An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder."
A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive.
Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes!
To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)"
Yeah, tell me again that it's not fair to give EVERYONE at tax cut.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
That you say this is MORE scary.
Is uniformity of opinion your desire? Or just your particular concept of eden?
Are you some kind of communist? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-08-2001).]
Yeah, you got a point Dowding...to be fortunate to live in a country where one has his or her own opinion is indeed a free country...I retract the statement, but find this type of socialist thinking very erie indeed...thankfully there are corner stones in place in our constitution that prevent this kind of communism from spreading....at least for now.
-
Eagler,
I believe in what I communicate here. I sometimes flirt with shock value but never go against my own principles in doing so.
I feel strongly tied to the concepts that the founders employed in the Federal Constitution. I believe that document was written with the greatest devotion to the human condition.
All human beings have but one chance at life. Do the best job you can with it or at least die trying. My only regret Sir is that I have but one life to give to my country.
Dowding,
I believe and support yours and Leonids cherrished right to communicate whatever you wish here in public. More so for my own right to reply.
Just realize that I will forcefully, and hopefully with respect, respond when I so desire.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Yeager
Sorry I was speaking of leoniod and towd. I know you believe and stand for your expressions. Sorry for confusion..
Eagler
-
...and from the US Treasury itself:
Here are the latest breakdowns, released Oct. 16, 2000 by the IRS:
1998 Tax Statistics
% Of Taxpayers/Income Split Point/Group's Share of Total Taxes
Top 1% - above $269,496 pay 34.8%
Top 5% - above $114,729 pay 53.8%
Top 10% - above $83,220 pay 65.0%
Top 25% - above $50,607 pay 82.7%
Top 50% - above $25,491 pay 95.8%
Bottom 50% - below $25,491 pay 4.2%
The top 10%, starting with those that make $83,220 an up, are paying 65% of the tax. The other 90% of taxpayers are covering just 35%.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
For anyone having trouble understanding this thread:
The Democrats just realized Bush is really a Republican.
AKDejaVu
-
I'm a little surprised by your reply, Ripsnort. I expected to be blasted for accusing you of communism (even in jest). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) <S>
Well, I have to say, when you guys talk about your fondness for firearms, like you're discussing your favourite car - I find THAT eerie.
It's something I can't get over, and I think most Brits would find it strange. In fact, anyone who I've ever discussed it with have found the American obsession with firearms unfathomable.
We speak the same language, but that's about as much as we have in common.
-
Dowding, are you hijacking this tax thread into gun control? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
It's something I can't get over, and I think most Brits would find it strange. In fact, anyone who I've ever discussed it with have found the American obsession with firearms unfathomable
============
Thank you Dowding!
Thank you very much (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I find your comment wholeheartedly and completely reassuring (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It lends powerful credibility to the historic differences that led to the initial flight from subjugated England and further demonstrates that those differences, although tempered by the American trend towards socialism, still exist today.
As hard as this might be for you to understand, I am proud of my heritage of personal firearms ownership. It shows that I am truly part of "the people". That is what gives me unending pride and devotion to the principles gauranteed by the Founding Fathers.
God bless them, each and every one.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
Yeager is much better than I at come-backs..but let me add this..
Firearms and World War 2 planes are very similiar...and I think you like WW2 Aircraft ,right Dowding?
WW2 Aircraft carried guns, weapons used against enemy of ones country and civilians there within..however they're used for sport as well (aircraft that is..or in the case of WW2 aircraft...Reno racing)
Guns are used against enemy of ones country and civilian's alike..however they're used for sport as well.
-
Dowding, are you hijacking this tax thread into gun control? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Thanks for pointing that out. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) I'd like to jump ship at this point, but I just need to say a few (hopefully) final words on this subject.
It lends powerful credibility to the historic differences that led to the initial flight from subjugated England and further demonstrates that those differences, although tempered by the American trend towards socialism, still exist today.
A very romantic vision of your country's history, and I'm sure they teach that very well from an early age.
I don't expect you to really pay any credence towards my opinions, but the way I see it, you seem to only find a sense of community when it is wrapped around the barrel of a gun. To me, that seems a very fragile, insecure patriotism with a touch of the anachronistic.
The world has moved on. Perhaps it's time move on with it.
Ripsnort, contrary to what you might think, I have nothing against guns per se. Outright bans are a little over the top; but I do believe that they should be exclusively used in registered gun clubs, and not in the home or on the streets.
-
The other side of this tax break coin is to stimulate the economy. By giving the people back the money they earned in the first place, allows them to spend it - putting it back into circulation. It allows the business owner to expand, creating more jobs. Sorry if you don't get it, but the wealthy run the place. How many of you are working for someone/company that's grossing < $100,000 annually? Us little guys are not the driving force in our economy. Personally I'd like to see the market hit 30k+ by the time I retire (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
yea i relly believe the rich should be taxed more heavily . and yes i do believe the middle and lower class is screwed by the republican party over and over. and yea i think any involvment of the church in politics is wrong. and yea i believe you will quote statistics that are roadkill to prove you point.
think about this. there are many more " poor " people than " rich " and the more "poor " people are gonna vote for the party aginst the "rich " people so your taxes are gonna go up like in every other democratic country on the planet . you can not win this one . the more you gain power thru intimidation and power brokering the more "poor" you create. you win the battle for us . mo matter what you do you taxes are gonna go up. "tax the rich till there are no rich no more" and by rich i dont mean 300 k a year people ( even though no one needs that much cash) i mean the hereditary rich like our president. not those who accomplish it thru personal work. call me a socialist call me a comunist call me a toejamhead but the future is clear you cant stop us. we are the majority in a democacy.
