[POL] Reason #1,456 I Can Never Be a Republican

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Fuck These Fucking Fucks.

Source. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110203007.html)

The highlights...


But some Republicans worry that social service cuts, though relatively small, might have outsized political ramifications, especially when Republicans move in the coming weeks to cut taxes for the fifth time in as many years. Those tax cuts, totaling $70 billion over five years, would more than offset the deficit reduction that would result from the budget cuts.


So cut social programs to help w/ the deficit, only to give out a tax cut which will offset those cuts. Huh?


The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those immigrants would lose their benefits because the House measure would require legal immigrants to live in the United States for seven years before becoming eligible to receive food stamps, rather than the current five years.

About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunches, the CBO estimated.


Again, can anything explain how this is a good thing? Anyone? I'll even take the food stamp cuts if a single one of you can back up the free lunch cuts.


A separate House measure would scale back federal administrative aid to state child-support enforcement programs, saving the federal government nearly $5 billion over five years but potentially cutting child-support collections even more.


Hey deadbeat dads....you're off the hook!


Still another House provision would roll back a court-ordered expansion of foster care support, denying foster care payments to relatives who take in children removed from their parents' homes by court order.



Help save your niece if her parents are abusive fucks...we don't care!

[MrBigglesworth]

Sen. Frank Lautenberg has filed an amendment to change the official name of the “Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act 2005″ to the “Moral Disaster of Monumental Proportion Reconciliation Act.”

A little over the top, but at least the Dem's are starting to throw the Orwellian name games back in the face of the GOP.

[GoldenEagle]

Liberals make me laugh.

[sovereignstar]

Fuck These Fucking Fucks

I'd like to play Adlibs with you some time.

[Schmidty]

Anyone who labels themself with a party name is being lazy. The issues of the world aren't black and white. Towing the party line is like getting a lobotomy.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

I realize that politicians don't necessarily have a choice if they want to get elected, but the rest of us have no excuse.

[Glengoyne]

Jesse is actually one of the reasons I'm embarrased to be a Democrat. Then again, I have my own list of reasons of why I'm reluctant to join the Republican party.

[wade moore]

Liberals make me laugh.
w0rd.

Of course, so do Republicans, so I'm equal-opportunity there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Liberals make me laugh.

Me too sometimes ... but usually that doesn't come until after I've finished throwing up.

[SirFozzie]

extremists of both sides make me shake my head.

[wade moore]

extremists of both sides make me shake my head.
This is a better way of wording the way I feel.

I flip between Ed (crap can't think of his last name, starts with an S....) and Sean H. on my way home for amusement...

[Warhammer]

I used to like Hannity when he first got on the air. But at some point, he became an absolute ass. He started bringing people on the show just to call them libs, and would all of a sudden lose his cool and stuff of that nature. Its crap like that, that gives conservatives a bad name.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I flip between Ed (crap can't think of his last name, starts with an S....)

"Crap" is pretty appropriate, but the name you're trying to think of is "Schultz"

[Samdari]

Me too sometimes ... but usually that doesn't come until after I've finished throwing up.

Oh come on, the renaming of the bill is out and out funny - no throwing up required.

[wade moore]

"Crap" is pretty appropriate, but the name you're trying to think of is "Schultz"
Just to completely hijack this thread...

I consider myself a social liberal and economic conservative...

The right-wingers make me laugh with some of their ideas on their talk shows, provide some amusement, etc...

Ed (as he is the only real left-winger available in this area) can do the same thing.. but he's also able to completely piss me off with how completely inaccurate some of his claims and statements are... usually with the right-wingers I can at least see there is some basis to their arguments, even if I disagree... but Ed just seems to completely make stuff up... the scary part is, all of the listeners buy into it too...

[path12]

I can't help noticing that in the rush to brush Jesse off as an extreme liberal that nobody was actually able to refute any of his points......such as that maybe cutting free lunches to poor students in favor of more tax cuts is maybe.......oh, let's say wrong.

But then, I'm one of those folks who believe that an advanced society has a moral obligation to take care of those less fortunate. Yeah, crazy, I know.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't help noticing that in the rush to brush Jesse off as an extreme liberal that nobody was actually able to refute any of his points......

What good would it do to try to refute anything he posted? It's not like he's likely to have any sudden epiphany on the subject, that's pretty clear from the tone of the commentary.

What's that saying? "For those who understand, no explanation in needed.
For those who don't, no explanation will do."

[Radii]

Jesse is actually one of the reasons I'm embarrased to be a Democrat.

I'm not embarrassed to be a Democrat at all(though I will qualify that statement by saying that I'm moderate and becoming more Libertarian every day), but I agree with the sentiment. There are people on my side that I don't want on my side, and I hate the fact that they are on my side.

Lets paste some more information from that article into the thread.


White House officials have refused to disparage the House proposal, but they have made it clear that the savings from programs under the Agriculture Department can be achieved without food stamp cuts, as the Senate and the president have shown.

Such issues have created deep divisions between the conservatives pushing the cuts and Republican moderates, who fear the measure is going too far.

[Ryche]

Reason #1 I am a Republican

They pay me.

[CamEdwards]

While there's certainly a lot of pork projects that can and should be cut as well, I don't have a real problem defending the cuts in the free lunch program.

When my wife and I were first married, our kids actually qualified for the free lunch program. My wife and I wouldn't take part. I felt like we were doing fine financially and could afford to pay for lunch for our kids. It's been my opinion that the ceiling on the free and reduced lunch program has been too high.

John's right, this argument won't sway Jesse. I just like arguing with people who can't make their point without sounding like a monosyllabic cretin. :)

[CamEdwards]

[QUOTE=Radii]There are people on my side that I don't want on my side, and I hate the fact that they are on my side.
QUOTE]

Dola: Pat Robertson comes immediately to mind on my side.

[wade moore]

Yup...

I actually have little to no problem with this. But, I'm very libertarian (I think it would be libertarian?) in my "let them fend for themselves" mindsight...

I'm the opposite of path12... I don't think we have an obligation to support those unwilling to support themselves..

unable.. ok... unwilling, screw that...

[Buzzbee]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">But some Republicans worry that social service cuts, though relatively small, might have outsized political ramifications, especially when Republicans move in the coming weeks to cut taxes for the fifth time in as many years. Those tax cuts, totaling $70 billion over five years, would more than offset the deficit reduction that would result from the budget cuts.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


So cut social programs to help w/ the deficit, only to give out a tax cut which will offset those cuts. Huh?Ummm...doesn't it say that some Republicans are sharing your concern?



Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those immigrants would lose their benefits because the House measure would require legal immigrants to live in the United States for seven years before becoming eligible to receive food stamps, rather than the current five years.

About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunches, the CBO estimated.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Again, can anything explain how this is a good thing? Anyone? I'll even take the food stamp cuts if a single one of you can back up the free lunch cuts.


Not much to offer up here. However, is this something that should be handled by the states, rather than the Federal government?




Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">A separate House measure would scale back federal administrative aid to state child-support enforcement programs, saving the federal government nearly $5 billion over five years but potentially cutting child-support collections even more.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Hey deadbeat dads....you're off the hook!


Federal aid to state programs. As above, is this a Federal issue or a state issue?

Also, would the $5 billion be better spent simply paying the child support, rather than trying to force the deadbeats to pay? Would this see more than a $5 billion reduction in child support payments? I doubt it.




Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Still another House provision would roll back a court-ordered expansion of foster care support, denying foster care payments to relatives who take in children removed from their parents' homes by court order.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Help save your niece if her parents are abusive fucks...we don't care!


Not enough information here but it seems like foster care payments should be based on need. However, this is one provision that to me seems like it would be justified to leave alone.<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

[path12]

I'm the opposite of path12... I don't think we have an obligation to support those unwilling to support themselves..

unable.. ok... unwilling, screw that...

Well, I can understand that sentiment. I guess I fall more on a scale where if I can help 100 people, and only 95 of those people really deserve it, I've got no problem with the 5% wastage if I was able to truly assist the 95%.....which I guess is where Cam and I differ on the free lunch program.

[Ksyrup]

I can't help noticing that in the rush to brush Jesse off as an extreme liberal that nobody was actually able to refute any of his points......such as that maybe cutting free lunches to poor students in favor of more tax cuts is maybe.......oh, let's say wrong.

But then, I'm one of those folks who believe that an advanced society has a moral obligation to take care of those less fortunate. Yeah, crazy, I know.
I'm thinking the "Fuck these fucking fucks" intro is probably an accurate reflection of the futility of attempting to provide an intelligent response. But that's just me.

[wade moore]

Well, I can understand that sentiment. I guess I fall more on a scale where if I can help 100 people, and only 95 of those people really deserve it, I've got no problem with the 5% wastage if I was able to truly assist the 95%.....which I guess is where Cam and I differ on the free lunch program.
My perception is that the %'s are quite a bit reversed...

[path12]

My perception is that the %'s are quite a bit reversed...

I think that's due to media coverage, and is not unlike some conservatives complaint about Iraq -- failures are shown, successes are not.

As for the "Fuck those fucking fucks" comment -- well, maybe not the terms I would have used, but I'd be a liar if I said I didn't understand the anger behind it. But that's another topic for another time.....and I've promised myself to never post in the political threads. Oops. :D

[sachmo71]

Anyone who labels themself with a party name is being lazy. The issues of the world aren't black and white. Towing the party line is like getting a lobotomy.

If lobotomy = getting elected, I agree with you 100%

[Subby]

I have a hard time with cutting programs that directly affect children in need - I don't think there is a problem with erring on the side of caution in most of those cases, because the long term benefits usually outweight the short term savings.

Could these programs be administered more efficiently? Absolutely. I don't know what kind of energy is being spent to figure that out, however.

Would it make sense to completely bring an end to public welfare programs at the federal level and shift responsibility completely to the states? Probably not, but sometimes I wonder if this country wouldn't benefit from a do-over.

[rexallllsc]

I used to like Hannity when he first got on the air. But at some point, he became an absolute ass. He started bringing people on the show just to call them libs, and would all of a sudden lose his cool and stuff of that nature. Its crap like that, that gives conservatives a bad name.

Hannity is a tool of the highest order.

"What is it about these dictators that they can't just share?" :rolleyes:

[MrBigglesworth]

My perception is that the %'s are quite a bit reversed...
It's welfare mothers with cadillacs all over again :rolleyes:

[wade moore]

It's welfare mothers with cadillacs all over again :rolleyes:
Nope, think you misinterpret (because I did not give detail)...

I am in support of helping someone "get back on their feet"... However, I am not in support of long-term support for anyone that can make it on their own.

Now, can is probably one of the tricky part of the argument.

For me, "can't support yourself" is reserved for those who have a physical or mental problem that prevents them from supporting themselves. That is IT. Beyond that, I am a strong supporter of survival of the fittest.

It does get tricky when children are involved, and I don't claim to have the answer there, but I am not in support of full support to parents that choose to not support their family.

[stevew]

I agree, Fuck the fucking fucker fuckerings!

:rolleyes:

[Joe Canadian]

Liberals make me laugh.

What makes me laugh is when someone posts a topic that over generalizes something, and then instead of pointing that out, other people respond with even bigger over generalizations.

Why isn't there more civil dialogue in politics these days? Because we have some people calling others Fucking Fucks, laughable, and people they barf at just because they belong to a certain political party.

[MrBigglesworth]

It does get tricky when children are involved, and I don't claim to have the answer there, but I am not in support of full support to parents that choose to not support their family.
That's just the thing though, is that the school lunch program is for kids. Now, maybe some people like Cam are getting the benefit, but a lot of kids whose parents don't give a shit about them are getting the benefits too. I don't think we should just say, 'screw you'. Certainly though, the point at which it becomes less a helpful hand and more a giveaway can be arbitrary. But when you are using the money to cut taxes for the rich and give away handouts to corporations who are in the midst of record profits, I think the decision is obvious. There are thousands of better ways to save money than to stop giving lunch to poor kids.

