Lucky... 0 #151 September 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Are we so desperate that we're down to typos? You were there on page 3, dude. Right after you switched from 'Tax the rich just to bring them down' to healthcare. I was there on page 3..... what does that mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #152 September 30, 2009 QuoteQuote You brought up the third world country thing. Then, true to form, you quickly got upset when people called the BS. Now you only want to use countries with baselines you see as higher than our as examples. Define ad hominem. Yep. He stuck his foot in deep on that one, and is scrambling for cover. Ya jumped in a little quick to cheerlead there, as if you waited you would see Bill brought in during post 36. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #153 September 30, 2009 QuoteAre we so desperate that we're down to typos? I'm not suggesting that your arguments are any less sound as a result of typos. I'm suggesting your arguments are less sound because you're not even paying attention to what you're arguing. QuoteActually I don't think Ron interpreted that to mean spending. He repeated back your statement in the form of a question the very next sentence using the word "spending." That's all I was going on, you might still be right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #154 September 30, 2009 QuoteI'm not suggesting that your arguments are any less sound as a result of typos. I'm suggesting your arguments are less sound because you're not even paying attention to what you're arguing. EXAMPLE: QuoteHe repeated back your statement in the form of a question the very next sentence using the word "spending." That's all I was going on, you might still be right. It's irrelevant either way, I just like to argue the point. I make a few typos, I used to run everything thru word, but it doesn't change how people respond, so I'm lazy. I probably was responsible for drifting this thread, however tax increases and HC are the issues now, altho not really correlated, they get the press as tho they are. Back to topic: The rich are running away, the class disparity is growing, time to bring it back a tad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #155 September 30, 2009 QuoteBack to topic: The rich are running away, the class disparity is growing, time to bring it back a tad. So I have a few questions... First, supposing a military reduction is achieved via a staged approach as talked about in another recent thread, the healthcare reform bill goes through to provide subsidies to the needy, and perhaps a few other changes are made such that the budget comes under balance with the current (still progressive) tax structure. What if that doesn't work? By "work" I mean close the class gap you're worried about. Raise taxes again? Spent it on what? My second question is, do you believe that more shelters are needed for the homeless? And do you ever feel that homeless shelters, once built, will close their doors for lack of need? How might your answer change as more shelters are built? Finally, you mentioned a number of different reasons that a person could come on hard times... layoffs, disability, etc... towards which compassion seems reasonable. Do you feel that the burden of supporting a family with a low paying job is such a situation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #156 September 30, 2009 QuoteI'm not, I have a great career that is sporadic. Then you should save for a rainy day when times are good to cover the bad times. Or, find a career that is more stable. QuoteYou wrote about people not buying if taxes were too high. Yes, because if you take away peoples money they can't spend it. That has nothing to do with sales tax, it has to do with simple supply and demand. Quote***I DID say that consumer spending is 70% of GDP. You have said you want to tax people to take away their ability to spend till it fits YOUR acceptable level. No I didn't , I stated I want to raise taxes, esp on the rich Yeah, you did. THE CLASSES ARE SPEADING [SIC] EVEN MORE, SO APPARENTLY THE TAX RATES ARE TOO LENIENT. So they are still spending, so we should tax them till they don't. Since 70% of GDP is consumer spending, you wanting to tax the people that are spending till they can't is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It shows that you really do not understand economics. QuoteGeneralizing that conservatives often have an all or nothing approach is not an ad hominem, it's not a character attck [SIC] in leiu [SIC] of a substantive argument. Actually you are using it as a way to dismiss and avoid the substantive points. So, yes, it is ad hominem by the very definition. QuoteThere is no way for you to pay for my anything. You are still unable to create a link between taxation and spending. This shows you have no idea about a budget. And there are PLENTY of correlations. You want to TAX others so you can have free healthcare. If I pay tax, and you get it for free.... It *IS* exactly me paying for your HC. QuoteWow, that was brilliance. How did you come up with that? It is called understanding how the economy works and personal responsibility. Some things you do not seem to understand. QuoteThat's your special interpretation. No that's what you have been preaching about now for days. QuoteIf you became disabled, you would scream the loudest. Oh you know me? But, you are also wrong. See, I take responsibility for my own actions. I have health insurance and disability insurance. I don't expect others to support me unlike you."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #157 September 30, 2009 Quote Actually I don't think Ron interpreted that to mean spending. You would be wrong again. QuoteWhat people are doing is saying that HC will raise taxes, yet no one has shown me how. How about how the CBO thinks it will increase the Federal Deficit? http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8662052/CBO-Report-on-Cost-of-Health-Care-Bill QuoteAccording to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. How do you read a 239B increase in the Deficit? Or maybe you could look at this exchange between Sen Conrad (D, ND) and Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: QuoteConrad: "I'm going to really put you on the spot, from what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?" Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall. Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals." So the CBO seems to think it will add to the deficit... Who are you to argue? Add into it how you want to raise taxes to pay for it... well if it costs more, and you want to raise others taxes to pay for it.... How *exactly* is that not making others pay for it?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #158 September 30, 2009 QuoteAwww, how special, calling the real Americans the Patriots. Another funny conservative tactic. This shows you don't know anything about American Football. The Patriots are a football team out of New England. They were in the Superbowl in 2008. QuoteBetween 2001 and 2005, the Patriots became the second team in NFL history to win three Super Bowls in four years (Super Bowl XXXVI, XXXVIII, and XXXIX), and the eighth to win consecutive Super Bowls. The Patriots have also compiled the two longest winning streaks in NFL history, an 18-game streak in 2003-2004, and a 21-game streak in 2006-2008 He is saying you will not be happy until you hurt the Pats enough to make them as bad a team as the Lions. And you have made that exact type of statement. "The rich are running away, the class disparity is growing, time to bring it back a tad." That would be like taking points away from Airspeed at the Nats to give to the last placed team. Aispeed earned those points... Why punish them for hard work?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #159 September 30, 2009 Quote Homeless kids, that's obscene. Kids that end up homeless because their parents are junkies, sad. Kids that end up homeless because their parents lost their jobs, sad. Kids that end up homeless because their parents, or parent, had waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many kids but the government kept the checks coming, pretty sad practice. My girlfriend works in healthcare in a low income area. The obscene thing is that most of the uninsured individuals that end up in the hospital are there for substance abuse related problems. They have a obscene lack of responsibility, and it is obscene that we foot the bill. Sometimes people need a helping hand, other times people need a kick in the ass. Most of the time when you need a helping had you can't get one to save your life because it is being squandered by people that really need a kick in the ass instead. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #160 September 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteYep. Trouble is, every political candidate in my lifetime has promised to do that. Surprising that there's any waste left, isn't it. So hold them accountable. Fix the real problem, not just slap a made up solution on it. . OK, but you DO know the definition of insanity, right? We have NO reason to expect a different outcome.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #161 September 30, 2009 Here is the long and short of it. It is simply unsustainable to tax the rich and give it to the poor. If you tax the rich to provide for the poor there is no reason for people to not be "poor" and have everything provided for them. Therefore, eventually there will be no rich to tax. Why should people work and educate themselves in order to become rich only to have the same standard of living as everyone else who doesn't work? There is no reason. This is why the soviet union didn't work. Its called communism. Pay everyone the same so everyone has the same standard of living. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Guess what, everyone basically stopped working because they got the same thing either way. Even in your own twisted views that the rich only get rich by inheriting it and such well.....If you tax the rich to provide so much to the poor they will have nothing for thier children to inherit....no more rich! It can't last.....its not possible! Desides, in what other country in the world do the "poor" have all this? Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis. ......oh wait....i'm sorry I used facts again.....and I am going to do something even crazier! Cite information and actually assume that you will read it! I must be going insane! http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/bg791.cfm Obviously, our horrible capitalist system has provided so much for the "poor" that they have homes, cars, microwaves, TV's....even pools! How can we continue to let them live in such horrible condition! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #162 September 30, 2009 Back Off!! Next thing you'll be trying to get us to believe is that there really isn't a magic money bucket hidden in DC that funds everything without impacting taxpayers.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #163 September 30, 2009 QuoteOK, but you DO know the definition of insanity, right? We have NO reason to expect a different outcome. We also have NO reason to think your proposed solution will do anything either. I would venture that nothing has changed is because we have not held them accountable. Vote the lifers out, see what happens. To keep voting them in and expecting them to do something different is the definition of insanity."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #164 September 30, 2009 In other news, 47% of US households will pay no federal income taxes. How many do you think are appreciative of the rest of us covering their share of the bill? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #165 September 30, 2009 If I'm supporting the societal obligations of half the country, why do I still have to go find an illegal to mow my lawn?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #166 September 30, 2009 QuoteIf I'm supporting the societal obligations of half the country, why do I still have to go find an illegal to mow my lawn? Because individuals would get whacked with the government stick, and would lose their social initiatives, if they showed some desire to get off their asses. Better off to keep sucking on the gubmint carrot."