-
you cant stop us. we are the majority in a democacy.
====
You are the loafers and the freeloaders as well as the self described uneducated and drug infested. You are the criminals and the victims and the immoral perpepuators of sin bar none. And yes, you are everywhere and doing your damnedest to ruin it for the rest of us because you cant stand for anyone else to have anything that you dont.
You will not win because you are the enemies of the "the people"
Yeager (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well, I know I'm wasting my time, but here goes:
Towd,
Where do you personally set the income per year level for the "lower" and "middle" classes?
As for "you will quote statistics that are roadkill to prove you point. ", those are from the US IRS report on 1998 tax returns. They haven't released anything newer than that; it takes a while.
So, if they are BS, they are BS that follow almost exactly the percentages shown in the reports of the last 8 years. You think your favorite administration was telling them to "cook the books" during the last 8 years? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"tax the rich till there are no rich no more"
Ever think that one through? If there are no more rich, what's left? EVERYBODY will be poor...due to the way the world economy works.
Don't expect you to believe that though; basically it's what Eagler pointed out. However, I'm sure all the Economists and textbooks are wrong and you're right, as always. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"call me a socialist call me a comunist call me a toejamhead..."
According to my favorite Englishman, Winston Churchill, I believe you'd be a socialist." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
He had a few others that apply to this discussion too.
"I do not wonder that British youth is in revolt against the morbid doctrine that nothing matters but the equal sharing of miseries; that what used to be called the submerged tenth can only be rescued by bringing the other nine-tenths down to their level; against the folly that it is better that everyone should have half rations rather than that any by their exertions, or ability, should earn a second helping."
"All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. 'All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists."
Yeah, I think "socialist" fits ya. What do you think Dowding? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-08-2001).]
-
In all honesty he sounds more like a "Borg".
"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Seriously Towd, you appear to be the poster boy of what conservatives fear. On your behalf you admit what your political leaders won't; that by keeping the poor down and upset they have an endless supply of votes. We have too many government programs that do nothing but prolong impoverishment. These same impoverished do indeed vote, and they vote themselves more entitlements.
My eyes have been opened by this thread, though. I wasn't cynical enough to believe people believed the government had the right to take away hard-earned fruits of labor for no better reason than said government had deemed an unacceptable level of success had been reached.
Just curious though... I give to charity. I tithe a full one-tenth of my wages to my church, too. I know I am just a heartless conservative, but how about the people who believe the government should invade your earnings and take them from you if you make too much? Do you willingly give a substantial amount of your personal income to any cause? I am not asking for specifics, just curious how many really live as they say.
-
Kieren,
I was once in the seminary, studying to be a Catholic priest. To say that Jesus' eye of the needle saying was used out of context leaves me speechless. It's kind of like saying, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
To my righteous conservative bretheren,
You're all imperialistic interventionalist capitalists! Sleep well in you piles of green. Heh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
Just curious though... I give to charity. I tithe a full one-tenth of my wages to my church, too. I know I am just a heartless conservative, but how about the people who believe the government should invade your earnings and take them from you if you make too much? Do you willingly give a substantial amount of your personal income to any cause? I am not asking for specifics, just curious how many really live as they say.
Of course, Kieren. I give money to environmental groups all the time. I used to give money to the City's fire dept. until it turned into some slick production schtik. I used to give street people money all the time too until I stopped working in Pioneer Square(old part of Seattle downtown).
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Leonid, what about us that started our adult working lives with $100 and a suitcase full of clothes 1700 miles from the nearest relative, renting a room for $50 a month, sleeping on the floor near a hot plate for warmth, a pile of broken bricks used for tossing at the drunken and drugged bums trying to climb in the window from the nearby alley while flicking cockroaches out from the tattered blanket, eating snickers candy bars for lunch and dinner because I could not afford real food until I found a job?
Those of us that payed for our own education by working not only late evenings but 2 jobs just so we could afford to attend morning classes with little or no sleep?
Those of us who worked our tulips off to attain a 6 digit income for our families?
Those of us that devote our time to the underpriveledged, that give cash to childrens hospitals for terminally ill children?
You gonna penalized us that have payed the price of poverty, but managed to work our fingers to the bone and pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and didn't quit?
That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats:
Republicans want to bring those in the lower class up, Democrats want to drag those in the upper class down.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-08-2001).]
Rip, I think we should just agree to disagree. You see your past situation as an example of being able to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps due to living in a capitalistic society. I read your story, and the first thing that comes to my mind is that if America was a socialized democracy you never would've been in such dire straits to begin with.