[flere-imsaho]

There are thousands of better ways to save money than to stop giving lunch to poor kids.

A key point I think is all too often overlooked.

[wade moore]

That's just the thing though, is that the school lunch program is for kids. Now, maybe some people like Cam are getting the benefit, but a lot of kids whose parents don't give a shit about them are getting the benefits too. I don't think we should just say, 'screw you'. Certainly though, the point at which it becomes less a helpful hand and more a giveaway can be arbitrary. But when you are using the money to cut taxes for the rich and give away handouts to corporations who are in the midst of record profits, I think the decision is obvious. There are thousands of better ways to save money than to stop giving lunch to poor kids.
I'm not in favor of punishing someone because they are successful.

[wade moore]

A key point I think is all too often overlooked.
And, fwiw, I do agree with that..

I don't necessarily think this is the BEST solution, but I do not on the surface have a problem with cutting some welfare, even (again, not sure where to draw the line) to children..

[Buzzbee]

That's just the thing though, is that the school lunch program is for kids.
Not really. It helps the parents, since they no longer have to pay for school lunches.

If the choice is pay for school lunch for your kids or buy a pack of smokes, most will choose to feed the kids. Paying for a kid's school lunch allows the parent to use that money elsewhere, like for maintenance on a car, bus fare, clothes, or...a pack of smokes.

So, saying that it is for the kids is a bit misleading, IMO. That is another reason that I'm not necessarily opposed to cutting back the program. Not in favor of it either, but somewhat ambivalent.

[Galaxy]

I have a hard time with cutting programs that directly affect children in need - I don't think there is a problem with erring on the side of caution in most of those cases, because the long term benefits usually outweight the short term savings.

Could these programs be administered more efficiently? Absolutely. I don't know what kind of energy is being spent to figure that out, however.

Would it make sense to completely bring an end to public welfare programs at the federal level and shift responsibility completely to the states? Probably not, but sometimes I wonder if this country wouldn't benefit from a do-over.

I agree with you....My personal view, is that parents should NOT being having children if they cannot financially and emotionally support them. If someone does fall on hard times (such as a job loss, ect.), that's differenet. I would be willing to help them rebound (providing they are working to get back on thier feet). However, when we draw the line with people in that first category? You have innocent children that shouldn't be allowed to starved, but yet you have parents who decided to bring them into this world without financial support.

[flere-imsaho]

I am all for spending time and money in an effort to make welfare programs more efficient and make sure we're getting the proper benefit out of those programs.

Let's start with corporate welfare, shall we?

[Warhammer]

Hannity is a tool of the highest order.

"What is it about these dictators that they can't just share?" :rolleyes:

My point was he wasn't always that way. He is appealing to those that don't want to use their minds themselves.

[Buzzbee]

I agree that Hannity has changed, at least IMO. He used to at least recognize that the left had their points on certain things and was critical of Bush and/or the Repbulicans in certain areas. Now he comes across as a blind Republican mouthpiece. I can't listen to him anymore, and I'm a conservative.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not in favor of punishing someone because they are successful.
That's just an intellectually lazy cop-out. Nobody is being punished for being successful. People are being rewarded for giving campaign contributions, that's where the tax cuts and the corporate welfare comes from. And I hope you are not going to tell me how much the rich pay in taxes. They end up paying the same percentage as the middle class because of the way that the tax code is set up. My Dad is a CPA, and I legally pay next to nothing in income tax because of deductions, real estate holdings, gifts, low capital gains rate, appreciation, etc.

[MrBigglesworth]

Not really. It helps the parents, since they no longer have to pay for school lunches.

If the choice is pay for school lunch for your kids or buy a pack of smokes, most will choose to feed the kids. Paying for a kid's school lunch allows the parent to use that money elsewhere, like for maintenance on a car, bus fare, clothes, or...a pack of smokes.

So, saying that it is for the kids is a bit misleading, IMO. That is another reason that I'm not necessarily opposed to cutting back the program. Not in favor of it either, but somewhat ambivalent.
Buzzbee, I take it you have never been poor. It's not always a choice between a pack of smokes and school lunch. It could be a choice between school lunch and a shitty cheap lunch of snack cakes and soda. It could even be a choice between drugs and school lunch, and for a lot of parents in poor neighborhoods the drugs win out. For the parents that care about their kids, it could be a choice between school lunch and paying the rent, or school lunch and buying shoes for their kids that don't have holes in them. Are there some people that take advantage? Sure there are. But the program also does a lot of good.

[wade moore]

That's just an intellectually lazy cop-out. Nobody is being punished for being successful. People are being rewarded for giving campaign contributions, that's where the tax cuts and the corporate welfare comes from. And I hope you are not going to tell me how much the rich pay in taxes. They end up paying the same percentage as the middle class because of the way that the tax code is set up. My Dad is a CPA, and I legally pay next to nothing in income tax because of deductions, real estate holdings, gifts, low capital gains rate, appreciation, etc.
Ah, the liberal talking points...

I want everyone's taxes to be low, not just the wealthy... I think the government is involved in way too much and we should put a lot more personal responsibility on individuals and less on the public as a whole to support individuals that make bad choices.

Again, I have a tough time deciding where to draw the line with children, but overall I feel we should give little to no long-term individual support.

[CamEdwards]

Ah, the liberal talking points...

I want everyone's taxes to be low, not just the wealthy... I think the government is involved in way too much and we should put a lot more personal responsibility on individuals and less on the public as a whole to support individuals that make bad choices.

Again, I have a tough time deciding where to draw the line with children, but overall I feel we should give little to no long-term individual support.

I agree. At some point you are now enabling people to make bad decisions. Life is not fair, and the government should not be some weird combination of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Robin Hood, handing out treats to the less fortunate.

[st.cronin]

The biggest problem with the extreme left and extreme right is that both start out with the assumption that the other side doesn't share their values. Americans are a diverse bunch, but we are pretty homogenous in our values, afaict.

[wade moore]

I agree. At some point you are now enabling people to make bad decisions. Life is not fair, and the government should not be some weird combination of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Robin Hood, handing out treats to the less fortunate.
Yup... and before the accusations start flinging around... as I stated, by no means am I a die-hard right-winger/republican.. this is one of the few key points where I really agree with the right-wingers/republicans to be honest...

[Galaxy]

Yup... and before the accusations start flinging around... as I stated, by no means am I a die-hard right-winger/republican.. this is one of the few key points where I really agree with the right-wingers/republicans to be honest...

I agree, I just don't see it happening right now.

[wade moore]

I agree, I just don't see it happening right now.
Much of the reason I'm disenchated from politics in general...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Here's the thing.

The reason why I reacted the way I did - because I've been poor. Not just poor, but poor. Coming home from school, not knowing if all the utilities will be on, not knowing whar food, if any will be in the fridge. Things like school lunches helped because there were times when they were the only thing I got to eat today. So, it affects me a bit.

Countless numbers of American middle class families are one month, one week, or one very bad day away from being poor, indebted, or homeless, or at the very least not having enough food for the kids during one particular week.

This isn't some overreaction. This is fact. The vast pluarity of the nation who aren't well off simply don't have savings that can less them past a large emergency such as losing their job, a medical catasophore, or something like that.

I don't get how the idea that some poor person, somewhere, might be sucking a dime too many out of the system is largely used as the reason to carve, gut and bury whatever safety-net welfare programs the party sets its eyes on. Rather screw a thousand people, than to have the children of some undeserving "welfare queen" get milk today.

However, God help us if an another business-humping, morality-punching tax cut for the folks with greens fees to pay.

This is yet another demonstration of how the vast majority of Republicans both in government and as this thread shows, in real life would rather dump your grandmother in a ditch by the side of the road than withstand the Satanic Fucking Communism of having to pay that extra one percent here or there.

But ya' know, whatever.

I can't wait to hear the Fox News spin on how this is hurting the God given economic competitiveness of the investor class.

[RendeR]

Be patient young ewiak....the revolution is coming, and its going to be bloody.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... would rather dump your grandmother in a ditch by the side of the road than withstand the Satanic Fucking Communism of having to pay that extra one percent here or there.

No child, HERE'S "the thing" -- I have no intention of dumping my grandmother in the ditch ... but I didn't take on "a village" to raise & damned
sure don't believe anybody ought to be volunteering me for the task at gunpoint.

I didn't work just short of 80 fucking hours in the past seven days so I could have my income "redistributed" -- I did it so I could buy my kid "Battlefront 2", so we can be in position to move next spring in order to give him access to a much better school.

I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.

I did it so that I might not worry about buying myself another tabletop sports game that I might be able enjoy if I ever have the energy & concentration level to play again. Some of those are easily equivalent to greens fees but frankly, I earned every damned bit of it so who in the bloody hell do you think you are to criticize that for the tiniest fraction of a second?

You want some of that? Then bust your ass & try to get it. There's no guarantee of it, but effort damned sure improves the odds.

My first full time job started at 9am the Saturday morning after I graduated HS on a Friday night & after 20+ years of working 50-60 hours a week more often than not, for the last 4 years or so I've finally managed to get past worrying about the utility bill every month

What I didn't work until I couldn't think straight, or barely sleep for more than 4 hours running, or until I can hardly stand to eat for the indigestion that follows every meal for was so that I could have more money than the average household income taken out of my ass in taxes for yet another year. Or so I can watch even more money poured down the multitude of governmental dry holes that produce a highly inadequate return on investment.

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

When you're paying the tax load I'm paying, then you tell me how oh-so- inconsequential it is. Until then, I'd suggest you stick to subjects you know something about.

[Galaxy]

]
I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.



Hope your wife's surgery goes well. My thoughts are with your family.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hope your wife's surgery goes well. My thoughts are with your family.

Thanks Galaxy, I appreciate that.

I didn't plan to mention it quite this way, but once in a while some of the crap I read strikes a damned nerve.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

As a current and, soon to be former member of the military I feel that the govt should cut alot of pork from the military. There are many useless military programs out there that need to be axed (The horrible FBCB 2 systems, army orders for guarding (thats right), guarding gates of recruiting offices, I pulled this duty for 2 mos. this summer as the ''Sergeant of the guard).'' Im sure there are lots of other ''useless'' military pork out there that needs to be axed and, wont ''jeopardize natl security.''

Edit: On my 2 month tour as a gate guard this summer, me and, my soldiers saw alot of action assaulting the snack machines, math homework, various DVD's on our laptops and, my DaDa Expressionist Artwork for my Art 160 class, and I got an my 3rd AAM and, 3rd NDSM medals for it. God Bless America. :D

[wade moore]

JiMG summed up what I'm trying to say pretty well...

I'm not saying that the rich should get MORE... Or that the rich should get taxed LESS... I'm saying that EVERYONE should get taxed less and take some damned personal responsibility. Yes, many middle-class family are one paycheck from being homeless. I'm not disagreeing with that fact. But who's fault is that? Not mine. In fact, I'm not far off of that myself. However, I go out to dinner twice a week, I own a house with a .5 acre lot, I have a relatively new car, I buy video games... so, it's my choice to be here as it is for all middle class americans, and many lower class americans...

Again.. I'm in favor of a temporary safety net for folks and a permanent one for those who are physically/mentally unABLE to hold a job (the handicapped, the disabled, etc)...

I hope to be in a better financial situation one day. I drive 2 1/2-3 hours a day, work about 10 hours a day, lose my weekends often, etc. just to be successfuly at my job. I do that so that (as jon said) I can improve my family's lifestyle. Not so that I can support someone who is unwilling to better themselves.

(NOTE: Notice I'm not saying welfare mom's or any other blanket statement. There are many groups that take advantage of government handouts and do not get their on their own for long periods of time)

[judicial clerk]

I am all for spending time and money in an effort to make welfare programs more efficient and make sure we're getting the proper benefit out of those programs.

