Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Tax Cuts Work...

Longhorn85

New member
...but vote democratic in 2008 and taxes will surely be increased.

"Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html
 
actually it takes 3 yrs for policies to take effect, so say the accountants anyway..

thank God i don't pay taxes..
 
Its pretty obvious the Bush one worked, but libs can never own-up to it since it would mess-up their view of the world.
 
Mavafanculo said:
Cuts by Bush Admin, To Programs considered important by most Americans:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-23-06bud.pdf


-
OMG NO!

We're gonna have less money for "Community Oriented Policing Services"!!!

Now those old folks in florida are going to have to buy their own "Neighborhood Watch" signs.

Oh the humanity of it all...
 
mrplunkey said:
OMG NO!

We're gonna have less money for "Community Oriented Policing Services"!!!

Now those old folks in florida are going to have to buy their own "Neighborhood Watch" signs.

Oh the humanity of it all...
I came to deal with you as an equal.

I'm a clown with a condom on my head.

Do you think picking an obscure program in your glib reply will fool anyone? Most cuts are to important programs that benefit society even if some dont get it.

In case you really haven't figured out the shellgame yet, most of the programs must be/will be continued by the local municipalities, which just means an increase in state and local taxes usually greater (because of increased inefficiency) than the illusory "tax cut" that forced the Federal program cut in the first place.

Example:
Cuts proposed by the President in these grant-in-aid and other programs would put additional
pressure on state and local government budgets. Reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) funding
from the federal government would force states to decide between reducing the important human
and other services they are providing with these federal funds or raising their own taxes or cutting
other state and local programs to make up for the lost federal funding.

For example, the reduction
in federal funding for elementary and secondary education funding grants to the state proposed by
the President would cost Texas an estimated $269 million in 2011. If that cut were to occur, Texas
would have to decide whether to reduce what it spends on education by $269 million or to increase
state taxes or cut state funding for other purposes to offset the reduction in federal funding.
While state and local governments are in better fiscal health now than they were a few years ago,
they generally still face problems providing the resources needed to meet growing state needs for
education, transportation, and health care and are in no better position to bear the costs of the
programs the President proposes to cut than is the federal government.
 
wootool said:
I came to deal with you as an equal.

I'm a clown with a condom on my head.

Do you think picking an obscure program in your glib reply will fool anyone? Most cuts are to important programs that benefit society even if some dont get it.

In case you really haven't figured out the shellgame yet, most of the programs must be/will be continued by the local municipalities, which just means an increase in state and local taxes usually greater (because of increased inefficiency) than the illusory "tax cut" that forced the Federal program cut in the first place.

And here's the part you are missing:

Our goverment is entirely too large. It has become an ever-expanding, self-perpetuating organization that knows no boundaries. While businesses have spent the last 40 years "rightsizing" and focusing on how to drive productivity upward, goverment has focused on how to expand.

Its time to cut... and cut a lot. Its easy to put almost any program under a microscope and cry tears for someone who's going to lose some benefit, but that benfit will be lost anyway when our goverment financially implodes on itself.
 
Mavafanculo said:
Cuts by Bush Admin

A cut, by definition, means a reduction.

But in Washington DC, a cut means a reduction in the rate of increase.

In other words, if the Bush administration decided to reduce the rate of increase for IT job training for the outyears from 7% per year to 4% per year based on a reduced projection of need, that would be considered a cut.

So, while IT programs could be receiving millions more than they did in the previous year, the liberal press would still scream, "cut"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bw1
Longhorn85 said:
A cut, by definition, means a reduction.

But in Washington DC, a cut means a reduction in the rate of increase.
That's part of how the ever-expanding goverment has tricked the masses. They've trained people to believe the goverment should expand at a certain rate and *anything* less than that expansion becomes a "cut".
 
mrplunkey said:
And here's the part you are missing:

Our goverment is entirely too large. It has become an ever-expanding, self-perpetuating organization that knows no boundaries. While businesses have spent the last 40 years "rightsizing" and focusing on how to drive productivity upward, goverment has focused on how to expand.

