|
I've decided to cut back to a 30 hour week. Why? Just got my tax bill. Essentially, my standard 50 hour week meant the government got the extra. |
|
"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them..."
Who thinks that? Who "got that idea"? Maybe there's a dozen truly lazy people in the country who want to live off a government check. Otherwise, this is a truly silly arguments, and a totally phony one. |
|
again dazzles everyone with his ignorance or deceit, or stupidity; with vlad who knows for sure. |
|
Pity the wealthy, for the must sacrifice a few pittance from their stash of billions in order to help save the American economy. That they benefitted so mightily from the reckless deregulation and rampant thievery of the last 8 years greedfest is apparently beside the point. The rich are SUFFERING, and the rest of the country be-damned!
Oh, and blame the poorest for the meltdown. They, after all, took the bait when Bush tainted them with the illusion of an "ownership society" for all. The sadists in the GOP never get over that sick brand of humor. |
|
"I've decided to cut back to a 30 hour week. Why? Just got my tax bill."
Ah, sharp. Stick It To The Man. Of course, for every dollar of revenue that the government loses, you'll lose two or three, but you'll have shown them, boy. |
|
|
I already lost it. They took it. If someone takes something, it's lost. I could have gone fishing, instead. |
|
"Ah, sharp. Stick It To The Man. Of course, for every dollar of revenue that the government loses, you'll lose two or three, but you'll have shown them, boy."
Why not just pull a Galt? Go live in the woods until they beg you to come back to work and provide income and meaning for the masses. |
|
"vlad again dazzles everyone with his ignorance or deceit, or stupidity; with vlad who knows for sure."
I'm sorry, eddie, did you have an answer to my question? I'm having trouble discerning it.
|
|
|
It is stunning how libs are absolutely untouched by logic. |
|
Bladder: "Who thinks that? Who "got that idea"? Maybe there's a dozen truly lazy people in the country who want to live off a government check. Otherwise, this is a truly silly arguments, and a totally phony one."
Me: That's really what you think? There are about a dozen people in this country sucking off the teet of the productive? You either extremely naive or extremely stupid.
|
|
I posted this on another thread but think it also fits here:
I am extremely weary of this argument of who's screwed things up worse, the Dems or the Repubs, the liberals or the conservatives, the left or the right.
Let's drop these labels for a second and examine it from a different scale - total government control on one end (left scale) and no government on the opposite extreme (right scale). The founding fathers established the Constitution which provides for small government with minimal control. If you want to characterize that as far right, so be it. We need government to protect American citizenry's right to life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. That's it.
That being the scale, the current Dems are very close to the total government control extreme and the Repubs are not far to the right of the Dems - still far left of the center of the scale. The definitions of both conservatives and liberals have been skewed so, depending on whose definition you're using, they could be placed at varying places on that new scale.
For me, it's frightening to see how much power we, the people, have allowed government to assume. It happened with the Bush administration and is accelerating at an alarming pace under Chairman O. Somehow, we - yes, you and I, have to stop it.
|
|
|
Not a bad idea. But, based on the way we're going, y'all be out there with me pretty quick. Fishing. To eat. |
|
the growth and reach of government reveals weaknesses in the Constitution.
The only real solution available is a constitutional convention to right the ship of state.
MC is completely right when he says the only legitimate responsibility of government is to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of individuals. Anything government does that is not related to those three responsibilities is illegitimate and overrreaching by government. Everything else government does is responding to special interests. Special interests are the opposite of what this country was founded to serve and protect. |
|
|
I love the GOP's illogical argument here. How many people have been living off the dole of the military for life? Who pays for that? TAXPAYERS. Remember that next you go off on one of these silly "jobs not work" rants. It defies the reality. And to fix our freeways and buildings -- which will make this country strong, not weak, is a real job we have to do. Or nobody will. |
|
I am not sure it is sensible for me to respond to someone who plays so "fast and loose" with the facts.
However, any able bodied person who is not a widow or an orphan who is receiving government welfare benefits is not working and does not intend to work.
Are half the people living off the government teat? I am not sure if it is exactly half, but if you consider how many people expect taxpayers to send them to college and how many people are clamoring for free health care it is probably pretty close. This includes farmers, businessmena and women and big labor, all who receive government benefits. In general, it includes anyone who uses the federal income tax code to carve out exceptions from their paying taxes. |
|
responding to the leftists' inanities.