Let's start with corporate welfare, shall we? Ha Ha! Nice try, but the "Americans For Laws That Let Corporations Avoid Taxation, Liability, And Common Decency" Lobby is stronger than the "Americans Too Irresponsible To Make Sure That Their Kid Has A Fucking Sandwich When They Go To School In The Morning" Lobby.

[Dutch]

No child, HERE'S "the thing" -- I have no intention of dumping my grandmother in the ditch ... but I didn't take on "a village" to raise & damned
sure don't believe anybody ought to be volunteering me for the task at gunpoint.

I didn't work just short of 80 fucking hours in the past seven days so I could have my income "redistributed" -- I did it so I could buy my kid "Battlefront 2", so we can be in position to move next spring in order to give him access to a much better school.

I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.

I did it so that I might not worry about buying myself another tabletop sports game that I might be able enjoy if I ever have the energy & concentration level to play again. Some of those are easily equivalent to greens fees but frankly, I earned every damned bit of it so who in the bloody hell do you think you are to criticize that for the tiniest fraction of a second?

You want some of that? Then bust your ass & try to get it. There's no guarantee of it, but effort damned sure improves the odds.

My first full time job started at 9am the Saturday morning after I graduated HS on a Friday night & after 20+ years of working 50-60 hours a week more often than not, for the last 4 years or so I've finally managed to get past worrying about the utility bill every month

What I didn't work until I couldn't think straight, or barely sleep for more than 4 hours running, or until I can hardly stand to eat for the indigestion that follows every meal for was so that I could have more money than the average household income taken out of my ass in taxes for yet another year. Or so I can watch even more money poured down the multitude of governmental dry holes that produce a highly inadequate return on investment.

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

When you're paying the tax load I'm paying, then you tell me how oh-so- inconsequential it is. Until then, I'd suggest you stick to subjects you know something about.
Jesse just got knocked the fuck out!

[CamEdwards]

Indeed, Dutch.

And Jon, you and your family are in my prayers.

[Mustang]

After that.. I think I have a man crush on Jon...

[John Galt]

Although I'm not a big fan of high taxation and am generally economically conservative, I think the right-wing mantra of "mine is mine" is mistaken.

I approach things from a very different angle. Ask yourself this question: who benefits the most with the American experiment? The poor in the U.S. are better off than other parts of the world, but the difference is not as extreme as it is for the rich (and super-rich). The view that the poor take, take, and take some more is not supported by the reality of economic distribution in America. The right-wing views wealth as natural. The money is theirs based upon some first principle. But this isn't the case.

Money is printed by government. Job opportunities only exist because of the social organization our government brings. Markets only thrive because the government is there. The rich may not collect a welfare check, but they derive FAR more benefits from the government than the poor. The entire edifice of wealth in America is ONLY possible because of the government. Their is nothing "natural" or "inalienable" about it. Wealth and money are fictions that maximize efficiency in a market system. That doesn't mean they are "bad" or "good" - they just are. Claims to absolute rights over that "money" is nonsense. It is just a means provided by the government to exchange goods. It is not the same as the right to your body, your freedom, or even other property.

To claim someone else is "stealing" your money from taxation ignores the basic fact that the money was only yours by virtue of the government creating it.

I find it odd that the right-wing is the party of patriotism when the ethic of "mine is mine" is very anti-patriotic. Arguing that someone should sacrifice their life (a very patriotic act) for the sake of the American experiment, but they shouldn't sacrifice money for that same end is nonsense to me. Taxation is patriotic. It is a way of the citizens supporting the larger project. And everyone must contribute their share to make sure that the American project is worth something.

Now, we can debate about how that project should be designed (maybe welfare isn't a good idea? - that's what legislatures are for). But, never should we say "mine is mine" and "leave my stuff alone." That is the epitomy of anti-American, IMO.

[Dutch]

After that.. I think I have a man crush on Jon...
:)

[Dutch]

I find it odd that the right-wing is the party of patriotism when the ethic of "mine is mine" is very anti-patriotic. Arguing that someone should sacrifice their life (a very patriotic act) for the sake of the American experiment, but they shouldn't sacrifice money for that same end is nonsense to me.

Americans donated how much money to the Tsunami victims in Asia? To Hurricane Katrina? How much time did we donate? For free? We didn't wait for a government mandate to do that (even though the government also paid out large sums to help). We didn't wait for a tax hike. We did it because 1.) Most Americans are patriots and thoughtful and 2.) Our "experimental government" as you so kindly put it has empowered us like no other in history to do so on our own. We should be proud of that accomplishment, not mock it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Some examples of 'Good Liberals" vs. "Evil Republicans." Enjoy http://newsmax.com/adv/doasisay/?PROMO_CODE=168A-1

[digamma]

Dear Bubba,

Missed you.

xoxo,
digamma

[Bubba Wheels]

Dear Bubba,

Missed you.

xoxo,
digamma

:)

Real life intrudes. I'll still be around, but in much smaller doses. Good news for those who think that Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr are 'smart.'

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Americans donated how much money to the Tsunami victims in Asia? To Hurricane Katrina? How much time did we donate? For free? We didn't wait for a government mandate to do that (even though the government also paid out large sums to help). We didn't wait for a tax hike. We did it because 1.) Most Americans are patriots and thoughtful and 2.) Our "experimental government" as you so kindly put it has empowered us like no other in history to do so on our own. We should be proud of that accomplishment, not mock it.

Is there a reason why we don't disband the military and just ask people to grab their guns and buy a plane ticket when we need to fight a war somewhere?

[Havok]

No child, HERE'S "the thing" -- I have no intention of dumping my grandmother in the ditch ... but I didn't take on "a village" to raise & damned
sure don't believe anybody ought to be volunteering me for the task at gunpoint.

I didn't work just short of 80 fucking hours in the past seven days so I could have my income "redistributed" -- I did it so I could buy my kid "Battlefront 2", so we can be in position to move next spring in order to give him access to a much better school.

I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.

I did it so that I might not worry about buying myself another tabletop sports game that I might be able enjoy if I ever have the energy & concentration level to play again. Some of those are easily equivalent to greens fees but frankly, I earned every damned bit of it so who in the bloody hell do you think you are to criticize that for the tiniest fraction of a second?

You want some of that? Then bust your ass & try to get it. There's no guarantee of it, but effort damned sure improves the odds.

My first full time job started at 9am the Saturday morning after I graduated HS on a Friday night & after 20+ years of working 50-60 hours a week more often than not, for the last 4 years or so I've finally managed to get past worrying about the utility bill every month

What I didn't work until I couldn't think straight, or barely sleep for more than 4 hours running, or until I can hardly stand to eat for the indigestion that follows every meal for was so that I could have more money than the average household income taken out of my ass in taxes for yet another year. Or so I can watch even more money poured down the multitude of governmental dry holes that produce a highly inadequate return on investment.

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

When you're paying the tax load I'm paying, then you tell me how oh-so- inconsequential it is. Until then, I'd suggest you stick to subjects you know something about.



respect

[Dutch]

Is there a reason why we don't disband the military and just ask people to grab their guns and buy a plane ticket when we need to fight a war somewhere?
This does not compute.

[Galaxy]

This does not compute.
Not quite sure what he is saying (not you, the other guy).

I believe we raised $1.2-$1.3 billion for Katrina through the Red Cross.

[Solecismic]

I approach things from a very different angle. Ask yourself this question: who benefits the most with the American experiment? The poor in the U.S. are better off than other parts of the world, but the difference is not as extreme as it is for the rich (and super-rich). The view that the poor take, take, and take some more is not supported by the reality of economic distribution in America. The right-wing views wealth as natural. The money is theirs based upon some first principle. But this isn't the case.


I disagree. Because of the wealth and opportunity our system creates, we don't have mass starvation like third-world countries face. There is a safety net. There is opportunity for anyone determined to seek it out.

The poor in many countries don't have any opportunity. They often face caste systems that make advancement impossible, even with determination. They face judicial systems that presume guilt for the slightest infraction.

In Sudan recently, hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered and many more run from their homes simply because they're poor and they don't happen to be Muslim. Could that happen in America?

I would agree that the rich benefit from America more than the poor do. But the rich also pay more in taxes. I don't think people have the right to whine about others not "paying their fair share" when they pay less in taxes than the person they're complaining about.

As for the complaints that corporations don't pay enough, or have tax loopholes. Yes, more should be done to close loopholes, but keep in mind that corporations generate jobs, and attracting jobs for your constituents benefits everyone in a community. Some tax breaks are good investments in a community.

[Icy]

As for the complaints that corporations don't pay enough, or have tax loopholes. Yes, more should be done to close loopholes, but keep in mind that corporations generate jobs, and attracting jobs for your constituents benefits everyone in a community. Some tax breaks are good investments in a community.I like that part, sometimes i have that discussions with my friends. I work for my own company while they work for other companies so we have totaly different points of view. They complain and complain about how much money their boss earn, about that they do all the work, about that the company should pay way more and give them more hollydays, that the goberment should put really high taxes on the companies, that the pressure should be way higher to avoid companies getting as rich, etc.

Then i just tell them, ok, you're right, lets tell your company owners that they need to win exactly the same amount than workers do, but also pay double taxes, etc etc... then who the hell is going to start a company that gives all them a job??

I agree that the taxes loopholes must be closed, but also that if you put too much pressure on companies, they end closing the doors and moving to a 3rd world country and then everybody will lose his job, as it's happening now in Europe, all the companies are moving to the new east european countries.

I find funny that everybody complains about companies, but are that companies who give you a job. The owner earns more than you? yes, but he is who took the risk too. Try to start a company yourself, it's not that easy, also i can get rich with good luck and hard work, while the worker won't, but also i can get ruined and lose it all. Also the worker journy ends and he goes home to rest, while my bussines is in my brain the whole day.

[Buccaneer]

My libertarian "mantra" comes down to personal responsibilities, not govt responsibilities. To put it simply, $500 going to the local food bank or ecumenical ministries does far more good than $500 going to a federal entitlement agency. I understand economy of scales but what if all of us had more disposable income and feel that we should provide more of our resources (time that we waste, material goods that we throw out, and money that we squander) to be the safety net for those in need? Paying our taxes to a bloated, ineffecient and ineffective federal govt bureacracy does NOT relief of the responsibilities - not only to our own family, but our extended families and our neighbors as well. If we as citizens took more responsibilites, be more active in our local communities - and if people tithe to what is commanded - then there would be no need to for the federal govts to allocate and waste more of our money.

[Joe Canadian]

Here's the thing.

The reason why I reacted the way I did - because I've been poor. Not just poor, but poor. Coming home from school, not knowing if all the utilities will be on, not knowing whar food, if any will be in the fridge. Things like school lunches helped because there were times when they were the only thing I got to eat today. So, it affects me a bit.

Countless numbers of American middle class families are one month, one week, or one very bad day away from being poor, indebted, or homeless, or at the very least not having enough food for the kids during one particular week.

This isn't some overreaction. This is fact. The vast pluarity of the nation who aren't well off simply don't have savings that can less them past a large emergency such as losing their job, a medical catasophore, or something like that.

I don't get how the idea that some poor person, somewhere, might be sucking a dime too many out of the system is largely used as the reason to carve, gut and bury whatever safety-net welfare programs the party sets its eyes on. Rather screw a thousand people, than to have the children of some undeserving "welfare queen" get milk today.

However, God help us if an another business-humping, morality-punching tax cut for the folks with greens fees to pay.

This is yet another demonstration of how the vast majority of Republicans both in government and as this thread shows, in real life would rather dump your grandmother in a ditch by the side of the road than withstand the Satanic Fucking Communism of having to pay that extra one percent here or there.

But ya' know, whatever.

I can't wait to hear the Fox News spin on how this is hurting the God given economic competitiveness of the investor class.