Its time to cut... and cut a lot. Its easy to put almost any program under a microscope and cry tears for someone who's going to lose some benefit, but that benfit will be lost anyway when our goverment financially implodes on itself.
I disagree that the deep (no, I don't have a precise definition of "deep") tax cut will benefit your country in the near term because of the impact that it will have on your "underfunded" social services. If you want to cut, that's fine as long as you understand the repercussions of it all.

Personally, I don't think that you do. I could be wrong, you can call me an idiot..whatever...I still don't believe that you do because of the various people that a tax cut will have a negative impact. I'm guessing that you believe that the number is small (people will survive and get stronger) and I believe that the number is higher (people will get more desperate).

I'm not saying that I'm an expert either, but I do imagine that there's alot of people impacted by those cuts. I'm basing this judgment on the tax cuts in Ontario and the increase of homelessness and the needs of shelters over the last ten years. Again, it's not the same (US, mainly conservative vs Canada, mainly hippe), but that's what I'm basing it on.

HOWEVER, I do believe that your country will "implode" because of the spending that your country is doing. Now the next question is how to fix this. Tax cuts to the middle and upper class is one way. Getting our of Iraq and cutting the defense spending is another. Again, both have repercussions and I don't believe that either one of us fully understands the causality to determine the best one to pick.
 
Longhorn85 said:
"Almost always, tax cuts have seen tax collections fall in the following years; tax hikes have seen tax collections rise in the following years."

The info from your link was antedoctal, nothing based on fact. It was also dead wrong. It has been more than a few years since Bush started cutting taxes way back in 2000.
I thought that the facts were in the statistics / the footnotes and links to the reference and in the paper by the Center Of Budget / Policy priorities.
 
Last edited:
More Republican misnomers. Since many of the antitrust laws have been removed by Republicans , companies have been bought out without necessarily showing a clear path to consolidation. When many of these companies get into financial trouble, jobs are slashed and stock values decrease thus leading to takeover bids IE Oracle buying Peoplesoft , Siebel , and Oblix.

*edit*
Actually I was talking about US Airways bidding on Delta , but the Oracle example was another good one
*edit*

Businesses like to expand too. There's this concept called market share that you might want to read up on...

mrplunkey said:
And here's the part you are missing:

Our goverment is entirely too large. It has become an ever-expanding, self-perpetuating organization that knows no boundaries. While businesses have spent the last 40 years "rightsizing" and focusing on how to drive productivity upward, goverment has focused on how to expand.

Its time to cut... and cut a lot. Its easy to put almost any program under a microscope and cry tears for someone who's going to lose some benefit, but that benfit will be lost anyway when our goverment financially implodes on itself.
 
Last edited:
wootool said:
I came to deal with you as an equal.

I'm a clown with a condom on my head.

Do you think picking an obscure program in your glib reply will fool anyone? Most cuts are to important programs that benefit society even if some dont get it.

In case you really haven't figured out the shellgame yet, most of the programs must be/will be continued by the local municipalities, which just means an increase in state and local taxes usually greater (because of increased inefficiency) than the illusory "tax cut" that forced the Federal program cut in the first place.

Example:
Cuts proposed by the President in these grant-in-aid and other programs would put additional
pressure on state and local government budgets. Reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) funding
from the federal government would force states to decide between reducing the important human
and other services they are providing with these federal funds or raising their own taxes or cutting
other state and local programs to make up for the lost federal funding.

For example, the reduction
in federal funding for elementary and secondary education funding grants to the state proposed by
the President would cost Texas an estimated $269 million in 2011. If that cut were to occur, Texas
would have to decide whether to reduce what it spends on education by $269 million or to increase
state taxes or cut state funding for other purposes to offset the reduction in federal funding.
While state and local governments are in better fiscal health now than they were a few years ago,
they generally still face problems providing the resources needed to meet growing state needs for
education, transportation, and health care and are in no better position to bear the costs of the
programs the President proposes to cut than is the federal government.
translation bush took money from the state pollatisions pockets so the greedy
bastards come after us for it.there is so much was at that state and federal
level if even one of us got the truth and looked at it we would die from the site of it.