-
I still don't believe the towd, leniods and StSanta's here. They have to be toejame stirring as no one can be that naive. They have to realize their political leaders spew their line for nothing more than personal gain, helping no one but themselves in the long run. Yes, towd and the like are plants. Just as the arguing caller on most radio programs, you have to do something to keep it lively. Pretty convincing, almost believed they believed, but no way in hell.. no one is that stupid (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Eagler-
I don't think I would disrespect them so far as to say they don't believe in their viewpoints. I have met people very much like them, and even if you are right in this case, there are people like that (as you say).
I don't think it is wrong to have the different viewpoints, as long as it is ok to disagree with them.
Leonid-
Ah, so you're one of those "damn Catholics"! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) In the Baptist religion that line apparently doesn't carry the same connotation you assign it. If you take a literalist approach, yes, it does mean you are better off poor. Still, it is what is in the heart that matters to God, and if you put money before God you have your feet in the fire, at least as far as Baptists go. If you keep God first there is nothing wrong with the wealth. The wealth is to be used for God's purposes, not selfish desires. Logically there could be no other explanation for Abraham, Isiah (sp), Moses, David, Solomon, etc.
"Better to cut off your right hand if it sins against you, than to have your entire soul thrown into the fire." Do I take that literally, too?
-
Leonid:"I read your story, and the first thing that comes to my mind is that if America was a socialized democracy you never would've been in such dire straits to begin with."
Leonid, I chose to take this route, I could have stayed in Minnesota, could have accepted my father's offer to attend the U of M, could have lived with him until I graduated...but I chose to EARN what I reap through life.
Socialized democracy, IMO, is nothing more than having everyone at one income level, with a poor socialized healthcare system where one would have to travel to another country for a serious medical condition, where one would have no inspiration to 'be the best he can be'..since no matter how hard you work, you would be taxed back into poverty, where free loaders flourish, where hard workers would be depressed seeing the freeloaders take advantage of 'the system'...where you have to be 'born' into the top 1% that has all the wealth in a social gov't, instead of going out and earning it with an expression or idea (See Bill Gates story).
No thank, I'll take capitalism. It provides inspiration for those of us that choose to reach his or her potential.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-09-2001).]
-
"It's not how much money you possess, but whether money possesses you."
- Unknown
Everything's a game and the game played in the western world is capitalism. The individual is informed that through effort he can achieve success. The funny thing is that when someone achieves success he's hated and people want to strip him of his hard-earned wealth!
The liberals rightly sense that something is wrong when they see the vast disparity in wealth between individuals. The problem lies in the capitalistic system itself and to rob someone from being successful at this game is a violation as now you change the rules in midstream.
The basic problem with our current form of capitalism is that its business model is based on that of a cancer cell. If you've ever sat in any corporate boardroom you've no doubt heard the mantra, profit, profit, profit! Any CEO that can't maintain a 20-40% yearly profit increase better get his golden parachute ready. This unrestricted growth can only result in one thing; self-destruction. After the earth is destroyed by strip mining, deforestation, air pollution and water poisoning what's left to exploit?
Any system that divorcees itself from the natural order is doomed to fail. The Soviet Union only lasted 70 years with its system of forced equality, which violated the right of the individual to reap the results of his effort. Capitalism being closer to the natural order will last longer than communism but it too will eventually come crashing down.
I will smite thee moneychanger! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
After the earth is destroyed by strip mining, deforestation, air pollution and water poisoning what's left to exploit?
====
Thats what NASA is for.
Yeager
-
Kieren,
It's okay, I'm getting used to the name calling here. It goes with being a liberal (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Thanks about explaining how Baptists interpret the Bible. It kind of helped me understand how Baptists view their religion.
-
Leonid, I'd really like your opinion on this question I asked:
"Leonid, please give us an absolutely unequivocable definition of "wealth" or "wealthy" in this tax debate. What level would be the "excess of financial means"? At what height on Maslow's hierarchy does this occur?"
Also what "names" have you been called here that were offensive to you?
Thx
-
With success comes money, with money comes a sense of accomplishment...in my case, watching a mutual fund grow for my childrens education should they choose to accept my gift of education.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Socialized democracy, IMO, is nothing more than having everyone at one income level, with a poor socialized healthcare system where one would have to travel to another country for a serious medical condition, where one would have no inspiration to 'be the best he can be'..since no matter how hard you work, you would be taxed back into poverty, where free loaders flourish, where hard workers would be depressed seeing the freeloaders take advantage of 'the system'...where you have to be 'born' into the top 1% that has all the wealth in a social gov't, instead of going out and earning it with an expression or idea (See Bill Gates story).
No thank, I'll take capitalism. It provides inspiration for those of us that choose to reach his or her potential.
Rip, France has the best healthcare system in the world, and it's a socialized democracy. Canada is the best place to live in the world, and it's a socialized democracy(of sorts). I don't know what you're thinking when you think socialized democracy, but it's not communism. America has a lot of points of excellence, but it also has some very nasty pitfalls in between. It doesn't have to be this way.
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Rip, France has the best healthcare system in the world, and it's a socialized democracy. Canada is the best place to live in the world, and it's a socialized democracy(of sorts). I don't know what you're thinking when you think socialized democracy, but it's not communism. America has a lot of points of excellence, but it also has some very nasty pitfalls in between. It doesn't have to be this way.