No child, HERE'S "the thing" -- I have no intention of dumping my grandmother in the ditch ... but I didn't take on "a village" to raise & damned
sure don't believe anybody ought to be volunteering me for the task at gunpoint.

I didn't work just short of 80 fucking hours in the past seven days so I could have my income "redistributed" -- I did it so I could buy my kid "Battlefront 2", so we can be in position to move next spring in order to give him access to a much better school.

I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.

I did it so that I might not worry about buying myself another tabletop sports game that I might be able enjoy if I ever have the energy & concentration level to play again. Some of those are easily equivalent to greens fees but frankly, I earned every damned bit of it so who in the bloody hell do you think you are to criticize that for the tiniest fraction of a second?

You want some of that? Then bust your ass & try to get it. There's no guarantee of it, but effort damned sure improves the odds.

My first full time job started at 9am the Saturday morning after I graduated HS on a Friday night & after 20+ years of working 50-60 hours a week more often than not, for the last 4 years or so I've finally managed to get past worrying about the utility bill every month

What I didn't work until I couldn't think straight, or barely sleep for more than 4 hours running, or until I can hardly stand to eat for the indigestion that follows every meal for was so that I could have more money than the average household income taken out of my ass in taxes for yet another year. Or so I can watch even more money poured down the multitude of governmental dry holes that produce a highly inadequate return on investment.

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

When you're paying the tax load I'm paying, then you tell me how oh-so- inconsequential it is. Until then, I'd suggest you stick to subjects you know something about.

Both of you guys certainly like to "hear yourselves talk" so to speak... because that's about all both of you accomplished.

[Buccaneer]

I have always felt (but not sure if entirely accurate) that the failure (in the system) of the poor is in direct proportion to the success of the rich. Not in creating a wider gap but in the incentive that all can become richer. The same system that would limit those being poor would also limit those being rich. We cannot have that because of the great employment and economical benefits that wealthy, growing companies can bring.

[Young Drachma]

Fuck These Fucking Fucks.
A separate House measure would scale back federal administrative aid to state child-support enforcement programs, saving the federal government nearly $5 billion over five years but potentially cutting child-support collections even more.

State enforcement of child support doesn't help the kids get money. It's just a state government boondoggle done in the face of people getting welfare. It's not particularly useful in the grand scheme of things.

[Glengoyne]

How can I somewhat agree with Jon and John in this post actually stuns me. I don't completely agree with John's premise that personal or corporate wealth is owed to the government, and I don't fully agree with Jon's "I earned it, I shouldn't have to support others in society." Yet I agree with much of the rest they said.

I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The wealthy do owe some of their position to the government, but they have also earned that position almost entirely on their own. As for the amount the rich pay in taxes, there are worse positions to be in. I really don't think the rich should pay more than their fair share, but they do need to pay. It does upset me when I hear people say that the rich are getting off cheap, when they pay far more dollar wise in taxes than the rest of us. I'm no fan of class warfare/redistribution of wealth philosophy that Jesse Ewok and a few others around here seem to advocate.

It comes down to degrees. Everyone needs to pay their fair share for the governement, and those with wealth shouldn't be essentially fined for garnering it.

[Joe Canadian]

It comes down to degrees. Everyone needs to pay their fair share for the governement, and those with wealth shouldn't be essentially fined for garnering it.

Exactly!

[-Mojo Jojo-]

This does not compute.

JG suggested that it is Patriotic to support the endeavors of the federal government through taxes just as it is to support it by serving in the military. It was an interesting analogy and you ignored it, responding that we do not need to support those endeavors through the federal government because we can just pay for them directly. I'm curious if you think the same is true of the military, and, if not, why not?

[Dutch]

JG suggested that it is Patriotic to support the endeavors of the federal government through taxes just as it is to support it by serving in the military. It was an interesting analogy and you ignored it, responding that we do not need to support those endeavors through the federal government because we can just pay for them directly. I'm curious if you think the same is true of the military, and, if not, why not?
You think we should all *individually* go to a warzone without organization and fight for the USA? That is unrealistic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Both of you guys certainly like to "hear yourselves talk" so to speak... because that's about all both of you accomplished.

And you've managed what exactly ... ???

[Dutch]

And you've managed what exactly ... ???
He got to hear himself talk....at least. :)

[ISiddiqui]

How can I somewhat agree with Jon and John in this post actually stuns me. I don't completely agree with John's premise that personal or corporate wealth is owed to the government, and I don't fully agree with Jon's "I earned it, I shouldn't have to support others in society." Yet I agree with much of the rest they said.

I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The wealthy do owe some of their position to the government, but they have also earned that position almost entirely on their own. As for the amount the rich pay in taxes, there are worse positions to be in. I really don't think the rich should pay more than their fair share, but they do need to pay. It does upset me when I hear people say that the rich are getting off cheap, when they pay far more dollar wise in taxes than the rest of us. I'm no fan of class warfare/redistribution of wealth philosophy that Jesse Ewok and a few others around here seem to advocate.

It comes down to degrees. Everyone needs to pay their fair share for the governement, and those with wealth shouldn't be essentially fined for garnering it.I agree, but I don't think most (sane) moderate left people are really suggesting the top tax bracket pay more than 40% anyway (and really closer to 36%). That really isn't that great of an amount considering how much the top tax bracket makes. The reality of the situation is that the government setup allows those at the top to make their riches. Without the government's protection Sam Walton doesn't make the money he did. Bill Gates doesn't make the money he does. I think the feds asking for 35-40% is not to burdensome to ask for, especially since they have fostered and helped create the situation that allows such a wealth.

Of course that doesn't mean we should go back to the 50s, where the top percent paid 90% to the government. That's foolish. However, not many are arguing for that.

[John Galt]

We should be proud of that accomplishment, not mock it.

How did I mock America?

[John Galt]

I disagree. Because of the wealth and opportunity our system creates, we don't have mass starvation like third-world countries face. There is a safety net. There is opportunity for anyone determined to seek it out.

The poor in many countries don't have any opportunity. They often face caste systems that make advancement impossible, even with determination. They face judicial systems that presume guilt for the slightest infraction.

In Sudan recently, hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered and many more run from their homes simply because they're poor and they don't happen to be Muslim. Could that happen in America?

I would agree that the rich benefit from America more than the poor do. But the rich also pay more in taxes. I don't think people have the right to whine about others not "paying their fair share" when they pay less in taxes than the person they're complaining about.

As for the complaints that corporations don't pay enough, or have tax loopholes. Yes, more should be done to close loopholes, but keep in mind that corporations generate jobs, and attracting jobs for your constituents benefits everyone in a community. Some tax breaks are good investments in a community.

I think comparing the U.S. to 3rd World countries is not very helpful. The U.S. has numerous advantages over those countries that have nothing to do with government and economic systems. A comparison with other 1st world nations seems more appropriate, IMO.

And I'm not arguing in favor of higher taxes on the rich. I'm simply attacking the belief that taxes are theft and that there is an inalienable right to money. I'm fine debating whether any given tax is a good or bad idea on utilitarian grounds. I just feel the liberty approach to taxation is based on a few bad assumptions.

[flere-imsaho]

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

I'm guessing that Jon doesn't believe in the Social Contract. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

I have always felt (but not sure if entirely accurate) that the failure (in the system) of the poor is in direct proportion to the success of the rich. Not in creating a wider gap but in the incentive that all can become richer. The same system that would limit those being poor would also limit those being rich. We cannot have that because of the great employment and economical benefits that wealthy, growing companies can bring.

This is probably the most insightful thing said in the thread so far.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

You think we should all *individually* go to a warzone without organization and fight for the USA? That is unrealistic.

But you think we can do everything else the federal government does without organization? How is that realistic?

[Buccaneer]

This is probably the most insightful thing said in the thread so far.
Wow. Thanks. It was inspired by the Adam Smith Trading Co. Wonder of the World. :)

[Dutch]

But you think we can do everything else the federal government does without organization? How is that realistic?
I never said that either.

[Dutch]

I'm guessing that Jon doesn't believe in the Social Contact. ;)And since you have both hands in Jon's pockets, I'm guessing you do. :D

[-Mojo Jojo-]

And since you have both hands in Jon's pockets, I'm guessing you do. :D

I really don't think you want to get into Flere's motives for sticking his hands down Jon's pants...

[JonInMiddleGA]

And since you have both hands in Jon's pockets, I'm guessing you do.

:eek:

I really don't think you want to get into Flere's motives for sticking his hands down Jon's pants...
:eek: :eek:

[Dutch]

I really don't think you want to get into Flere's motives for sticking his hands down Jon's pants...
If flere could do animations, I'm sure it would be something like this.

http://www.explodinghouse.net/funny/stickmen.gif

[Joe Canadian]

And you've managed what exactly ... ???

I wasn't trying to accomplish anything... you on the other hand were, at least as I saw it, trying to illustrate how off-base Jesse_Ewiak's assumptions of all Republicans are which I would have agreed with (you're defence of your POV, not JE's assumption). Instead you insulted others who hold opinions opposite of your own... which is exactly what JE did.

All I'm saying is that while JE had that coming to him for making such a ludacris assumption... replying to him in the same manner as he started this discussion in was IMO pointless. You're better off just ignoring him, or countering his points without stooping to his level.

[Glengoyne]

http://www.explodinghouse.net/funny/stickmen.gif
I didn't start the fire....?

Really, that's all I got.

[Donnie Baker]

Fuck These Fucking Fucks.



Such class.... :rolleyes:

[flere-imsaho]

And since you have both hands in Jon's pockets, I'm guessing you do. :D

I know you're joking, but you're way off base here. While I don't know how much Jon makes, I'm reasonably sure that based on my salary I share a similar tax burden.

And no offense Jon, but while I'm sure you're a sexy guy, you're not exactly my type. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

Ah, the liberal talking points...

I want everyone's taxes to be low, not just the wealthy... I think the government is involved in way too much and we should put a lot more personal responsibility on individuals and less on the public as a whole to support individuals that make bad choices.

Again, I have a tough time deciding where to draw the line with children, but overall I feel we should give little to no long-term individual support.
Not all people are poor because of bad choices. A lot of them make the right choices but are screwed over from the start.

I'm not against lower taxes across the board if you want to do some spending cuts that we can all agree on. What I am not a fan of is spending cuts that target the poor and tax cuts that target the rich.

[MrBigglesworth]

No child, HERE'S "the thing" -- I have no intention of dumping my grandmother in the ditch ... but I didn't take on "a village" to raise & damned
sure don't believe anybody ought to be volunteering me for the task at gunpoint.

I didn't work just short of 80 fucking hours in the past seven days so I could have my income "redistributed" -- I did it so I could buy my kid "Battlefront 2", so we can be in position to move next spring in order to give him access to a much better school.

I did it so my wife could enjoy a weekend antique auction with her best friend before she faces more surgery this coming week, her second surgery for fucking tumors in less than six months. The last one was malignant, who knows what this one will be, but I sure don't begrudge her a little distraction from the subject for 36 hours or so.

I did it so that I might not worry about buying myself another tabletop sports game that I might be able enjoy if I ever have the energy & concentration level to play again. Some of those are easily equivalent to greens fees but frankly, I earned every damned bit of it so who in the bloody hell do you think you are to criticize that for the tiniest fraction of a second?

You want some of that? Then bust your ass & try to get it. There's no guarantee of it, but effort damned sure improves the odds.

My first full time job started at 9am the Saturday morning after I graduated HS on a Friday night & after 20+ years of working 50-60 hours a week more often than not, for the last 4 years or so I've finally managed to get past worrying about the utility bill every month

What I didn't work until I couldn't think straight, or barely sleep for more than 4 hours running, or until I can hardly stand to eat for the indigestion that follows every meal for was so that I could have more money than the average household income taken out of my ass in taxes for yet another year. Or so I can watch even more money poured down the multitude of governmental dry holes that produce a highly inadequate return on investment.