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #167 September 30, 2009 Cool let's tax the "rich" some more! Let's see were that get's the lower income people when the rich quit making new job's and start firing people to pay those taxes. Great idea Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #168 October 1, 2009 QuoteNo, it's to have a society where people don't have different rules for different classes. It's about a society that works in harmony where people all have a chance at properity and have basic needs met along the way. So, you are willing to give up all symbols and rewards of status? If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door? Even if we could truly redistribute the wealth, evenly, amongst us all, those who have spent their lives, believing that the world owes them a free living, for whatever reason, they wouldn't turn it into a profit making business. They'd enjoy it, for as long as it lasted, and then, expect some more redistribution. They wouldn't even buy a piece of land and some seed, because, God forbid, that would actually require work, to make a go of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #169 October 1, 2009 Quote If you've worked twenty years, in a company, and studied, and gone through an apprenticeship program, [Oops. that ugly class thing, raising its head, again] and moved up, you are willing to split your pay, and prestige and parking spot, with the rookie, who just walked in the door? careful, there, Lucky - I'm assuming you are also pro-union, so the pecking order must be supported in your answer even though it conflicts with your other philosophies..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #170 October 1, 2009 QuotePeople that have major illnesses that cannot get them seen until they are about to pass out and/or die because they don't have HC....that's obscene. Homeless kids, that's obscene. Come on Bill, did someone steal your password too! You are a compassionate guy, this is not typical of you.You know, it's too bad taht ACORN is going to bite teh dust. You could have gone to teh Obama School for Community Organizing, and done some real good, in tihs world... You know, starting community gardens,[Michelle, Ma Belle, will teach you how] or maybe rehabbing tenement houses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #171 October 1, 2009 Quote But did they or us really win? No. We just removed the consequences of failure. Nothing will ever make people all the same. Not everyone is going to win. Even on the short bus, somebody has to sit in the back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #172 October 1, 2009 QuoteWidens the gap - doesn't get much wider than we now have it....don't get your logic there. Countries with Socialism have a closer disparity; your point isn't factually supported in any way. Animosity of those people - There is far more animosity here now than in Socialized countriesThat's because those who would be industrious, of their own will, can't seem to reach the golden ring, when the govt. is taking the largest portion of it, so that everything is equal, they simply see no reason, to keep striving for excellence. Socialism breeds mediocrity, it's that simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #173 October 1, 2009 Hey, Lucky, let me play a little numbers game with you. For this exercise, $100,000 is considered middleclass, which is taxed, at 25%. Anything above that, gets taxed at 95%. Let's say that it takes six months to make your first $100,000. After taxes, you have $75,000. The next six months, after taxes, you only get to keep $5,000. Are you really going to go to the effort, just to receive $5,000? That's why bums stay on welfare. Minimum wage just isn't worth it. Now, if the govt. kept a flat rate of 25%, the man would gladly work the extra six months, and the govt. would actually have a $25,000 gain, as opposed to nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #174 October 1, 2009 Great exercise! I've got one as well. If the "wealth" is redistributed so everyone has 100,000 dollars how much is it worth? Let me help you out a little bit. What determines value? The answer is supply vs. demand. If there is an abondance of something like copper, even though there is actually a higher demand for copper than gold (its used in any electronic equipment, the supply is extremely high so its cheap compared to gold which the supply is very low and can't meet demand (gold actually makes a better conductor so if the supply was as high as copper it would be used instead of copper and would cost the same as copper does now). So what can we learn from this. If everyone has the same thing its not worth anything, basically the supply is higher than the demand for it. Because some people have a bunch of it and some don't have a lot that means the desire for the money increases even though the supply may be the same. Its gets harder to get (supply is low) because some people store it up or invest it so its not accessable to everyone making it more valueble! This is why raising the minimum wage causes inflation (devalues the money) which ultimately negates the effort to provide the poor with more. (example: if minimum wage is raised from 4 to 5 dollars 5 dollars is now only worth 4. This is seen through the raising of prices in groceries and particularly gold!) This is why some countries are refusing to accept the US dollar because its not worth near what it used to be thanks to the stimulus packages and such. Its not complicated! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #175 October 1, 2009 >Now, if the govt. kept a flat rate of 25%, the man would gladly work the >extra six months, and the govt. would actually have a $25,000 gain, as >opposed to nothing. He would also gladly work if taxes were progressive to the point where he always made more by working more. An example of this would be that you pay 25% if you make $100,000 and 50% if you make $20 million a year, with a linear slope in between. Would you rather make (net) $75,000 a year or $10 million a year? Answer to that is pretty clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