Here you go: www.im.aa.com/American?BV_Operation=Dyn_AAPage&referer=index.html&form%25referrer_site=http%3A//navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/262/default.asp%3Frealname%3DAmerican+Airli (http://www.im.aa.com/American?BV_Operation=Dyn_AAPage&referer=index.html&form%25referrer_site=http%3A//navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/262/default.asp%3Frealname%3DAmerican+Airli) nes%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww%252Eaa%252Ecom%252F%26frameid%3D1%26providerid%3D262%26uid%3D30156607
don't let us stop you, take towd with you please (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Leonid, if you want static, permanent classes, raise taxes. The single greatest obstacle to class mobility, aside from education (complete different thread) is the tax load slogging down the economy.
Despite visions of a redistributed nirvana, you end up with the rich more conservative, milking every dollar they can out of their position. Taxes allow little chance for competition to arise and break into monopolies, because with taxes you've added approximately 100% to the baseline price of any given product.
Let's set aside the immediate inflationary pressures it adds and look only at someone taxed another, say, 5%. An average worker under a serious tax burden (and I do tend to label ours serious. Not terrible, but it's no joke either) looking higher to see an even higher tax burden, is extremely unlikely to take the risk of entrepreneureal enterprise, only to hit that next tax bracket as he struggles to keep his company off the ground.
Or working for the stoic conservative company, content to hold its place in the overweighted marketplace, never expanding, never hiring more.
Your need to elimate "wasteful earning"(?) is admirable, though I've mentioned it before Aces High is exactly the kind of lone venture excessive taxation discourages.
All of this ignoring for a moment that everyone seems to have accepted without question these types of taxes have led to an entire job sector of the economy that adds nothing to the economy, simply interprets jarbled tax code.
Towd, that's some chip you got there, the amatuer psychological conclusions to explain it are mind boggling, a topic to themselves.
-
Leonid, if you consider high taxes and lowering the health care standards 'great'..then by all means, move there, we prefer to keep our world-leading medical research and substantially lower tax rates intact. Why do you think people come here from Canada for health care?
Incidently, not to disrepect Denmark...but..I hear they have free education, socialist system but a very high tax bracket, close to 75% Santa? I was offered a Contract job over there, making double what I made here...after doing a research of possible places to live, eat, cost of living (via single friend that is over there living)...I decided it was a cut in pay due to the fact of THE TAXES.
So, if you bring children into the world, is it the tax payers responsibility to educate them further than grades 1-12? Or is it a parents responsibility?
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-09-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Leonid, if you consider high taxes and lowering the health care standards 'great'..then by all means, move there, we prefer to keep our world-leading medical research and substantially lower tax rates intact. Why do you think people come here from Canada for health care?
Rip, you've seen too many comercials paid by HMOs which in turn got money bu butt f_____ you on every pair of gloves that was used to scan your ID card as you walked into the hospital.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
No, FD-SKI, real stories from real people,you forget my wife is not only an RN at a level 4 trauma intensive care unit, of only which there are 8 in the country, but she is also an instructor at the University of Washington, one of the top schools in medicine.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-09-2001).]
-
Hey, like I said, agree to disagree, Rip. At this point we're just banging our bald heads together.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Hey, like I said, agree to disagree, Rip. At this point we're just banging our bald heads together.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Hehe, yep! Tis okay to disagree, if we couldn't, no one would ever be married!
<S> Leonid!
-
Eagler,
I ain't leaving until I've given up hope of seeing this country becoming more socially conscious and responsible of its own citizens. Namely, turning it into a real community, instead of one big business transaction. Maybe I should change my callsign to Gracchus (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Hehe, yep! Tis okay to disagree, if we couldn't, no one would ever be married!
<S> Leonid!
LOL! That's a good one, Rip <S!>
-
It amazes me that people want to change that which made this country great in the first place. Without the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, the Gettys, the Gates, etc of this country, it would not be what it is today. Everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to change their standing in life. The CHOICE however is totally up to them to make. No one is forcing the poor to stay poor. In fact, the opposite is true if you look at our current taxation levels. The problem with the country today is there are too many people who think that success is owed to them, and they don't want to put forth the effort to strive for it themselves.
-
Leonid-
I do hope you understand I meant no offense on that Catholic comment? Just a joke, really, and I think you took it that way, but you never know...
-
<Rip buys Raub a virtual beer>
-
Guys,
Bush already won on this one.......
The question isn't IF there will be a tax cut, but how big and whose?
Cobra
-
Aw, Leonid...you're not going to define your terms?
-
He heeee, am gonna get me tax cut (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The Libs are going to take it in the butt!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
TAX CUT, TAX CUT, TAX CUT NA,NA,NAA,NA,HAAaa (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So, what does the leader of the democrats,Al Gore, think of the tax cut? Al? Al? Where are you AL? Anyone seen Al?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 02-10-2001).]
-
I dont know why Im doing this but....what the heck.
In a perfect world people with the God given ability to succeed in society would help those in need without being forced to do so. Unfortunately the sad reality is that most humans dont really give a damn about anyone but themselves. Governments allow the higher mind of humanity to prevail where humans alone would not do the right thing. Without Government we would not have gone to the moon, neutralized the threat of communism, or helped the poor. To think that everyone has the capability of achieving self actualization or even getting enough food to live in todays society is false. Everything that one gains in this life is attributable to God and NOT onself. Taxing the rich is not communism....its morality.