Here's a newsflash for you -- the world doesn't owe you a living, it doesn't owe or anybody else a motherfucking thing, no matter how much that pains your sorry liberal ass, it's the straight truth. And I wish to hell the government would finally pull its head out of collective ass long enough to remember that fact, and take at least one hand out of one of my pockets.

When you're paying the tax load I'm paying, then you tell me how oh-so- inconsequential it is. Until then, I'd suggest you stick to subjects you know something about.
It's a well-known psychological phenomenon that people will attribute good things that happen to them to hard work, and bad things that happen to them to luck, and vise versa.

[wade moore]

Not all people are poor because of bad choices. A lot of them make the right choices but are screwed over from the start.

I'm not against lower taxes across the board if you want to do some spending cuts that we can all agree on. What I am not a fan of is spending cuts that target the poor and tax cuts that target the rich.
I do not believe that anyone that is not physically or mentally inable are poor because they "are screwed over from the start". This victim mentality is fostering a lot of the long-term welfare problems that drive me crazy.

[revrew]

I believe the issue of federal government welfare/entitlement/social spending programs is clouded by too many red herrings and distractions. The charge of "cutting programs to children" is in itself spun to affect the debate; but the answer "what's mine is mine" is a response that spins us even farther from the issues. "Welfare queens," class warfare, tax cuts for the rich/poor--these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the real issue at hand, though they make for entertaining bunny trails.

Someone earlier tried to drive back to what I consider the primary issue with the comment "we as a civilized society should care for poor/disadvantaged." This was a shot back to the center of the issue, though it didn't seem to stick.

Regardless of freeloaders and abuses, the "left" is correct that caring for the poor and the orphan and the widow are moral obligations for the U.S.A. (it may not be for other countries, but this country has been too heavily influenced by it's Christian heritage to suggest otherwise--it's a part of our collective social conscience). The response the "right" needs to return is not to argue "what's mine is mine" or "the freeloaders will suckle the system"--for that does not change the fact that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc. The "right" (I put "right" in quotes, because such terms are really irrelevant. Libertarians, conservatives, and even the "long-haired hippie love children" could all take this approach) does, however, need to present a legitimate question.

Who, exactly, has this responsibility? Who is morally obliged to do this care?

That's the real question. To this I would answer simply: individual Americans and their collective compassionate organizations do. If our Constitution provided this role for the federal govt (and to take "general welfare clause" to mean it does is a position clearly refuted by the writings of the framers), then the federal government would have that responsibility. Since it does not, I contend, thrusting such a responsibility upon the government is an abdication of our own moral obligations.

The people of this country have far too long thrust our responsibilities on others. We have thrust our responsibility to teach our children upon state schools; we have thrust our responsibility to train our children in the faith upon Sunday schools; we have thrust our responsibility to teach our children sexuality upon teachers (WTF?); we have thrust our resposibility to provide for retirement upon social security programs; and we have thrust our responsibility to care for the poor all the way up to the federal level. That's not the government's job. That's my job, the job of my church, the job of my community, the job of my collective compassion organizations (Red Cross/Salvation Army, etc).

And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.

[st.cronin]

good post rev

I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it.

For myself I think the question is not "should we care for the poor/unfortunate" but "how should we care for the poor/unfortunate." I don't think it's a philosophical question - I think 99.99% of us agree that there are no circumstances under which a child should go hungry in this country, for example - but rather it's a technical question, that most of us only understand what is apparent to our immediate reality (my taxes go up, etc.)

[Raiders Army]

This is a fascinating thread. I see many viewpoints here and I don't believe that they are necessarily contradictory.

[Raiders Army]

The biggest problem with the extreme left and extreme right is that both start out with the assumption that the other side doesn't share their values. Americans are a diverse bunch, but we are pretty homogenous in our values, afaict.
A little late to the party, but this is very true.

[revrew]

[QUOTE=st.cronin]good post rev

I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it.

QUOTE]

Extreme? I prefer the term "radical." Or even, "maverick." That's me! :D I'd like to see the boat rocked, and if that means suggesting we capsize it...then let her roll!

In philosophy, I'm an extreme, original intent Constitutionalist. I don't necessarily jive with the political party of that name, but it means sometimes I come off sounding Republican, sometimes Libertarian, but all held together by a common thread: the federal government needs to get back inside its Constitutional cage and give the people back their rights and responsibilities. One day, I dream about starting a third political party and calling it the "Bill of Rights" party, in reference to the Constitution, the check on the federal governement that the original Bill of Rights created, and regaining individual rights. Anybody with me? ;)

[wade moore]

Where do I sign-up? ;)...

Only partially joking as I'm basing it on this one specific issue where I happen to agree with you...

[Galaxy]

I find it odd that the right-wing is the party of patriotism when the ethic of "mine is mine" is very anti-patriotic. Arguing that someone should sacrifice their life (a very patriotic act) for the sake of the American experiment, but they shouldn't sacrifice money for that same end is nonsense to me. Taxation is patriotic. It is a way of the citizens supporting the larger project. And everyone must contribute their share to make sure that the American project is worth something.

Now, we can debate about how that project should be designed (maybe welfare isn't a good idea? - that's what legislatures are for). But, never should we say "mine is mine" and "leave my stuff alone." That is the epitomy of anti-American, IMO.

It's got nothing to do with being anti-patriotism.

My question is, what is a "fair" tax for the rich to the poor. The rich are in a tax bracket of 35% (after tax cuts), while each bracket reduces greatly. Is it fair that the rich have to pay a higher poriton of the income compare to the lower brackets? Just some questions I have.

[RendeR]

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered?

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

[st.cronin]

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered?

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you?

[Galaxy]

You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you?

Be much more fairer.....And wealth will create jobs.

[Galaxy]

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

Why are businesses and the rich of the nation being pampered?

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.

Agree with this, though I think it's more the government's fault to allow these loopholes.

[RendeR]

You do realize that a flat tax would be VASTLY better for the rich than for the poor, don't you?
Its not a matter of better or worse. This country has to stop being so candy-ass about how it treats people on each end of teh scale. The rich shouldn't be getting tax shelters and tax cuts and the poor need to learn to live within their means. A flat tax does both of these things, you make X dollars this year, you pay 20% of it to the government. Period.

Its not worse or better, its called Fair and unbiased.

[RendeR]

Agree with this, though I think it's more the government's fault to allow these loopholes.
Every tax paying citizen in this country has the ability to stop the bullshit, however we'd rather stick our ehads in teh sand than oust the porkfat feeders in washington.

[oliegirl]

One of the major problems with the entire eco(nomic)-system in this nation is the special treatment of the affluent. Yes there are benefits for low income individuals as well, but why is it that people with money always eem to have safety nets and loopholes and tax-breaks which severely lower their taxable income amount?

As unfair as it is, it's because they can afford it. They can afford to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in ways which protect them from paying taxes on that money. On the other side of the coin however, without those people investing all that money - what would happen to the stock market and to our economy?

I think the best thing is a flat federal SALES tax...you pay taxes based on what you spend. Someone at the lower end of the scale will pay significantly less taxes on their purchases than the high end of the scale just because the price tag is higher at the higher end.

[Galaxy]

As unfair as it is, it's because they can afford it. They can afford to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in ways which protect them from paying taxes on that money. On the other side of the coin however, without those people investing all that money - what would happen to the stock market and to our economy?

I think the best thing is a flat federal SALES tax...you pay taxes based on what you spend. Someone at the lower end of the scale will pay significantly less taxes on their purchases than the high end of the scale just because the price tag is higher at the higher end.

I don't know about a sales tax. A few advantages is that it is based on what you spend, would hit up those illegal aleins, as regular foreign vistors, ect.

A combination of a flat tax and sales tax might be something I would consider.

[Raiders Army]

Its not a matter of better or worse. This country has to stop being so candy-ass about how it treats people on each end of teh scale. The rich shouldn't be getting tax shelters and tax cuts and the poor need to learn to live within their means. A flat tax does both of these things, you make X dollars this year, you pay 20% of it to the government. Period.

Its not worse or better, its called Fair and unbiased.
I agree. I would also add (and others have said it) that the government can trim the fat a lot to aid in our taxes.

[oliegirl]

I don't know about a sales tax. A few advantages is that it is based on what you spend, would hit up those illegal aleins, as regular foreign vistors, ect.

A combination of a flat tax and sales tax might be something I would consider.

I would support the flat income/sales tax also, but I'd support just the sales tax more, and this is the #1 reason why - people in America don't save their money...on the whole, we are a nation of spenders...people see their income go up b/c of no income tax and they are going to go right to the malls, targets, walmarts, internet, etc - and spend that money. The percentage of people putting that extra income in savings will be small...it will boost the economy, and the gov't will have all the tax money they want (well, not really, they will always want more, but you know what I mean)

[judicial clerk]

Revrew is one of those board members who I always pause to read.

[Raiders Army]

Revrew is one of those board members who I always pause to read.
What do you have to pause while you read his posts? Porn?

[sachmo71]

What do you have to pause while you read his posts? Porn?


Because you never know when a kid is going to come flying out.

[sachmo71]

[QUOTE=st.cronin]good post rev

I think you are staking out an extreme position, and can't support it, but there is at least integrity and clear thought behind it.

QUOTE]

Extreme? I prefer the term "radical." Or even, "maverick." That's me! :D I'd like to see the boat rocked, and if that means suggesting we capsize it...then let her roll!

In philosophy, I'm an extreme, original intent Constitutionalist. I don't necessarily jive with the political party of that name, but it means sometimes I come off sounding Republican, sometimes Libertarian, but all held together by a common thread: the federal government needs to get back inside its Constitutional cage and give the people back their rights and responsibilities. One day, I dream about starting a third political party and calling it the "Bill of Rights" party, in reference to the Constitution, the check on the federal governement that the original Bill of Rights created, and regaining individual rights. Anybody with me? ;)

It needs to be some sort of animal party. I'm partial to Bull Moose, but you could be Grizzly Bear or somesuch.

[MrBigglesworth]

Who, exactly, has this responsibility? Who is morally obliged to do this care?

That's the real question. To this I would answer simply: individual Americans and their collective compassionate organizations do. If our Constitution provided this role for the federal govt (and to take "general welfare clause" to mean it does is a position clearly refuted by the writings of the framers), then the federal government would have that responsibility. Since it does not, I contend, thrusting such a responsibility upon the government is an abdication of our own moral obligations.
Philosophically, do you agree that national defense should be the same way? Shouldn't that be left up to private industry as well? If I have no money, living in some shithole apartment, why should I be forced to pay my taxes to national defense when I have nothing to lose? Wouldn't it be better for me if a government with social welfare came in and overran the country? What if I think I am in greater danger of a terrorist attack than a ballistic missile? Shouldn't I be able to pay money to a company that will protect me from terrorists rather than pay it to the government for Star Wars?

And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.
Where is this Utopia that proves that we are mired in foolishness? Because every country that has no safety nets and laissez faire business practices has a few ultra rich people and millions of people living in squalor. You are advocating Africa's economic system. Good luck finding people that will starve their family to feed someone else's family.

[MrBigglesworth]

I still believe a flat tax for all, individuals, businesses and religious organizations should be enforced. What level that should be...probably around 15-20%.

THe racketeering that goes on in all governments to get and give tax breaks in return for some goods or services is one of the largest criminal institutions I've ever seen. Sadly this country and most of the world would rather accept it than deal with it.
Having a flat tax has absolutely nothing to do with the tax breaks and loopholes. That is not a function of the progressivity of the system. Apples and oranges.

[MrBigglesworth]

Be much more fairer.....And wealth will create jobs.
A flat tax isn't a magic money tree. If the rich pay less (as I think you are insinuating by saying that it will increase wealth) the poor and middle class will pay more. Which means that the poor and middle class will have less money to spend to pay for the goods and services that make the rich wealthy.