Christian,
your ignorance may be invincible, but protecting its citizens from attack is a legitimate function of government. Providing free health care or post-secondary education is not a legitimate function of government |
|
William Bradford and the pilgrims initially tried collectivism. What happened? a bunch of them figured out that they did not have to work, they could live off the ones who did. Eventually, the pilgrim community was collapsing and starvation could be seen on the horizon.
The solution, let every man grow as much as he could, and sell the extra. They eliminated the common storehouse. All of a sudden, if a man didn't work, he didn't eat. Hunger is a pretty strong motivator, If a man doesn't work he doesn't eat.
Why do we have to learn this lesson again? because not only do more than a dozen people think they deserve more than they earned, these millions now have a president and congress who agree with them.
|
|
|
Military volunteers deserve it, libtard trash does not. |
|
|
...if you think America gets strong by having its populace and infrastructure weak...well, me no understand. And you can scream about kids getting free milk at lunch (like that idiot Medved) while allowing billions to go missing in Iraq. Where's your selective outrage? What's liberal about that? |
|
|
what in the world you are even talking about? Are you equating paying our soldiers with those millions who don't, won't, nor have any intention of ever becoming working, productive citizens? That's really what you're saying? Or am I misreading what you're trying to say? |
|
out of charity I respond to you. Governmental redistribution of wealth is not the only way to care for the needy. |
|
"That's really what you think? There are about a dozen people in this country sucking off the teet of the productive? You either extremely naive or extremely stupid."
I said "live off a government check," which is what the original quote said. As to "sucking off the teat of the productive," who are you calling "productive"? American workers' productivity has skyrocketed over the last 30 years, while their wages have remained stagnant. So where is the fruit of all that increased productivity going?
Or maybe you think "productive" means inventing algorithms that turn a $100K mortgage into a $3 million dollar "asset" that can be sold "risk-free" to a Chinese bank.
The Republican party has always stood for rewarding wealth, not work. The only thing crashing harder than the finance markets is American conservative laissez-faire capitalism.
"Any able bodied person who is not a widow or an orphan who is receiving government welfare benefits is not working and does not intend to work."
And how many of those are left? What are they costing us? As much as the benefits AIG handed out with your money?
"In general, it includes anyone who uses the federal income tax code to carve out exceptions from their paying taxes."
And who are those people? Not welfare mothers. Not union workers looking for a college loan. Not military officers retired at a 50% pension while earning another salary as VP of beltway bandit.
|
|
How is putting Americans to WORK on our country's infrastructure not making them "productive citizens"? There's MILLIONS who would love to work hard and take care of their family, and be helping their community and country -- just like those in the military. If you want to call that socialism, then you better include the military.
See, my dad served. I grew up on military bases. I saw firsthand the kind of waste the GOP refuses to acknowledge in its own beloved socialism: the military welfare state. Of course, if you were truly concerned, there would be outrage out of the billions that went missing in Iraq and beyond.... |
|
"William Bradford and the pilgrims initially tried collectivism. What happened? a bunch of them figured out that they did not have to work, they could live off the ones who did."
Since a group of 17th century settlers couldn't work out a way to share assets, we shouldn't even think about it today. That's insightful. |
|
again charitably I reply. Billions are being lost and misspent, outside of the war in Iraq, by government everyday. Having once been a federal auditor, I can assure you only about 25% of the federal budget (outside of military spending) benefits the country. Of course, many special interests are buoyed by this wasteful spending, but that again is a bastardization of legitimate government power.
Also, a local government has different responsibilities from a central government. All of my commentary is related to the role of a central government.
Respond accordingly. |
|
the government is not talking about sharing assets. It is determined to re-distribute assets. Sharing and re-distributing are two different things. |
|
I am open to alternative tax structures. I understand your antipathy to the "American aristocracy".
I just do not believe more government power and control is the answer.
I believe that the more powerful the government becomes the more entrenched the "American aristocracy".
Current policies are designed to reduce the standard of living for the middle class and entrench the vested interests of the "American aristocracy".
It looks like we agree on some of our objectives but are divided big time on the strategy for accomplishing them.
Under capitalism America became the ecomomic engine for the world. No one is denied healthcare in the U.S. No one is starving to death in the U.S. Everyone receives an education through at least 16 years of age in the U.S.