-
Kieren,
None taken, guy. I'm a Buddhist now, but part of me will always be Catholic (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) There's definitely something to be said about taking something to heart, so I can only respect that about Baptist (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Toad,
Sorry, but I'm not going to play that game with you. This is not about debating for me, but has more to do with finding a common ground.
While going to college in Hawaii, I played an awful lot of soccer, and it's still my favorite sport. We used to have pick-up games on campus down in the quarry where all the fields were. A large number of guys from Hong Kong used to show up, and I got to know them fairly well. Even was on their team for a year in amateur league. Well, the people from Hong Kong had a peculiar way of picking teams for ad hoc games. Basically, we all just formed one line, then one by one, starting with the first in line, we'd each call out 'One!' or 'Two!' in an alternating fashion: 1-2-1-2-1-2-1. Once done all the 'Ones' formed a team, and the 'Twos' formed another. It goes without saying that some games were a bit lopsided, and that bothered me. Finally, I went to one of me Hong Kong friends and said we should just pick two captains, and have them choose players one by one until everyone was picked. He kind of dismissed it, but didn't really say anything further. So, I pressed on, trying to convince him why it would be a good thing, resulting in more even teams. Finally, he just said it wouldn't be good, which had me confused at first. Then it dawned on me why they picked teams the 1-2 way. No one was ever hurt by being picked last. I never brought that up again.
Like this example, we can choose to go for freedom of opportunity at the possible expense of our fellow man. Or, we can forego the possibility of great individual wealth, yet insure that every citizen is well cared for.
-
Leonid, <please read it all before hitting the reply switch>
It seems to me then that you are simply not interested in discussing this subject. Rather you wish to state YOUR position, implyling that all other positions are incorrect and then leave the thread.
Sorry, but this seems a lot like "intolerance" to me. If you're really interested in "seeing this country becoming more socially conscious and responsible of its own citizens" it would seem that you will have to educate those of us that don't meet your standards.
That's why I asked you to define the term "wealthy". You propose "penalizing" those who accumlate wealth, partially I suppose, through the progressive taxation system.
All right then. Let's look at the stats again:
1998 Tax Statistics
% Of Taxpayers/Income Split Point/Group's Share of Total Taxes
Top 1% - above $269,496 pay 34.8%
Top 5% - above $114,729 pay 53.8%
Top 10% - above $83,220 pay 65.0%
Top 25% - above $50,607 pay 82.7%
Top 50% - above $25,491 pay 95.8%
Bottom 50% - below $25,491 pay 4.2%
I think most people would consider those in the top 1% as "wealthy". They are paying about 35% of the total US tax bill already.
Perhaps most would also consider the top 5% "wealthy" as they are all above "six figures". This group is paying ~54% of all US taxes.
I doubt many would consider the $83k - $114K group as "wealthy". Well-off perhaps but certainly not what most people consider incredibly rich.
So looking at the top 1% and 5% respectively, how much more of the tax burden do you suggest they shoulder? I assume that this would allow releasing those in the bottom 50% from any obligation at all, since the 4% is essentially negligible if we increase the upper bracket share of taxes.
In short, what do you suggest given these statistics? Or do you not want to talk about it other than to generalize that we phillistine capitalists don't meet your personal moral standards? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Further, please look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Surely you've stumbled across Maslow in your studies?
(http://teach.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.gif)
http://www.connect.net/georgen/maslow.htm (http://www.connect.net/georgen/maslow.htm)
"Maslow set up a hierarchical theory of needs. The animal or physical needs were placed at the bottom, and the human needs at the top. This hierarchic theory can be seen as a pyramid, with the base occupied be people who are not focused on values, but just staying alive. A person who is starving dreams about food, thinks about food and nothing else. Each level of the pyramid is some what dependent on the previous level for most people. <Note: I think this is a KEY point. You move up one level at a time, without skipping a level. Toad> Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (rephrased) includes seven levels:
Physiological Needs. Biological needs such as oxygen, food, water, warmth/coolness, protection from storms and so forth. These needs are the strongest because if deprived, the person could or would die.
Safety Needs. Felt by adults during emergencies, periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Felt more frequently by children who often display signs of insecurity and their need to be safe.
Love, Affection and Belongingness Needs. The needs to escape loneliness and alienation and give (and receive) love, affection and the sense of belonging.
Esteem Needs. Need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self confident and valuable. If these needs are not met, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
Self-actualization Needs. Maslow describes self-actualization as an ongoing process. Self-actualizing people are... involved in a cause outside their own skin. The are devoted, work at something, something very precious to them--some calling or vocation, in the old sense, the priestly sense. When you select out of a careful study, very fine and healthy people, strong people, creative people, saintly people, sagacious people... you get a different view of mankind. You ask how tall can people grow, what can a human being become?"
Leonid, I will suggest to you, given Maslow's theory, that "wealth" is not necessarily dependent upon income. I will suggest that "true wealth" begins when one has reached the "self-actualization" level of Maslow's hierarchy. Further, my hypothesis is that, until that point, no matter how much money a person makes, that individual isn't going to be truly interested in creating your personal idea of a basically "socialist utopia" here in the US.