[Galaxy]

Philosophically, do you agree that national defense should be the same way? Shouldn't that be left up to private industry as well? If I have no money, living in some shithole apartment, why should I be forced to pay my taxes to national defense when I have nothing to lose? Wouldn't it be better for me if a government with social welfare came in and overran the country? What if I think I am in greater danger of a terrorist attack than a ballistic missile? Shouldn't I be able to pay money to a company that will protect me from terrorists rather than pay it to the government for Star Wars?


Where is this Utopia that proves that we are mired in foolishness? Because every country that has no safety nets and laissez faire business practices has a few ultra rich people and millions of people living in squalor. You are advocating Africa's economic system. Good luck finding people that will starve their family to feed someone else's family.

Have you read in-depth about Africa?

[Galaxy]

Having a flat tax has absolutely nothing to do with the tax breaks and loopholes. That is not a function of the progressivity of the system. Apples and oranges.

A flat tax would eliminate those loopholes and tax breaks, at least not what I think it means.

[Galaxy]

A flat tax isn't a magic money tree. If the rich pay less (as I think you are insinuating by saying that it will increase wealth) the poor and middle class will pay more. Which means that the poor and middle class will have less money to spend to pay for the goods and services that make the rich wealthy.

The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality.

[MrBigglesworth]

A flat tax would eliminate those loopholes and tax breaks, at least not what I think it means.
A flat tax is completely different. You can eliminate the loopholes and tax breaks and have 50 million incremented tax brackets. You can have a flat tax with tax breaks and loopholes same as you have them with a progressive tax system. Apples and oranges.

[MrBigglesworth]

The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality.
Let's hold off on the equality rhetoric. What I meant by less was compared to the tax system now. Say the top tax rate now is 35%, on the last hundred dollars Bill Gates makes, he would pay $35. Under a system where the top tax rate is 20% (i.e., a flat tax of 20%), he would pay $20, which is less than $35.

If that wasn't what you were talking about in terms of building wealth to create jobs, what were you talking about?

EDIT: And in a revenue nuetral environment, if Gates pays less, the lower and/or middle classes pay more.

[ISiddiqui]

Also an important point is that a progressive tax system is able to deal with recessions much easier. A flat tax makes it much harder to get out of an economic downturn. The reasons are that during a recovery, the people that make the most money are those on the top and business. That ends up spreading to those lower down the chain because those businesses will start hiring more people and whatnot. In a progressive system, the rich will pay more and the poor pay less, making the recession less harmful on the poor, but when the rich start making their money in the beginning of recovery, the government will gain more revenues than without a progressive system.

Anyway, I'm not for a flat tax or national sales tax (unless the sales tax replaces the payroll tax). I'm fine with an progressive income tax.

[Sidhe]

The rich pay less? Say a rich guy makes $200,000, and another guy makes $40,000, and you tax it at 10%. The rich guy pays $20,000 and the other guy pays $4,000. The rich are still paying more, but the system is much fairer to all. I though our country believed in equality.

I make a sheer buttload of money, more than the range quoted here, and EVEN I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K, because my food, gas, and lodging costs the same as his. With a spouse and three kids, at the end of the day, he's wiped out, and he's taking the bus to work. I'm buying a second car and thinking about taking a month off to drive it.

Is that fair?

And I make so much more money because why exactly? Let me tell you, it was mostly dumb luck, it wasn't because I worked harder or because I deserved it more.

That's what the progressive tax system is, it's FAIR considering circumstances.

And never forget, we provide a wonderful system in the US for making money hand over fist if you catch the right breaks and make the right contacts. Without a progressive tax system in place, that system is absolutely FREE!! for those who can get in. And that system is made up of us.

With a progressive tax system such as we've had over the last few decades, it still didn't cost all that much, either. I mean, using Bill Gates as your example -- he still became a billionaire.

[sachmo71]

Because you never know when a kid is going to come flying out.


NOTHING?!??!

Man, tough crowd! :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K ...

Then you sir are a damned fool.

[Galaxy]

I make a sheer buttload of money, more than the range quoted here, and EVEN I concede that I must pay a higher percentage in taxes than the guy making 40K, because my food, gas, and lodging costs the same as his. With a spouse and three kids, at the end of the day, he's wiped out, and he's taking the bus to work. I'm buying a second car and thinking about taking a month off to drive it.

Is that fair?

And I make so much more money because why exactly? Let me tell you, it was mostly dumb luck, it wasn't because I worked harder or because I deserved it more.

That's what the progressive tax system is, it's FAIR considering circumstances.

And never forget, we provide a wonderful system in the US for making money hand over fist if you catch the right breaks and make the right contacts. Without a progressive tax system in place, that system is absolutely FREE!! for those who can get in. And that system is made up of us.

With a progressive tax system such as we've had over the last few decades, it still didn't cost all that much, either. I mean, using Bill Gates as your example -- he still became a billionaire.

But if the guy has a wife and three kids, is that his personal choice to support them? Should people have children and be married if they are not making that much money? As for progressive tax system, I can see what your saying (and the rest), but I think I'm not sure if it's fair. I just don't think a guy that makes more should have to pay a higher portion of his salary. Just my two cents.

[Schmidty]

Then you sir are a damned fool.

I've never understood the higher taxes for higher income brackets thing. What's the point of gaining wealth in a capitalistic society if you have to give more of it away because someone else makes less than you (for whatever reasons)?

By the way, I know almost nothing about tax law or economics, so feel free to explain it to me in the most basic way you can, I won't be offended.

[revrew]

judicial clerk - tx, a kind compliment

Regarding private military -- The Constitution, I believe, spells out that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is national defense. Thus, a private military would be both impractical and entirely unneccessary.

Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church.

Regarding FLAT TAX - Why all this incredible misunderstanding and nonsense? There's no need to tax a poor person at 20% and call that flat or fair. Here's how a logical flat tax works: Some minimum standard of living is set, a threshhold for which all Americans are allowed at no tax whatsoever. Then, every dollar made above that amount is taxed at a flat rate without any sense of tax bracket, which merely penalizes people for making more. For example, if the minimum allowance was set at $30,000 per joint return, a couple making $25,000 would owe nothing. A couple making $40,000 would only pay a flat rate on the 10Gs above the allowance. A millionaire couple would pay the same rate on every dollar above the 30G allowance. Simple.

I would support such a system wholeheartedly, but want to see no tax shelters, no tax breaks, no deductions of any kind (except, possibly, a greater allowance threshold for # of people in a family, much as our "standard deductions" work now). The IRS could be virtually eliminated, and everyone could do their own taxes in a matter of minutes. Of course, H&R Block would be put out of business, and so would a few tax software companies, but I think the regained man-hours and political-hours would more than make up for it in the long run.

[st.cronin]

It has to do with the marginal value of the next dollar. If you make 25,000/year, then another 1,000 dollars in taxes means a lot. If you make 25,000,000/year, then 1,000,000 has less relative value than 1,000 to the first person.

There is also the theory that it discourages the accumulation of wealth, which is considered unhealthy for a variety of reasons in a democratic society. This is why we have tax breaks for charitable donations and investments - it's rewarding redistribution of wealth.

I'm not an economist, either, but I've read one or two books. I admit I don't really understand economics.

[John Galt]

I've never understood the higher taxes for higher income brackets thing. What's the point of gaining wealth in a capitalistic society if you have to give more of it away because someone else makes less than you (for whatever reasons)?

By the way, I know almost nothing about tax law or economics, so feel free to explain it to me in the most basic way you can, I won't be offended.

Your first argument is in part why progressive taxation is not detrimental to the economy. As you continue to make more and more wealth, you still accumulate a substantial portion yourself. At some point, the incentive to gain more income decreases to a sufficient point that it is no longer worth your effort. However, based on modern American history, that rate is very high for most individuals. In the U.S., the top marginal tax bracket has been 90% at some times. At that rate, the marginal value of increasing your wealth is low. However, making another $100,000 at a 35% tax rate still nets you a crap load of cash.

Now, as to why it is "fair" or "good" to have progressive taxation, let me expand upon my previous post.

The rich get the most out of the American governmental system. The government gives the means to our population to accumulate wealth. The poor and middle class have less to lose by choosing an alternate political system. The wealthy, on the other hand, derive significant benefits that they should pay for.

For example, at a basic level, the very concept of money creates an efficiency surplus. If we used a strict barter system, our economy would look very different. We would have to constantly arrange trades for all of our goods and stores would have to need what we were offering. By using money, our system efficiency is GREATLY increased. This surplus value added to the economy is made possible only by government.

Similarly, a government that facilitates private industry competition creates signficant surplus to the people.

There are many such surpluses created by our form of government. These do not exist in the state of nature and are not the only way we can do things. To me, progressive taxation is the way for the rich to pay for the benefits they derive from the unique American system. They have no natural rights to their money, because their wealth is made possible ONLY by acts of the government.

Anyway, I was light on the economics, so hopefully that at least makes some sense to you (even if you disagree with it).

[MrBigglesworth]

Regarding private military -- The Constitution, I believe, spells out that one of the primary purposes of the federal government is national defense. Thus, a private military would be both impractical and entirely unneccessary.
That just says that it's good because it is in the Constitution. Why do you want to keep that as part of the Constitution? Slavery was in the original Constitution, I am sure you are not a fan of that. What makes the government in your eyes good at defending the country but bad at defending against poverty?

Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church.
Before FDR's time poverty was much worse and the disparity between classes was starker. So how does that support your point that the 'abdication of personal responsibility' is making things worse?

Regarding FLAT TAX - Why all this incredible misunderstanding and nonsense? There's no need to tax a poor person at 20% and call that flat or fair. Here's how a logical flat tax works: Some minimum standard of living is set, a threshhold for which all Americans are allowed at no tax whatsoever. Then, every dollar made above that amount is taxed at a flat rate without any sense of tax bracket, which merely penalizes people for making more. For example, if the minimum allowance was set at $30,000 per joint return, a couple making $25,000 would owe nothing. A couple making $40,000 would only pay a flat rate on the 10Gs above the allowance. A millionaire couple would pay the same rate on every dollar above the 30G allowance. Simple.
That's a progressive tax system, only with two levels (0% and X%). Why penalize the people that are successful that make more than $25k? You are attempting to say your views are based on principle, but then drawing an arbitrary line as to where that principal comes into play (i.e., taxing people at a higher rate at $100k in income is 'penalizing' them, while taxing people at a higher rate at $25k is 'simple and fair').

[John Galt]

Revrew and others,

There is one area of the flat tax that I always find lacking. One of the basic questions in tax law is defining income. The flat tax defenders don't seem to realize how many "loopholes" exist just by virtue of the definition of income.

Do you count capital gains? If you do, it is really a form of double taxation since the money was already earned once. If you don't, you really protect the rich who just invest their money over and over again. If you treat capital gains differently, how do you do it?

What if companies switch to providing income in-kind? That is, what if they pay your rent, loan you a car, and offer free health care? Are those income? If not, that is an enormous loophole? If yes, then you need to craft a very clear series of definitions about what in-kind services are income. You would never count the cost of water you drink at work, but would you count the company paying for meals on business trips? What if they use a reimbursement system for payment of such expenses?

Do you offer any special circumstances exceptions? What if you have $40,000 in health care expenses one year and you only earn $40,000? What if you are a small business owner and you record a major loss?

These are only a few basic questions. There are many, many more. The flat tax defenders often end up crafting so many exceptions that the simplicity of their system ends up lost. Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system. The rest of it still needs to be fleshed out and that is the source of most of the confusion regarding taxes.

[st.cronin]

Revrew and others,

There is one area of the flat tax that I always find lacking. One of the basic questions in tax law is defining income. The flat tax defenders don't seem to realize how many "loopholes" exist just by virtue of the definition of income.

