Author Topic: Red states are welfare queens? (Read 2131 times)

Toad · « **Reply #105 on:** May 19, 2004, 12:55:06 PM »

Well then try this experiment.

Use your "Dude" login personna but change your sig block to "TheDudeFormerlyKnownAsXXXX" or whatever your former BBS "name" was. Then everyone would know who they were having a discussion with.

If you got banned again, you'd get another chance for an explanation or perhaps folks could explain it to you when you came back the 3rd time.

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #106 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:20:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well then try this experiment.

Use your "Dude" login personna but change your sig block to "TheDudeFormerlyKnownAsXXXX" or whatever your former BBS "name" was. Then everyone would know who they were having a discussion with.

If you got banned again, you'd get another chance for an explanation or perhaps folks could explain it to you when you came back the 3rd time.

Great idea.. Suppose I could have done that but didnt know if the powers that be would have banned me again just cause..

Besides, you know who I am.. Had anyone asked me here, I would have told.. What is to hide on this board anyhow.. I dont figure anyone here will kick my bellybutton in the MA.. hahaha

dude

add: Least I would have told anyone during the last few months.. hehe Maybe not at the very beginning.. just cause it was kinda fun.. Not like I was after anyone..

Toad · « **Reply #107 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:22:07 PM »

Afraid of getting banned again? For what?

Anyway, couldn't you just reinvent yourself again.

Haven't seen you clearly identify yourself as to your former posting ID as yet. Did I miss it?

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #108 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:29:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Afraid of getting banned again? For what?

Anyway, couldn't you just reinvent yourself again.

Haven't seen you clearly identify yourself as to your former posting ID as yet. Did I miss it?

Still dont know why I got banned to begin with. Like I said I figured someone took me personnal and banned me. It's silly to think it does not happen because some here cannot be banned no matter what they type..

I suppose I could but I really liked this name/proxy.. Well, the proxy sucks at times.. But the name has been w/ me a long time..

I guess I missed it.. Thought you knew and thought I saw my name in your last post .. hehe MiniP I guess has been asking all round since the love post I left him at the ck6 site.. thanks Estes...

TheDudeDVant formaly known as kappa 8)

lazs2 · « **Reply #109 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:42:30 PM »

I really have to agree... Although MT and others, and myself have had heated discussions from time to time... I know who they are... they don't change their "byline" .... I have even met some of the people I argue with. Can put a face to em.

If a person is getting beat up so bad under one handle because he is full of it.... what makes em think another handle is gonna improve things.

When I got banned I just set it out.

lazs

strk · « **Reply #110 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:47:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, rich folks hire accountants and tax lawyers to protect their money from folks like Strk. Big suprise there, right? Because ~37% isn't enough and 49% won't be enough and eventually 63% won't be enough, etc., etc., etc.

Do a little research, the Swedes did. See what the found out happens to your tax system and economy as top tax rates approach 40%.

The gist of it is that people, even rich people, don't always act like cows to be milked.

So ~37% isn't enough for you to feel figure they are finally paying at "higher level of support to the system" because they can afford tax accountants?

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

IIRC correctly the top rates under Eisenhower were around 48%. He was a republican, too I believe.

I see that you want to shill for the rich, but in my humble we should not be giving tax cuts to people who don't need it in the middle of a war. And if taxes need to be raised, for the common defense or the general welfare, than we should look LAST to those at the bottom of the income ladder, because those folks are the ones who can least sustain more expenses.

Im not for raising taxes unless we have to. In fact, I am more fiscally conservative than you might think. I think that the US should be run on an absolute budget with no deficits. Also we could save hundreds of billions from the budget by paying down the national debt so that we dont have to pay the interest on that debt. - 318 Billion to service the debt in 2003. That doesnt make good fiscal sense. Just servicing the debt is almost as much as our military budget!

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm

I we can lower taxes, then great. But we need to focus on a few things first - getting out of Iraq one we have fulfilled our obligation, improving our nation's infrastructure, public schools, and health care, and paying off the national debt. I think these things are more important than tax cuts. This is the general welfare the constitution speaks of, and the time for these efforts is long past.

strk · « **Reply #111 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:54:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Still dont know why I got banned to begin with. Like I said I figured someone took me personnal and banned me. It's silly to think it does not happen because some here cannot be banned no matter what they type..

I suppose I could but I really liked this name/proxy.. Well, the proxy sucks at times.. But the name has been w/ me a long time..

I guess I missed it.. Thought you knew and thought I saw my name in your last post .. hehe MiniP I guess has been asking all round since the love post I left him at the ck6 site.. thanks Estes...

TheDudeDVant formaly known as kappa 8)

kappa buddy. I didnt know that was you. Perhaps you could vouch for my persona, as it hasnt changed since 1996 or so . . .

what in the world did you get banned for?

Toad · « **Reply #112 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:02:38 PM »

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I see you can't answer the question.

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?

Secondly, if you've spent in the five digit range helping Seniors pay their medical bills in the last 12 months, talk to me about contributing to a National Healthcare plan, OK? Because I have, and it was MY money... not someone else's. That's just one place I've contributed lately.

I don't mind if you feel you and your like-minded compatriots want to do "something good". I'd just like to see you contribute YOUR money before you go contributing someone else's money.

As to your post:

You don't recall correctly. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 90%. Theft on a grand scale, just because it has been recorded, doesn't make it right.

Shill for the rich? LOL. How about "protesting against theft".

Look, Strk, all you can propose is how good it would be to spend someone else's money. Dress it up all you like, stick in all your platitudes but that's all you've got to say.

Your one of the guys that wants to spend someone else's money.