Obviously, different people reach that level in different ways. I suspect Mother Teresa reached it much earlier and with far less money than the johnny-come-lately philanthropist Bill Gates.
My point is, it's NOT just about money, although money (for some) is a key factor in ascending Maslow's pyramid.
Therefore, a simplistic "tax the rich" solution is highly unlikely to generate the necessary level of Self-Actualization Needs that will accomplish your personal goals for the US.
In fact, I think it is likely to have exactly the opposite effect on those that have the most to share. It may well delay the reaching of the Self-Actualization level in those most able to "do good works".
Sorry this is so long.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-10-2001).]
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Like this example, we can choose to go for freedom of opportunity at the possible expense of our fellow man. Or, we can forego the possibility of great individual wealth, yet insure that every citizen is well cared for.
----------------------------------------------
Good Grief!! This has never worked and will never work!!! This kind of thinking has always produced the destruction of society and the human spirit!! The "well cared for" are being destroyed by your thinking. They will have no incentive to do better if you are willing to "help" them. Sure it makes you feel good and you are viewed as the compassionate one, however, you are destroying that persons ability to figure out how he can improve his situation!! Ya, in your mind it may seem harsh,but in reality a hand up is worth a heck of alot more than a handout!!
Government has no hand in "helping" people. Government only makes people dependent on government!!!
Each of us is given the ability to withstand any situation. Each has his or her way of dealing with it. Turning to government isn't the answer for any of us in a situation!! Each has to find his own way out of the situation. That is the way it has been and that is the way it will always be!! No if's, no ands, no buts!!
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 02-10-2001).]
-
Sounds like some people need to read "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
Then again maybe it's the "soma" that has already influenced their thinking and motivation..
Eagler
-
its the future baby , the excesses of the wealthy lead to socialism in every democracy. see the poor outnumber the rich and eventualy win every battle . god i love democracy.
muhaaaaaa power to the people baby!!!
-
leonid and -towd-,
what do you guys do for a living?
do you guys have families?
Any children?
Do your montly bills include school tuition?
a new set of books every year?
braces for kids?
car payment?
mortgage perhaps?
have you started a college fund?
have you started to save for the retirenment, or are you relying on Social Security?
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 02-10-2001).]
-
"Self actualization is idiosyncratic, since every person is different....The individual [must do] what *he*, individually, is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man *can* be he *must* be (Maslow, 1968, p.33; 170b, p. 46)."
If yah ain't got the dough to be a musician, yer screwed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Maslow's pyramide has also come under fire. Some say he has an overly optimistic view of human nature, which is only helped a little by his acceptance of Freudian principles. Some people think his ecclecticism isn't that well constructed; more like a picking and choosing of favourite theorists while excluding others.
In his study of self actualization he also define individuals subjectively and then apply his own personal criteria. Some suggest this means that the behaviour he characterizes is an ideal one, based on his personal tastes, and not the truth. And the sample is not big enough to be statistically valid.
There's also a problem with the empiricism involved - Malsow claims that his theories are empirically testable, but modern pshychologists disagree. Toad is hinting at this also. Mostly because his constructs are vague and imprecise and give no measure of the level of satisfaction needed to go from one level to another.
[An introduction to theories of personalities, fifth edition, Robert B Ewen, ISBN 0-8058-2719-6]
One can also quite easily argue that steps higher in the hierarchy can be reached despite lower ones not having been met - a need to know as a substitute for absent love, or whatnot.
Despite this, overall, I think he probably is quite close to the truth with the pyramide, even if some of his support for it could be stronger.
Money is a major player when it comes to self actualization - they can prevent you from becoming what you must become. Not the only player, but a significant one.
Then again, we are all really in our hearts owners of the Playboy mag (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 02-11-2001).]
-
Santa that was a pretty cogent review.
I'd give Maslow a good rating overall, especially considering the period in which he published his ideas, but I do see some of the same faults you mention. I wouldn't argue with his first two steps on the pyramid; they seem pretty obvious. After that...yes, he's getting into the "it depends" area and it depends on the person.
Just MHO.
However, you will note that the "bomb-throwers" NEVER address this sort of thing. The leonids and the blurs just toss in an explosive statement, raise a bit of heck, point out that the world <or most of this community> isn't as pure as they are and then beat feet out of the thread. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Points to you and Dowding for at least having the balls to hang around and try to defend/explain your positions.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
....and points to towd for always providing the comic relief!
-
toad like it better when you are posting roadkill made up storys about war. at least its better than the psudointellectual crap your spouting now.
it ever occur to you that the 50% of people who pay 4% of the tax pay the bills that kill? work dead end 70 hour a week jobs for rabid aggresive managers who are rewarded for screwing people. they have no real hope of improvement till they are put out to pasture with a 200 buck check to keep them warm.
ohh yea they arent intelligent like the cream of the crop that gets 90% of the goods and services and then fixes the system so that mostly the rest gets nothing. have seen this same argument over and over . it leads nowhere but the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. some of us are turncoats who have seen the insidious evil that is american capitalism and how it erodes what was a decent middle class country to the part time no benifits pile o crap that tipifies the american experience now.
the upper clase of this country lives not of their own labor but off the backs of the poor always has always will . throwing around graphs and neat sounding bull crap is well and good . but its really just crap to make you feel better. if the richest 5% up and left this country it would be the best thing that ever happend to this country ( since they made the richest 5% of this country quit enslaving people)
self actualization my hairy ass. trancendence ask somone at a inner city high school what that means. he will probly shoot you .
nice try tho
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
transcendence ask someone at a inner city high school what that means. he will probably shoot you .