Why does government need to become larger and more powerful at the expense of the individual? |
|
So Bush expanded central government to give him unchecked power, but you supported Bush I assume...This GOP meme is ridiculous. The government does many things, bad and good. You John Galts act as if we have no government. We do and should.
Do you also curse the stoplights and streets and hospitals? You lazy-fair hogs had your chance and all we got is Enron, war and the biggest deficit in history. Why don't you learn from your mistakes?
Ahh, because your ideology has straightjacketed you. |
|
"the government is not talking about sharing assets. It is determined to re-distribute assets. Sharing and re-distributing are two different things."
Really? How is "sharing" not "re-distributing"? Whether we're talking about two pre-schoolers splitting a brownie, or the federal budget.
For many of us, though, the wealth has been flagrantly RE-DISTRIBUTED for decades now. It's time for a little RE-RE-distribution. |
|
"Since a group of 17th century settlers couldn't work out a way to share assets, we shouldn't even think about it today. That's insightful."
They tried. It didn't work.
A lot of people have tried. It doesn't work.
People want stuff to call their own. It's that simple.
What of yours are you sharing with others, besides diseases? |
|
currently I believe the "American aristocracy" has and has had the most influence over the U.S. government.
Under this influence the government has become stronger, bigger and more repressive. To me, it is naivety to believe that the "American aristocracy" is not behind the growth and power of government.
The less the poor and middle classes have in economic resources, the more left for the "American aristocracy".
The U.S. government's goal currently is to reduce the middle class' share of the economy. |
|
sharing implies freedom by those sharing. Re-distribution implies the use of force.
That is the distinction I make when I compare the two.
I am for voluntary sharing. I am against forced re-distribution.
That is why I oppose any government policy that is targeted to benefit a special interest. |
|
Do you know what that word means?
Collectivism has never worked without oppression and tyrrany.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
It is all about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
|
|
"Collectivism has never worked without oppression and tyrrany."
Huh? Who said anything about "collectivism"? We started with a bunch of 50s-era rants about people on welfare and 60s-era canards abotu "redistribution of wealth."
Well, it's 2009 and welfare is pretty much gone. There's been an awful lot of income redistribution since Reagan came in, but it's all been in the direction of a shrinking percentage of people owning a growing share of the money.
The politicians who talk about "class warfare" and "income redistribution" are the ones who have been practicing class warfare and income redistribution the longest. |
|
I would invite either of you to point out ion the constitution where there is any reference to "sharing", "re-distribution" or "re-re-distribution".
The fact is, we were founded on a capitalistic foundation. Our constitution guarentees the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that there will be different results for different individuals and companies. There will be winners and there will be losers.
There is no guarantee to happiness, on the pursuit of such. "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else".
Now, I am for charity and for taking care of those less fortunate than I. I contribute generously to charity and think all who are able have a responsibility to do so. Government, however, coercing me to give to those who they deem to be in need is not charity, it's robbery. |
|
The point is that a large number of people now feel entitled to wealth/money they did not personally earn. And now, we have an idiot administration who completely agrees with them.
If you think I am going to defend the Republican Party, you would be mistaken. That is why the Republicans were defeated in the last two national elections. They pursued the same failed policies of FDR, LBJ, Carter, and to some extent Clinton. They advocated more government intervention, more stupid ideas like prescription drug benefits, Every child left behind, etc. etc, etc.
The Obama administration is inept, incompetant and dangerous. They have accomplished nothing, created no jobs, solved no problems before they came to Washington. How can anyone expect them to solve any once they get there?
You get paid what you are worth. If you do not feel you are getting paid enough, improve your skills, acquire more knowledge, or find someone who will pay you what you are worth.
It is not the government's job to determine outcomes. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not Happiness, just the Pursuit of Happiness.
I work. I get paid. You work. You get paid.
I don't care how much you make, because I will get paid what I am worth or I will change change jobs. You don't deserve any of my paycheck, you did not earn it.
It is really simple, yet liberals don't understand. Why don't they understand? Chosen Ignorance or just plain stupidity. |
|
"Government, however, coercing me to give to those who they deem to be in need is not charity, it's robbery. "
I agree. How can I stop paying for all those unused weapons systems that the Pentagon rewards billions to favored contractors for?
Maybe I'll stockpile my guns and wait for Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris to lead me to revolution...