I am not rep and I am not dem but one thing I have learned from experience
over the years is this.when a dem is in office my check is always smaller.when
a rep is in office my pay check is always bigger my tax retern is also always bigger to.so who do you think I am going to vote for. :)
 
needtogetas said:
translation bush took money from the state pollatisions pockets so the greedy
bastards come after us for it.there is so much was at that state and federal
level if even one of us got the truth and looked at it we would die from the site of it.

I am not rep and I am not dem but one thing I have learned from experience
over the years is this.when a dem is in office my check is always smaller.when
a rep is in office my pay check is always bigger my tax retern is also always bigger to.so who do you think I am going to vote for. :)
True, the refund is larger when a republican is in office. However, if you use the services that have been cut and now have to pay for them, then you're take home is actually smaller because your expenses have gone up.
 
EnderJE said:
True, the refund is larger when a republican is in office. However, if you use the services that have been cut and now have to pay for them, then you're take home is actually smaller because your expenses have gone up.
I dont use any thing and I try to fuck the sis tom as much as a can.there all greedy bastards so any time a can fuck them or get out of some thing or get my cut I will take it.fuck there service it sucks any way.look on the side of the high
way.cops standing around well fat bastards take 6 hour lunch brakes.it takes them 6 months to fix a hole in the ground and I have to pay for it.

look at the lovely new deval patric dem mite I add.spending 14,000 dolors for fucking curtins,1200 dolors a month on a new car and we have to pay for this shit.I ant saying its just the dems its all of them fucks doing it.fuck them all they can kiss my ass just give me my big pay check and fuck trying to get more money out of me so you can so called fund more of this type of bull shit.
 
gjohnson5 said:
Tax Cuts don't work when you're already 9-10 trillion in the hole...
I've never met a liberal democrat who liked tax cuts. it translates into less money they can throw away on their pet social programs, which translates into votes on election day from their main constituants. ........Democrats got what it takes to take what you got.
 
EnderJE said:
True, the refund is larger when a republican is in office. However, if you use the services that have been cut and now have to pay for them, then you're take home is actually smaller because your expenses have gone up.

So what you're saying is that if people become more independent and rely less on govt services we can keep more of the money that we earned in the first place.

Are you sure you're not a republican?
 
Who is going to pay the Trillion dollars that the Republicans have squandered in Iraq? It's off budget debt that hasn't been accounted for yet in terms of the deficit.

If you are one of the 54 million idiots that voted for shrub I think you should get a one time tax bill for supporting such a huge waste of time and funds.
 
Jimsbbc said:
The Republicans think we are on the wrong part of the Laffer curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

We are not being taxed so much that it is reducing GDP/GDY.
Laffer Curves?

It's like saying.. The mystical mountain frog King has decreed it. Makes about as much sense as the notion of a laffer curve. Even the tards at the FRB, well, laugh at this joke of an idea.
 
WODIN said:
If you are one of the I think you should get a one time tax bill for supporting such a huge waste of time and funds.

No problem. As soon as you mail your Bush tax cuts in to me. What? Don't tell me you spent those amoral dollars?
 
Longhorn85 said:
So what you're saying is that if people become more independent and rely less on govt services we can keep more of the money that we earned in the first place.

Are you sure you're not a republican?
I voted rose peroe and i would do it again in a second if given the chance.


So what can be done now? The current federal debt is $3.5 trillion. Approximately $1.4 trillion, or 40 percent, is owned by one or another agency of the federal government. It is ridiculous for a citizen to be taxed by one arm of the federal government (the IRS), to pay interest and principal on debt owned by another agency of the federal government. It would save the taxpayer a great deal of money, and spare savings from further waste, to simply cancel that debt outright. The alleged debt is simply an accounting fiction that provides a mask over reality and furnishes a convenient means for mulcting the taxpayer. Thus, most people think that the Social Security Administration takes their premiums and accumulates it, perhaps by sound investment, and then "pays back" the "insured" citizen when he turns 65. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no insurance and there is no "fund," as there indeed must be in any system of private insurance. The federal government simply takes the Social Security "premiums" (taxes) of the young person, spends them in the general expenditures of the Treasury, and then, when the person turns 65, taxes someone else to pay the "insurance benefit." Social Security, perhaps the most revered institution in the American polity, is also the greatest single racket. It's simply a giant Ponzi scheme controlled by the federal government. But this reality is masked by the Social Security Administration's purchase of government bonds, the Treasury then spending these funds on whatever it wishes. But the fact that the SSA has government bonds in its portfolio, and collects interest and payment from the American taxpayer, allows it to masquerade as a legitimate insurance business.