Do you count capital gains? If you do, it is really a form of double taxation since the money was already earned once. If you don't, you really protect the rich who just invest their money over and over again. If you treat capital gains differently, how do you do it?

What if companies switch to providing income in-kind? That is, what if they pay your rent, loan you a car, and offer free health care? Are those income? If not, that is an enormous loophole? If yes, then you need to craft a very clear series of definitions about what in-kind services are income. You would never count the cost of water you drink at work, but would you count the company paying for meals on business trips? What if they use a reimbursement system for payment of such expenses?

Do you offer any special circumstances exceptions? What if you have $40,000 in health care expenses one year and you only earn $40,000? What if you are a small business owner and you record a major loss?

These are only a few basic questions. There are many, many more. The flat tax defenders often end up crafting so many exceptions that the simplicity of their system ends up lost. Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system. The rest of it still needs to be fleshed out and that is the source of most of the confusion regarding taxes.

...

[Schmidty]

Anyway, I was light on the economics, so hopefully that at least makes some sense to you (even if you disagree with it).

It's not that I disagree with your reasoning, it's just that I also see the other side of the issue just as well (personal responsibilty, etc.). This is one of many issues I'm torn both ways on. As much as it might annoy some people on this board (who are offended by people even mentioning religion), my measuring stick on most political issues is the basic question as to what I think Jesus would do. Even going by that, this issue (and others) is in a grey area for me.

[John Galt]

Regarding the Utopia and african economics -- Before FDR's New Deal, American citizens, churches, and charitable organizations were the primary social benevolents in this country. We have since given more and more of that responsibility to government agencies, thus accelerating a pace of abdicating personal responsibility and hiding the consequences from our eyes. I'm suggesting that we stop that slide and take steps to reverse it, not that we suddenly throw our culture into cold-turkey welfare shock. And...regarding those that would suffer their own families for the benefit of others...I know many. I'm surrounded by them in my church.


While I think your history is only partly right on this (a lot of welfare was provided on a local government level before), I think our economy has grown such that such a system is no longer possible. Nowadays, a hobo can't really live off the land. Everything is private. The ability to just "get by" is not the same as it was 150 years ago. A homeless person is highly unlikely to even get a job at McDonald's. Any given poor child in an urban public school system stands a low chance of ever becoming even middle class. Class mobility in America has largely been obliterated by growing wealth differential.

Now, I'm not opposed to greatly limiting certain types of welfare (I would be perfectly happy to eliminate social security, for instance). However, health care for the poor, welfare for children, school lunch programs, etc. seem absolutely essential in a society that has grown too much for local governments and churches to care for those most in need.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FTR, I'm not a "flat-taxer", at least not in the sense of Boortz,et al who have been blipping the radar lately. But with that caveat in mind ...

Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system.

I pretty strongly believe that ending progressive taxation is the primary goal of many (maybe most?) flat tax proponents. Less complex might (or might not) be a happy by-product of it, but its not at all a significant component of my support for the basic idea.

("support" as in an affirmative response to a general question like "Would you support changing to a 'flat' tax system")

[John Galt]

The people of this country have far too long thrust our responsibilities on others. We have thrust our responsibility to teach our children upon state schools; we have thrust our responsibility to train our children in the faith upon Sunday schools; we have thrust our responsibility to teach our children sexuality upon teachers (WTF?); we have thrust our resposibility to provide for retirement upon social security programs; and we have thrust our responsibility to care for the poor all the way up to the federal level. That's not the government's job. That's my job, the job of my church, the job of my community, the job of my collective compassion organizations (Red Cross/Salvation Army, etc).

And the penalty, the cost for people not fulfilling their responsibities? It's being confronted with children dying. It's poverty. It's crime. It's social decay. These are the fruits of our irresponsibility; but instead of allowing Americans to face their own foolishness, we have invented a system of taxation and government spending so we don't have to face our own sin. When my neighbor's child cries because Daddy lost his job and baby goes to bed hungry, I should not have the luxury of saying, "Oh, the government will take care of him." I should be emptying my pantry and getting my butt over there with a loaf of bread.

I guess I'm not willing to sacrifice many to teach a lesson to others. I know that is a horrible simplification of what you are saying and I've never doubted that your heart is in the right place. However, I still feel that any system which starts eliminating safety nets always leaves some (usually those least able to help themselves: children, mentally ill, physically handicapped, etc.) out in the cold in order to teach the cheaters to be responsible. I'd rather just have some cheating/gaming of the system than leaving some to die. I believe if everyone felt as you do that no one would be left in such a state. However, I don't believe such a world exists and I have little hope it ever would.

[John Galt]

I pretty strongly believe that ending progressive taxation is the primary goal of many (maybe most?) flat tax proponents.


I agree. I just felt that some posts here were emphasizing the simplicity aspect and I really don't think a flat tax is any simpler than a progressive one. You just rip out the tax tables out of your tax forms - the rest of it remains the same (or some variation of rules depending on your particular views).

[Anthony]

what i don't get is this:

who says "the children" have to suffer as a result of weakening Big Government (i'm anti-Big Government, for the record)? shouldn't it be we cut programs we all deem to be excessive? i for one think our defense budget is quite unnecessary. i also happen to think our defense budget should be used for just that - defense, not proactively starting wars (but that's for another thread). i also happen to think we could stand to lessen the funding for our space program. i think space exploration should be a global responsibility, rather than nation by nation (again, we'll save that for another thread). so right there are two sectors from which we can lessen funding for without touching education and afterschool programs.

[st.cronin]

what i don't get is this:

who says "the children" have to suffer as a result of weakening Big Government (i'm anti-Big Government, for the record)? shouldn't it be we cut programs we all deem to be excessive? i for one think our defense budget is quite unnecessary. i also happen to think our defense budget should be used for just that - defense, not proactively starting wars (but that's for another thread). i also happen to think we could stand to lessen the funding for our space program. i think space exploration should be a global responsibility, rather than nation by nation (again, we'll save that for another thread). so right there are two sectors from which we can lessen funding for without touching education and afterschool programs.


We have to keep in mind that the defense budget is only mostly for purposes of national defense. A large part of the defense budget is state-sponsored tech industry.

[Buzzbee]

Your first argument is in part why progressive taxation is not detrimental to the economy. As you continue to make more and more wealth, you still accumulate a substantial portion yourself. At some point, the incentive to gain more income decreases to a sufficient point that it is no longer worth your effort. However, based on modern American history, that rate is very high for most individuals. In the U.S., the top marginal tax bracket has been 90% at some times. At that rate, the marginal value of increasing your wealth is low. However, making another $100,000 at a 35% tax rate still nets you a crap load of cash.

Now, as to why it is "fair" or "good" to have progressive taxation, let me expand upon my previous post.

The rich get the most out of the American governmental system. The government gives the means to our population to accumulate wealth. The poor and middle class have less to lose by choosing an alternate political system. The wealthy, on the other hand, derive significant benefits that they should pay for.

For example, at a basic level, the very concept of money creates an efficiency surplus. If we used a strict barter system, our economy would look very different. We would have to constantly arrange trades for all of our goods and stores would have to need what we were offering. By using money, our system efficiency is GREATLY increased. This surplus value added to the economy is made possible only by government.

Similarly, a government that facilitates private industry competition creates signficant surplus to the people.

There are many such surpluses created by our form of government. These do not exist in the state of nature and are not the only way we can do things. To me, progressive taxation is the way for the rich to pay for the benefits they derive from the unique American system. They have no natural rights to their money, because their wealth is made possible ONLY by acts of the government.

Anyway, I was light on the economics, so hopefully that at least makes some sense to you (even if you disagree with it).
John - Your argument completely ignores the social aspects of government. I agree that the wealthy benefit from having a government that protects the stucture provided for them to make their wealth. A strong national defense protects the interests of the wealthy more than the poor, because as you said, the wealthy have more to lose. I don't argue that point.

However, as the government is today, the poor DO benefit from the government.

"The poor and middle class have less to lose by choosing an alternate political system. The wealthy, on the other hand, derive significant benefits that they should pay for."

While this is true, the poor and middle-class are better off because of the current political/economic system than most any other viable alternative.

Also, your argument ignores the fact that some of the income the wealthy pay in taxes does go to the poor. That, as far as I have thought it through, does not generally benefit the wealthy in any way that would justify them paying that tax.

You say the wealthy should pay more than the poor because they derive greater benefit from the government. I can buy that argument, but only as long as that extra amount goes to protect the structure, and not to benefit the poor.

Based on your justification for the wealthy to pay more in taxes, it seems that social programs would not be justified and should be cut or reduced. I haven't thought it through enough to make a definitive statement, so I'm open to alternative positions.

I am of the opinion that government expense is far larger than it needs to be, and as a result, government income is as well. I am in favor of tax cuts, only if government expense is reduced as well.

[John Galt]

"The poor and middle class have less to lose by choosing an alternate political system. The wealthy, on the other hand, derive significant benefits that they should pay for."

While this is true, the poor and middle-class are better off because of the current political/economic system than most any other viable alternative.

Is that really so? Are the poor better off in the U.S. than they would be in Great Britain? How about the middle class?

Either way, my point was never that the poor and middle class are WORSE off. I simply said they have a lot less to lose compared to the rich.

Also, your argument ignores the fact that some of the income the wealthy pay in taxes does go to the poor. That, as far as I have thought it through, does not generally benefit the wealthy in any way that would justify them paying that tax.

I didn't "ignore" that fact. My original post compares the benefits of the wealthy with the receipt of something like a welfare check. On balance, I argued the rich receive FAR more than the poor receiving a check directly. The difference is that the benefits to the rich aren't as commonly observed. And I'm not sure why you should only be taxed for things that are directly beneficial to you. That seems like a horrible way to set up a government/society.

You say the wealthy should pay more than the poor because they derive greater benefit from the government. I can buy that argument, but only as long as that extra amount goes to protect the structure, and not to benefit the poor.

First off, I would say that you can't have one without the other. From a pure self-interest standpoint, the rich cannot survive without the poor and middle class letting them get away with it. Now, I don't defend the idea that the rich are just buying off revolution. I think that is a bad way to approach government too. However, I'm not as naive to believe that the rich don't also benefit by appearring benevolent.

More importantly, the safety nets make people play the game that make people rich. The American experiment works because everyone has something to aspire to. As it is now, class mobility is falling apart. Decreasing taxes on the rich will only exacerbate that trend. Compare these:

Child A:
In East St. Louis
Inner city school (99% non-white)
Violence constant
Parents are drug addicts
Struggles and graduates high school

Child B:
In Westchester, NY
Goes to private pre-school in Manhattan (his classmates will almost all end up in Ivy League schools) - with all white kids
Goes to private schools in elementary and high school levels
Despite underperforming at all levels, admitted to Yale because of parent's legacy

Who is going to succeed in our society 999 times out of 1000?

Without mobility, the system fails. Right now, I think we are close to having too little mobility to make our form of government continue to work. We are probably fine, but it is something that concerns me.

Based on your justification for the wealthy to pay more in taxes, it seems that social programs would not be justified and should be cut or reduced. I haven't thought it through enough to make a definitive statement, so I'm open to alternative positions.

I am of the opinion that government expense is far larger than it needs to be, and as a result, government income is as well. I am in favor of tax cuts, only if government expense is reduced as well.

I believe certain areas of our government are too large. I also believe bureacracies tend to grow and never shrink. I believe a lot of things should change. However, progressive taxation is not one of them, IMO.

[st.cronin]

Semantic clarification: Shifting the tax burden is a long way from an alternate political system. It's just a drift/shift in fiscal policy, which is constantly happening in minor ways.

[Buzzbee]

John Galt - I'm not arguing against a progressive tax system. Nor am I arguing that people should only be taxed on what is beneficial to them. You seemed to be the one arguing this point, as your justification for a progressive tax system was based on the premise that the wealthy benefit more and therefore should pay more. In fact, I'm not arguing for or against any system of taxation. The government has to have revenue to function. Most, if not all, systems of taxation are going to be inherrently unfair to someone. So, I'm not really concerned with the 'fairness' of the tax system.