And you have a choice: pay now...or later. Bully for you you don't want to pay for safer saner prisons -- when a rapist serving three years gets out and moves near you, be happy tax money wasn't wasted on any rehabilitation. Congratulations, you are FREE!
And damn that Jesus, telling everybody we are our brother's keeper...why that's SOCIALISM!!!!! |
|
"The point is that a large number of people now feel entitled to wealth/money they did not personally earn."
Exactly right. All of them are extremely rich already.
Where has the Obama administration proposed GIVING money to people who didn't earn it? A tax cut certainly doesn't count. Bailout funds are going to banks and corporations, not to individuals. Individuals working in those banks and corporations are still making a lot of money and, of course, the occasional bonus. (Meanwhile, the union workers are told, "You're going to have to make sacrifices.")
You tired old anti-welfare arguments are anachronistic and irrelevant. |
|
"Our constitution guarentees the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Just because Rush Limbaugh said so, it isn't necessarily true. |
|
Read the founding Documents.
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.
It is exceedingly clear, at least to those who think, that the founders wanted a small federal government with little control over the people's individual lives and decisions.
"Where has the Obama administration proposed GIVING money to people who didn't earn it? A tax cut certainly doesn't count. Bailout funds are going to banks and corporations, not to individuals. "
Vlad, are you really this stupid. Of course you are, you are a liberal.
Obama loves to state that 95% of the people are getting a tax cut under his plan. Wow, that's incredible. How do you give a tax cut to someone who is not paying taxes already like 40 some percent of the people who don't pay any taxes now, simple, give them a refund of money they didn't pay in. If that's not redistribution, then the word has no meaning.
The bailouts are a bad idea. every single one of them. It is not the governments job to decide the winners and losers in the marketplace.
A very good argument can be made that the government caused a lot of these problems by the underregulation of fannie mae and freddie mac, engineered by Chrisss Dodd, a snake if there ever was one and the Banking Queen, Barney Fwank.
Government regulation and interference, Union greed and corruption. Sorry, these belong to liberals, not us harmless little conservatives.
I have far less patience than DTOM and others who try to engage you idiots. I wish we could flag posts for being just plain stupid. Maybe we could get rid of this liberal tripe. |
|
I never met your dad, so far as I know, but I can tell from reading your posts on various subjects that you are not fit to shine his boondockers.
I've met military brats of your ilk. They didn't measure up and turned into whiny little pups.
Do you remember the hours your dad worked, for one hell of a lot less pay that he could have made in civilian life? Try sixteen to eighteen hours per as the senior petty officers and officers work on ships at sea. The more junior folks put in at least twelve hours per day. I suspect it is the same in the Army and USAF when they are in the field. |
|
|
You would not get along with my dad rest his soul. You see, the military exposed him to Agent Orange (which the GOP denied) and had to eventually pay him and others for their lies to our troops. He also couldn't believe Bush invaded Iraq after what happened in Vietnam. He was a Republican -- but a thinking one, not living in Hollywood Reagan Rambo land. |
|
And absolutely everything The Bamma and his fetid bunch are against.
Seadawg...Oh, I like the sensitivity of your approach. |
|
I'm sorry about your dad getting exposed to Agent Orange. I used to see the stuff falling to the hills not too distant from the ship when we were on the gun line. The signalmen swore they found it on deck in the mornings before they washed the bridge. I never seen it myself, but them I wasn't likely to be there when they washed down at daybreak.
I wouldn't blame the GOP for the problems getting it approved for treatment. That argument went on for a long, long time. Some medical types still maintain there is nothing in Agent Orange to hurt anybody. I, myself, doubt that! (Something damned sure hurt a bunch of folks in 'Nam.) |
|
"Read the founding Documents. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc."
I have, lots of times. Don't forget the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
The famous "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, which is a wonderful and historic document, but has zero to do with our system of government.
"Vlad, are you really this stupid. Of course you are, you are a liberal. Obama loves to state that 95% of the people are getting a tax cut under his plan."
Are you really illiterate? Of course you are, you're a conservative. Did I not just say that a tax cut doesn't count as giving handouts to people? Do you really have to have a liberal explain to you that when your taxes are cut, you get to keep more of YOUR OWN money?
Maybe before you start throwing around words like "stupid" and "tripe," you could get your own story straight.
|
|
...is how so many here treat the federal government like Satan, but when the same feds exercise their power to start a war, you fall over yourselves in servitude and unquestioning belief.