Here, let me give you a link, since you're so interested in paying down the national debt. I'm sure you want to do more than your share.

Pay Down The Public Debt

Quote

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

Please follow these important steps to make a contribution to reduce the debt.

Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"

In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public "

Mail check to -

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

But that would be YOUR money, wouldn't it? Paying off all those "good things" the government provided to you and the rest of us. So, are you going to contribute for those things you received?

I guessing the answer to that is "NO!"

Taker.

strk · « **Reply #113 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:04:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Afraid of getting banned again? For what?

Anyway, couldn't you just reinvent yourself again.

Haven't seen you clearly identify yourself as to your former posting ID as yet. Did I miss it?

when I got banned (the last time - 2nd of 2) - my ISP was blocked and I could not even see the boards from my home ISP. At work I could see them, but have zero time to dick around on the BB.

I never created a second account out of respect for Skuzzy and HT. If they don't want me here Im not going to post here, I would just go back to BW where I have posted for years. The only one there who makes fun of me when I come back is Culero, who is known to be a pot-stirrer.

Toad · « **Reply #114 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:09:47 PM »

OH, btw.

Sweden found that as tax rates approach 40%, more effort is put into tax avoidance and tax evasion than creating more income/jobs.

In short, they LOST tax money as rates approached 40% due to "shadow economy" techniques, legal tax sheltering methods that became financially favorable and outright fraud and tax evasion.

You can't milk the people with abandon without expecting defense mechanisims to appear.

Toad · « **Reply #115 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:11:37 PM »

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?

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #116 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:39:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
OH, btw.

Sweden found that as tax rates approach 40%, more effort is put into tax avoidance and tax evasion than creating more income/jobs.

In short, they LOST tax money as rates approached 40% due to "shadow economy" techniques, legal tax sheltering methods that became financially favorable and outright fraud and tax evasion.

You can't milk the people with abandon without expecting defense mechanisims to appear.

And infact this is happening right now in america.. Again I point to a prime example being Enron. By including Enron I mean the corporation, the excutives, and many other high level employees that worked/work there and places like it.

I dont believe anyone here is condoning the act of taxing the rich to poverty. Infact, the point has been made that the rich could pay more with out a substantial loss in their individual quality of life. It is not that difficult for the rich to hide their money in corporations (not neccesarly manufacturing corps.), offshore accounts, or other money accounts and have zero tax liablility on said money.

There is generally a difference in the amount owed by a rich/smart individual's tax bracket and what is actually paid.. I will even go so far to say that it is very possible that a millionaire can have a smaller % of tax liability then your average middle class worker making $60k/yr...

dude

Mini D · « **Reply #117 on:** May 19, 2004, 03:51:38 PM »

OK.. the two trolls are out.

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.

MiniD

Toad · « **Reply #118 on:** May 19, 2004, 03:59:16 PM »

Cripes, I have to salute that.

That's about as clear as anyone can make it.

Not that they'll get it, of course. Just that it can't be any clearer.

strk · « **Reply #119 on:** May 19, 2004, 11:31:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I see you can't answer the question.

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?

Secondly, if you've spent in the five digit range helping Seniors pay their medical bills in the last 12 months, talk to me about contributing to a National Healthcare plan, OK? Because I have, and it was MY money... not someone else's. That's just one place I've contributed lately.

I don't mind if you feel you and your like-minded compatriots want to do "something good". I'd just like to see you contribute YOUR money before you go contributing someone else's money.

As to your post:

You don't recall correctly. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 90%. Theft on a grand scale, just because it has been recorded, doesn't make it right.

Shill for the rich? LOL. How about "protesting against theft".

Look, Strk, all you can propose is how good it would be to spend someone else's money. Dress it up all you like, stick in all your platitudes but that's all you've got to say.

Your one of the guys that wants to spend someone else's money.

Here, let me give you a link, since you're so interested in paying down the national debt. I'm sure you want to do more than your share.

Pay Down The Public Debt

But that would be YOUR money, wouldn't it? Paying off all those "good things" the government provided to you and the rest of us. So, are you going to contribute for those things you received?

I guessing the answer to that is "NO!"

Taker.

Actually I had over 16k of out of pocket medical expenses in 2003. I changed my insurance company because the scam artists I did have refused to pay for everything. Its tough finding health insurance when you are a small business owner.

Re the national debt - Ill match you dollar for dollar, patriot. Maybe we could start a movement to pay down that debt. I wish that the taxes I already pay went to pay it down, but that isnt happenning any more. Not since * took office. I don't want my kids and your kids or anyone else's kids to have to pay that. And think what we could do with an extra 300 billion or so we use to pay the carrying costs. We could give real tax breaks! Giving them now, with a war on is irresponsible.

I dont want to spend other peoples money. I want my money and everyone elses to be spent in the common good by our elected representatives. Not corporate welfare and not to be given back so that we run deficits and the high end earners get 30k plus back. That doesnt make fiscal sense to me. And it isnt fair for you to try to paint me as someone who thinks they know better than everyone else, like Im the one making the decisions, or think I should be, because you dont know me at all.

* isnt spending less, he is just lowering tax rates. Guess what, it needs to be paid back, with interest. Do you run your household budget that way? Do you buy stuff on credit cards when you cant afford them, and let the debt keep piling up until you are paying ONE THIRD or so of your income to pay the interest on the loans? I sure hope not. And neither should the US. But that is what we do.

I think giving tax breaks while we have a big national debt and a war going is bad government. You can call it whatever you want, it doesnt change that.

And why dont you try addressing the argument and stop attacking me? Do you really want to keep going down that road? grow up already