Canceling federal agency-held bonds, then, reduces the federal debt by 40 percent. I would advocate going on to repudiate the entire debt outright, and let the chips fall where they may. The glorious result would be an immediate drop of $200 billion in federal expenditures, with at least the fighting chance of an equivalent cut in taxes.

But if this scheme is considered too Draconian, why not treat the federal government as any private bankrupt is treated (forgetting about Chapter 11)? The government is an organization, so why not liquidate the assets of that organization and pay the creditors (the government bondholders) a pro-rata share of those assets? This solution would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, once again, relieve him of $200 billion in annual interest payments. The United States government should be forced to disgorge its assets, sell them at auction, and then pay off the creditors accordingly. What government assets? There are a great deal of assets, from TVA to the national lands to various structures such as the Post Office. The massive CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, should raise a pretty penny for enough condominium housing for the entire work force inside the Beltway. Perhaps we could eject the United Nations from the United States, reclaim the land and buildings, and sell them for luxury housing for the East Side gliterati. Another serendipity out of this process would be a massive privatization of the socialized land of the Western United States and of the rest of America as well. This combination of repudiation and privatization would go a long way to reducing the tax burden, establishing fiscal soundness, and desocializing the United States.

In order to go this route, however, we first have to rid ourselves of the fallacious mindset that conflates public and private, and that treats government debt as if it were a productive contract between two legitimate property owners.
 
needtogetas said:
I voted rose peroe and i would do it again in a second if given the chance.


So what can be done now? The current federal debt is $3.5 trillion. Approximately $1.4 trillion, or 40 percent, is owned by one or another agency of the federal government. It is ridiculous for a citizen to be taxed by one arm of the federal government (the IRS), to pay interest and principal on debt owned by another agency of the federal government. It would save the taxpayer a great deal of money, and spare savings from further waste, to simply cancel that debt outright. The alleged debt is simply an accounting fiction that provides a mask over reality and furnishes a convenient means for mulcting the taxpayer. Thus, most people think that the Social Security Administration takes their premiums and accumulates it, perhaps by sound investment, and then "pays back" the "insured" citizen when he turns 65. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no insurance and there is no "fund," as there indeed must be in any system of private insurance. The federal government simply takes the Social Security "premiums" (taxes) of the young person, spends them in the general expenditures of the Treasury, and then, when the person turns 65, taxes someone else to pay the "insurance benefit." Social Security, perhaps the most revered institution in the American polity, is also the greatest single racket. It's simply a giant Ponzi scheme controlled by the federal government. But this reality is masked by the Social Security Administration's purchase of government bonds, the Treasury then spending these funds on whatever it wishes. But the fact that the SSA has government bonds in its portfolio, and collects interest and payment from the American taxpayer, allows it to masquerade as a legitimate insurance business.

Canceling federal agency-held bonds, then, reduces the federal debt by 40 percent. I would advocate going on to repudiate the entire debt outright, and let the chips fall where they may. The glorious result would be an immediate drop of $200 billion in federal expenditures, with at least the fighting chance of an equivalent cut in taxes.

But if this scheme is considered too Draconian, why not treat the federal government as any private bankrupt is treated (forgetting about Chapter 11)? The government is an organization, so why not liquidate the assets of that organization and pay the creditors (the government bondholders) a pro-rata share of those assets? This solution would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, once again, relieve him of $200 billion in annual interest payments. The United States government should be forced to disgorge its assets, sell them at auction, and then pay off the creditors accordingly. What government assets? There are a great deal of assets, from TVA to the national lands to various structures such as the Post Office. The massive CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, should raise a pretty penny for enough condominium housing for the entire work force inside the Beltway. Perhaps we could eject the United Nations from the United States, reclaim the land and buildings, and sell them for luxury housing for the East Side gliterati. Another serendipity out of this process would be a massive privatization of the socialized land of the Western United States and of the rest of America as well. This combination of repudiation and privatization would go a long way to reducing the tax burden, establishing fiscal soundness, and desocializing the United States.