Seadog, thank you. AO was deadly for my dad and others. The fact is nobody wanted to deal with it. Again my point: the troops always pay for the sins of those who start wars. |
|
|
What i do'nt understand about the left is this ,their tax policys,pushed by FDR and the other democratic leaders who followed , make going to war very easy , war is just another function of goverment and bueracrats love anything that increases their power be it excessive social programs ,schools ,road projects or war . No one including Bush wanted to fight in the middle east ,but we were attacked first .i understand why we went to iraq ,we thought they had more than they did and if saddam had been content to abuse his own and not constantly be rattling his sword he would probably still be there and the mass graves would continue to grow unchecked . |
|
vlad: The famous "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, which is a wonderful and historic document, but has zero to do with our system of government.
Thank you for pointing out where this line is found; however, if you think that statement has zero to do with our system of government you are dumber than a bladder of estrogen. That concept is the basis of the constitution.
|
|
"Thank you for pointing out where this line is found; however, if you think that statement has zero to do with our system of government you are dumber than a bladder of estrogen."
Fine, try going to an appeals court and saying that the ruling against you violated the terms of the Declaration of Independence. |
|
|
Blad, do you think the founding fathers just thought the words of the Declaration of Independence just thought the words were kind of poetic? Not that they believed that concept had anything to do with the system of government that they were creating or anything. |
|
I had a lot of points to make about the writing of the Constitution and how it relates to the Declaration of Independence.
But do you know what? Explaining it to another half-educated right winger is a waste of time. Go ahead, pound your chest and wave Richard around and tell everybody how tough you are with the libs. I'm sure they'll all be very impressed. |
|
"The troops always pay for the sins of those who start wars."
Good comment!
It has been this way since the beginning of time -- or at least since the time folks banded together to fight. There were, no doubt, those who remained in the cave and sent others out into the brush, forest, field, whatever to battle other clans over women, food, access to fire, etc.
Your dad, like many before him and after him, did their duty as they seen it.
I don't argue about the necessity of either the Vietnam or the Second Gulf War (Iraq War, whatever.) I was too close to the Vietnam War to be objective -- and I didn't have access to any intelligence prior to us going to Iraq. So, going to leave that to history to sort out. |
|
If you are not paying taxes now, and you get a tax cut then you are a part of redistrabution of wealth. Earned income tax credit for example, you could call it a cut if you increased the amount a person could get. It is a reverse tax. If you make money up to around 27000 dollars, the government gives you a refundable tax credit.
Some where around 30% of people, ( I am sorry I don't remember the exact percentage, the point is that it is a significant number ) don't pay any federal taxes at all. They did not get a tax cut, they got rebates and credits for money they did not pay in. DUH! Sherlock, that is redistribution of wealth.
You are of course that the Declaration of Independence is where life, liberty, pursuit comes from. More important than the location of the quote is the idea behind it. The American Revolution was because of an over-reaching,totalitarian government. The founders knew that too much government is the enemy of freedom. They built this idea into the Constitution, Bill of Rights, all based on the ideas and principles distilled in the Declaration of Independence.
Vladdy, you are an ignorant buffoon. Oh you may have a lot of knowledge, but your ability it think for yourself without marching orders from move-on.org is plainly nonexistant.
You are a distiller of Ignorance, a purveyor of Stupidity, An erector/destroyer of Straw men, And if you could ever remove your lips from Obama's hindquarters, maybe you could have an independant thought. |
|
(Since you're calling me a communist, which I most certainly am not, you don't mind if I call you a 'fascist,' do you?)
"Some where around 30% of people, ( I am sorry I don't remember the exact percentage, the point is that it is a significant number ) don't pay any federal taxes at all."
Once again, people whining about taxes don't know the difference between INCOME tax and FEDERAL tax in general.
Everybody who works pays the payroll tax. Somewhere around 15 or 18% and there are no deductions. Well, there's one deduction: all income over $100K.
For 30 years now the rich have been getting richer while the rest of us tread water, and useful idiots like you go online and whine about "taxes" and "redistribution" and "confiscation." The Walton family sits around at family dinners and laughs at you. |
|
Adrian Rogers was a VERY wise man!! Listened to him all the time on radio. We lost him much too soon but his wise council will live on - as will his memory.
J. Stellino |
|