And what, give to everything and everyone is even?? This type couldn't handle it. Look at your million dollar rap stars and athletes. You can take the boy out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy ...
get a grip and work for what you want, it'll have value then..
Eagler
-
I frankly can't understand the troubles you got with tax.It depend heavily on the return of what you pay for...
ie : each month about 5% of my total income go directly to the equivalent of the french health care system (medical system to be more precise) .
But in case I've an accident who for exemple left me paralytic my familly and I will be supported by the whole nation even if I'm no more able to have a proper job and we will be able to live without major problem and my daughter will have the same access to education/high school so I'm an happy tax payer.
That's my point of views (provided I've correctly understand the posts above)
-
"Insidious evil that is American capitalism"?
Try the Japanese work model- you know, no individual, only the company good.
Towd, this is precisely why we have workers' unions in America, you know, to protect the rights of the workers. I might add these unions are pretty powerful, and have raised the benefits and wages of hourly workers around the country.
On your other vein, yes, our economy is turning from a production economy to a service economy. Yes, there are many people working part-time. I myself needed three jobs to stay in college. Guess what? It paid off. I stuck with it and managed to get a degree, and have been doing just fine ever since.
Want to know something else, the dirty little secret of all societies? The world doesn't owe you a living. America is the land of opportunity- but only that. It isn't guaranteed success. You seem to be saying that people have little chance of succeeding, and sorry, I see too many people making it every day. You say the poor are getting poorer- just how do you define that? By the administration's lowering of the poverty standard?
I would never deny we have poor. I would never say that there are not people who honestly need help. I will say that our welfare system is abused by people who want nothing more than something for nothing. I think that many politicians refuse to address that abuse as this is a political stronghold, a sure source of votes (as you have already admitted). What galls me is that you are ready to have the government come in and take from me, a person that was raised poor, what I have worked a lifetime to acquire and give it to someone who will not help themselves.
I am religious, as you know. I know we must help our fellow man. I have no problem with charity, and giving to the needy. I do however have a problem with a society that gives and gives and gives without any accountability from the recipient- what are they doing to improve their situation?
Not everyone who is poor is just some poor guy who caught a bad break, neither are they all crack potatos. And again, America doesn't guarantee success to everyone, only the opportunity to succeed. You make the most of the chances you get, work hard, and be the best person you can be.
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 02-12-2001).]
-
I agree with Kieren on all of that ESPECALLY the Japanise work model, its just plain disgusting, People are encouraged to put work ahead of everything even and ESPECALLY family, it is not uncommon for a worker to be denied permission to leave work for a reason as trivial as his wife going into labor, I remember reading a while back how a auto plant worker who had worked for a company there for over 9 years was FIRED when he left work against the "orders" of his boss....His reason: His son was hit by a car and was in the hospital in a coma.
Thats just one example and not even a very extreme one by their standards.
Often Men are denied a job position just because they have a family, beause they wouldent want a worker that would be constantly distracted by something as trivial as a life.
Next time anyone wants to bash the US work system think of that crap going on over there.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-12-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
It's as easy as "pie" to see who's paying the overwhelming percentage of taxes in the US.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm (http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm)
Projected Income Tax Burden for 1999
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/legend.gif)
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/whopays-pie99.gif)
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/legend.gif)
(http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/whopays_area0.gif)
"An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder."
A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive.
Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes!
To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)"
Yeah, tell me again that it's not fair to give EVERYONE at tax cut.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-08-2001).]
Dang it Mr. Perot. LOL!
All I can say is that if Allen Greenspan says we can afford a tax cut if we don't get to crazy with the surplus money I believe him. That's one SMART SOB when it comes to M O N E Y. I will take Allen's word on this one and no one else. It just so happens that it agrees with Bush's. So be it. The economy is more an art than a sience and any economist will tell you that. Allen's been at it for A LONG time. He's not always right but he's the best man to ask.
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-12-2001).]
-
Towd, you ever figure out there are classifications above Top Secret? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) Say, what rank did you end up with, anyway? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Yeah, that Maslow…what a pseudo-intellectual! I’ll bet he would have wished that he had your in-depth insight into problems!
if the richest 5% up and left this country it would be the best thing that ever happened to this country ( since they made the richest 5% of this country quit enslaving people)
Like that incredibly incisive view right there. If the richest 5% left the country, EVERYTHING would be better. You’ve studied that and figured it right out!
Of course, your National tax income would drop by 53.8% and thus your entire government organization would collapse. I’m sure you could cover that by lowering the taxes for the bottom 50%, right? Like I said, you always provide the comic relief with your carefully thought out ideas.
Ever done any research into the percentage of taxation that drives investment AWAY from creating new jobs and into tax avoidance schemes? Try it sometime. There’s some great info from Sweden and the US available on the web. Careful, though…it’ll challenge your ideas about taxation. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Wait..no..that's knowledge..it'll make you break out in a rash!