So, I was simply trying to make a point that while I agree that the wealthy benefit more from the protection of the government, using that as a justification for a progressive tax system does come in conflict with the government's current structure in certain areas.

I wasn't necessarily calling for all social programs to be eliminated. There are many that are very valid and worthwhile. You seemed to be trying to spin my comments in that direction with your student A and B example, and that is not accurate.

[ISiddiqui]

So, I was simply trying to make a point that while I agree that the wealthy benefit more from the protection of the government, using that as a justification for a progressive tax system does come in conflict with the government's current structure in certain areas.I think the argument is also that the social programs to the poor ALSO protect the wealthy. Without them, the poor may decide to get a bit uppity (I don't mean revolution necessarily, but mass voting for far left parties, who would necessarily hurt the rich by making them pay more to the entire system, because they think it is unfair for people to make so much while others don't have enough to eat). A little social programs spending may prevent a lot more given up. And it isn't only because the poor may start voting mass left, but the middle class may get disgusted at the treatment the poor are recieving (and seeing masses of them on the city streets) and also work to change that.

And, social programs allow the poor to be relatively healthy so that they may be used as a labor force for when times are good and more people are needed for jobs (like in the late 90s).

[Galaxy]

If taxes were to rise, what is it to stop a rich citizen to leave the country to a tax-friendly country (Switzerland, Monaco, ect.). They do this already in some ways, but could it happen?

[JonInMiddleGA]

If taxes were to rise, what is it to stop a rich citizen to leave the country to a tax-friendly country (Switzerland, Monaco, ect.). They do this already in some ways, but could it happen?

Well, nothing off-hand ... other than some of the practicalities.

Although I'm a long way from being that level of "rich", I've looked into it a little bit on several occasions (usually after I go through the annual round of company & personal taxes).

[Buzzbee]

I think the argument is also that the social programs to the poor ALSO protect the wealthy. Without them, the poor may decide to get a bit uppity (I don't mean revolution necessarily, but mass voting for far left parties, who would necessarily hurt the rich by making them pay more to the entire system, because they think it is unfair for people to make so much while others don't have enough to eat). A little social programs spending may prevent a lot more given up. And it isn't only because the poor may start voting mass left, but the middle class may get disgusted at the treatment the poor are recieving (and seeing masses of them on the city streets) and also work to change that.

And, social programs allow the poor to be relatively healthy so that they may be used as a labor force for when times are good and more people are needed for jobs (like in the late 90s).
Ummm...I think it might be a safe argument that this has already happened. I don't think it is a coincidence that more and more people are removed from tax obligation every year. I think this is more political than economic, but there are some economic aspects as well. Politicians looking out for their own constituents as well as general political popularity tend to create programs that will benefit voters. If the poor and middle-class outnumber the wealthy, then it seems logical to expect politicians to cater to those voters.

Look at Social Security. Mention eliminating it and seniors and baby boomers get in a tizzy. So, the politicians tip-toe around the issue to avoid losing votes. However, just about everyone knows it needs to be drastically changed for it to survive.

It is also an example of how Social programs tend to continue to balloon. No one wants to willingly give up money, and more and more people will line up to feed at the government teat. Not saying that every program is like this, just that it is the tendency.

Closing of military bases could even be tossed out there, as an example of how this applies to non-social programs. Communities come to depend on that government money to fuel their economy. So, when a decision is made to close a base or discontinue purchasing a plane manufactured in a particular area, those communities fight to keep that government money. They don't want less, they want more.


Sorry for the ramble. This is one reason I feel that talks about economics, in this day and age, are intrinsically tied to politics. The government spends sooooo much money that our economy is heavily dependent on it. Severe cutbacks in rapid fashion would send us into an economic tailspin. I would greatly be in favor of long term pruning of government functions coupled with close supervision of new growth.

[MrBigglesworth]

Now, I'm not opposed to greatly limiting certain types of welfare (I would be perfectly happy to eliminate social security, for instance).
How can you call SS welfare? I don't think that is fair.

[MrBigglesworth]

If taxes were to rise, what is it to stop a rich citizen to leave the country to a tax-friendly country (Switzerland, Monaco, ect.). They do this already in some ways, but could it happen?
Well what if they do? Who cares? If they are earning their money, it is most likely from some type of corporation, and the corporation will still be doing business in the USA, which means the economy and the tax revenue keeps coming in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How can you call SS welfare? I don't that is fair.

F'n A ... me & Biggles agreeing on something.
Sonuvabitch, who woulda thunk it?

[Dutch]

Social Security is currently an investment the worker makes towards his/her future. But in a couple of decades, it will be a subsidized welfare program.

[MrBigglesworth]

Revrew and others,

There is one area of the flat tax that I always find lacking. One of the basic questions in tax law is defining income. The flat tax defenders don't seem to realize how many "loopholes" exist just by virtue of the definition of income.

Do you count capital gains? If you do, it is really a form of double taxation since the money was already earned once. If you don't, you really protect the rich who just invest their money over and over again. If you treat capital gains differently, how do you do it?

What if companies switch to providing income in-kind? That is, what if they pay your rent, loan you a car, and offer free health care? Are those income? If not, that is an enormous loophole? If yes, then you need to craft a very clear series of definitions about what in-kind services are income. You would never count the cost of water you drink at work, but would you count the company paying for meals on business trips? What if they use a reimbursement system for payment of such expenses?

Do you offer any special circumstances exceptions? What if you have $40,000 in health care expenses one year and you only earn $40,000? What if you are a small business owner and you record a major loss?

These are only a few basic questions. There are many, many more. The flat tax defenders often end up crafting so many exceptions that the simplicity of their system ends up lost. Sure, they have obliterated progressive taxes, but that is actually the least complicated part of the whole system. The rest of it still needs to be fleshed out and that is the source of most of the confusion regarding taxes.
This is what I was talking about with apples and oranges. You can argue a flat tax based on you not liking progressive tax brackets, but not on the basis of simplicity. A flat tax can be just as complex as a progressive tax, it's kind of dishonest to compaign for it based on how easy it is.

[ISiddiqui]

Ummm...I think it might be a safe argument that this has already happened.I wasn't saying it hasn't. In fact some speculate that a lot of the New Deal projects were enacted to stave off the prospects of a Communist revolution. Remember back in the early half of the 20th Century, the Communists and Socialists were gaining some major votes. Eugene V. Debs comes to mind.

My argument was that reducing that amount of welfare could have disasterous effects politically, which is what you basically said (if I get your meaning plainly).

[MrBigglesworth]

Social Security is currently an investment the worker makes towards his/her future. But in a couple of decades, it will be a subsidized welfare program.
Technically, the SS trust fund holds enough to cover costs according to some projections. The only reason the government would have to cover the costs is because they spent the surplus already, but that is hardly SS's fault.

[Galaxy]

Well what if they do? Who cares? If they are earning their money, it is most likely from some type of corporation, and the corporation will still be doing business in the USA, which means the economy and the tax revenue keeps coming in.

They would be taking the high personal tax dollars with them....Would lower the income revenues, and potential future jobs/revenues.

[Galaxy]

How can you call SS welfare? I don't think that is fair.

What type of SS are we talking about?

As for retirement, why do we have to rely on the government for our retirement? Wouldn't it be better to invest it ourselves (even a simple mutual fund, ect.)?

[Glengoyne]

What type of SS are we talking about?

As for retirement, why do we have to rely on the government for our retirement? Wouldn't it be better to invest it ourselves (even a simple mutual fund, ect.)?
That is essentially what Bush's SS privatization revamp would have allowed for. Not exactly, but effectively. Too bad it was demonized by its opponents. Sometimes change is good.

[MrBigglesworth]

That is essentially what Bush's SS privatization revamp would have allowed for. Not exactly, but effectively. Too bad it was demonized by its opponents. Sometimes change is good.
Bush's SS plan was dishonestly proposed, which was one of many reasons it fell out of favor. He originally said it would help the solvency problem, which was catagorically untrue, and he later admitted it. It was also projected to get a lower rate of return than SS, because of the fees and the three percent clawback. It was just bad policy, rooted more in philosophy than actual results, and the people saw that. I'm not sure how it was demonized by those opposed to it, during the debate I heard more misinformation by those in favor of it than by those opposed.

[Galaxy]

Bush's SS plan was dishonestly proposed, which was one of many reasons it fell out of favor. He originally said it would help the solvency problem, which was catagorically untrue, and he later admitted it. It was also projected to get a lower rate of return than SS, because of the fees and the three percent clawback. It was just bad policy, rooted more in philosophy than actual results, and the people saw that. I'm not sure how it was demonized by those opposed to it, during the debate I heard more misinformation by those in favor of it than by those opposed.


I agree with that to a degree. I want it so I can invest ALL of my money. Let me keep it, and take care of my future.

[revrew]

I believe if everyone felt as you do that no one would be left in such a state. However, I don't believe such a world exists and I have little hope it ever would.

Okay, bunny trail coming up, but the phrase "I have little hope it ever would" just stuck in my mind. I believe in most countries, such a lack of hope is fully justified. I believe, however, that there is cause for hope in the U.S., as evidenced by the following story. Mind you, this story isn't an attempt to further the arguments made in this thread, but to address the issue of hope:

Ten days after Pearl Harbor, a group of citizens in North Platte heard a rumor that their boys, part of the Nebraska National Guard Company D, would be coming through on a troop train on their way to the West Coast. Five hundred people showed up at the train depot with food, cigarettes, letters, and love to give the boys.

When the train showed up, it was not the Nebraska National Guard Company D boys on board; it was the boys from the Kansas National Guard Company D.

After a few awkward moments, someone handed a young man she’d never seen the gifts intended for her own son. Everyone else followed that lead, and there were hugs and prayers and love shared all around. It was a spontaneous act of genuine devotion that touched both the soldiers and the people who came to the depot that day. That alone would have been a beautiful illustration of the willingness to “sacrifice for one another.” But the story continues.

A few days later, a 26-year-old woman named Rae Wilson wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, recounting the profound experience they’d shared that night, then suggested that the town organize “a canteen” so they could do something similar for every troop train that came through. She volunteered to lead the effort in a voluntary role.

What happened next seems impossible to our 21st century, jaded hearts. For the next four and a half years, the people of North Platte and the surrounding communities met every troop train that came through their town. Every day they prepared sandwiches, cookies, cold drinks, and hot coffee. They had baskets of magazines and books to give away to the soldiers, and snacks for the train. There were even birthday cakes for whoever’s special day it was. And they did this, some days, for as many as 8,000 soldiers and sailors.

The statistics are staggering. By the time the last train was served on April 1, 1946, six million soldiers were served from the North Platte Canteen. Forty-five thousand volunteers served faithfully until the war was over and most of the troops had been transported home.

This was all accomplished without any government funding. The volunteers were farm folks for the most part, and they gave what they had—meat, eggs, and milk. They grew the wheat to make bread. Most everything else was rationed. They’d save their gas coupons for the days that their team would drive to North Platte to serve. And they did without at home so they’d have enough sugar to bake cakes and cookies for the boys.

Many of those who volunteered regularly had lost husbands and sons in the war, and for them, serving these troops was a tangible way to cope with their loss.

Most of the troops had only ten minutes to sprint from the train, grab some food, maybe dance with a pretty girl, hear the appreciation of those present, and sprint back before the train left without them. But in that ten minutes, they got more than a meal. They received a dose of unconditional love that they remembered during the heat of battle, and decades after the war was over.

Bob Greene, whose book Once Upon a Town, made the North Platte Canteen story known to the world, wrote that as he interviewed those few surviving soldiers who had experienced the canteen first hand, there was a universal reaction from these men now in their late seventies and eighties. They cried.