BTW, Maslow would perfectly understand why "self-actualization" and "transcendence" would be alien concepts to many "inner-city
high school" students. In fact, his theories pretty much explain that situation. You might too, if you ever did a little research into Maslow and his pals instead of just complaining that "life isn’t fair!"
Hey, did you ever stop to think if you got to remake America in your image there probably wouldn’t be an AH? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Kill those steeenking CAPITALISTS!!!
The chances of the US going the way you desire in the next 50 years (if ever) are slim and none… (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
no idea what is higher than top secret super duper secret? hell i didnt want top secret. and i was a lowly e4.
now that you mention sweden , i have spent some time there . lets see one of the coldest countrys in the world and how many people feeze to death none. how many weeks vacation garenteed was it 4 or 5 . health care garenteed. crime low as hell . not to say it didnt have problems. national sport cheating on taxes. it was a damb sight less mean than,lets take texas for instance.
socialism is the only chance this country has or do you think we can keep havin a smaller and smaller percentage of the population own more and more of every thing forever . we all gonna rent from the 2 % that own every damb thing ? right now in texas we are seeing the effects of mr bushes tax efforts.we are running out of money and the taxes never went down hmmmmm. his responce "im glad i dont have to deal with it"
the middle class in this country is being disenfranchised by the unquenchable thirst for money the wealthy seem to have . people here in texas that payed 80 bucks for natural gas last year are payin 400 bucks for the same amount this year. opec? hell no the gas comes from right here in texas its price gouging. i can name scame to screw the poor after scam .who the hell is gonna buy things from the wealthy when they have all the money?
if somthing dosent happen soon really bad things are gonna happen . but with bush in office i think it will be brought to a head much sooner.
also if 5 % of the country owns 60 percent of the property why they hell shouldent they pay more tax when they are using more services? you always seem to miss that point.
mayby you dont see it from your vaulted position but the streets are getting meaner and meaner . your way is just to make the whole thing worse. they manjority was foiled this election but not for ever .move to another non socialistic democacy if you can find one ,crap there isent one now is there?.
think about that.
-
You know what the absolute best thing about our society is?
ANYONE can join the top 5% tax bracket. It's not an exclusive club.
You have to be focused. You have to know where you want to go. You have to understand the concept of money. You have to be able to distinguish between a true asset and a true liability. You have to be willing to work your butt off. You have to be willing to postpone the "instant gratification" syndrome that seems to infect a large percentage of the population.
If you can do those things, you can make it.
I have no problem helping those who for a LEGITIMATE reason cannot help themselves. The sick, the old, the mentally disadvantaged and so forth. We SHOULD take care of them and we could do much better.
My problem is with those who sit on their rears and expect the world to come to them and fulfill their every wish and whim.
The opportunity is there. The only real question is "will you maximize it?". Some people aren't willing to work that hard and that's the simple truth.
also if 5 % of the country owns 60 percent of the property why they hell shouldent they pay more tax when they are using more services? you always seem to miss that point.
Without trying to verify your 5%/60% statement, I'll assume it could be true. I'm sure you are aware of PROPERTY tax as a separate and distinct tax? It's not income tax. Property owners pay property tax. Houses, cars, tires...all include taxes that "use services". Drive a lot? Use a lot of tires? You pay more than the guy who doesn't. The whole economy is full of user taxes. Toll booths on a freeway?
Income tax is NOT a user tax; at least its not supposed to be.
You really should do a little research into tax rates and tax avoidance and the effect it has on an economy. I'm sure you'll discount anything said about the US economy. However, type "tax rate avoidance Sweden" into google and do a little reading. You like how things turned out in Sweden right? See what they figured out about taxes.
Wanna know how I got to my "vaulted position"?
Here's the short version. My folks sent me to a good Catholic Grade School. That was given to me.
I worked after school in 7th and 8th grade because I knew I wanted to go to a good Jesuit High School and it was damn expensive. (My dad was a military officer with 4 kids and supported his mom and my maternal grandfather on THAT pay in the 50's and 60's.)
I studied hard enough to get accepted and I worked 5 nights a week after school for $50 a month to pay my tuition to the Jesuit High School.
I studied hard and graduated smart enough to get and AFROTC scholarship to college. I worked at a gas station throughout college to pay my living expenses. I went to pilot training and served for nearly 7 years.
I applied to 30 airlines when I got out and only one even acknowledged receiving the app. Nobody was hiring. Nobody. Just as my savings ran out, I got hired.
The first year I made 33% of what I had made in the AF. The second year I made about 65% of what I made in the AF. The third year I almost made what I made in the AF. In my 10th year, I more than doubled what I made in the AF. It's been downhill ever since.
Through all of that, I invested. Put off buying the cool toys and the big house.
I made it. I essentially started with nothing.
Nothing special about me, either. ANYONE can do it...if they're willing to work...and educate themselves.
Bet you hate me even more now, eh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I bet the Democrats are raising eyebrows after the first part of this week.
Bush has stated that he is not interested in persuing investigations against Mr. Clinton's final week in office... he'd rather let the whole thing go. He has also stated that he's not against giving the military more money, he just wants to take a closer look at what its being spent on.
How can a D argue with either of those?
AKDejaVu