In order to go this route, however, we first have to rid ourselves of the fallacious mindset that conflates public and private, and that treats government debt as if it were a productive contract between two legitimate property owners.
Word.
 
mrplunkey said:
hay lets just get it out there.government wast is the reason for the debt.plain and simple.wast wast wast and more wast.wast on the side of both partys and each one of them are in on it.they have us all fighting each other like dumb ass's
over wither reb,or dem are going save us all.its a bate and switch people.

the reb have us all pointing figers at the dems and the dems have us pointing the figer at the rep all the wile the government as a hole is slipping 20's out your
back pocket and loving it.stop looking at rep or dem left or right and start looking at the hole thing.there fucking you right in the ass.government wast is why we are fucked not rep fault and not dem fault.
 
WODIN said:
Laffer Curves?

It's like saying.. The mystical mountain frog King has decreed it. Makes about as much sense as the notion of a laffer curve. Even the tards at the FRB, well, laugh at this joke of an idea.


Laffer admits that it is much more complicated than that, however it is standard faire in any upper level macro econ or public finance econ course. It is just one way to look at taxation. I just thought it would help some peeps on here have a simplified model to look at for reference. I'm just pointing out that taxation is more complicated than most of us understand it to be.

If Bernanke is such a tard, why don't you take his job and teach all of us a lesson? :spin:
 
Just a snapshot of Ben Bernanke

This is the head retard at the FRB:

graduated from a high school with 1590 out of 1600 on his SAT

earned his PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1979

taught at the Stanford Graduate School of Business from 1979 until 1985

tenured professor in the Department of Economics at Princeton University. He chaired that department from 1996 until September 2002, when he went on public service leave. He resigned his position at Princeton July 1, 2005

He has given several important lectures at the London School of Economics on monetary theory and policy and has written three textbooks on macroeconomics.

He was the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economic Research and the editor of the American Economic Review.




All this was off the wikipedia site.

Hardly a retard. More like a genius. I love people who throw stones at our leaders and hold them in contempt when they have little education or career achievement to back up their baseless ad hominem attacks.
 
I'm confused:


1. Why is rising revenue not considered a tax increase? Bush has bragged about increasing revenues, but what seperates that from a tax cut? Is it assumed that increasing revenue is due to economic growth? In the last 2 years tax rates have gone from 29% to 32% under Bush. They are about as high as Clinton's tax rates (not that I am complaining about high taxes, I am a huge proponent of responsible government even if being responsible means doing unpleasant things now & again).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/2006/Figure1large.jpg

2. How do you know that the economic growth is due to Bush tax cuts? Why do the cuts even matter if tax revenues & tax rates keep going up? I don't see anything in the article saying the tax cuts themselves are the cause of economic turn around.

3. Places like Sweden with a 50% tax rate still experience GDP growth rates similiar to the US, in the 3-4% range. If taxes are the main determinant of economic growthy why does Sweden economy with a 50% tax rate grow as fast as the US with a 32% rate?

4. Bush increased federal taxes on the middle class. Combine that with the fact that state taxes (which are regressive) have consistently been going up all over the US and you have a recipe for a middle class with a higher tax rate than 7 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

5. Even with tax cuts, people just put the money into savings or paying off debt. I'm having trouble finding the article, but the jist was that 70-80% of people just save it or pay off debts. What effect will that have on the economy.

I'm not opposed to the idea that tax cuts lead to economic growth, but I don't see alot of good evidence of it right here/right now. Alot if it seems to be veiled wishful thinking. Hopefully the economy keeps growing, but I don't know where responsibility lies.
 
SpyWizard said:
actually it takes 3 yrs for policies to take effect, so say the accountants anyway..

thank God i don't pay taxes..

Interesting. Bush cut taxes from 2001-2004 on the wealthy, dropping the overall tax rate down from 33% to 29%. Perhaps that is why we are having economic growth in 2007.
 
wootool said:
I came to deal with you as an equal.

I'm a clown with a condom on my head.

Do you think picking an obscure program in your glib reply will fool anyone? Most cuts are to important programs that benefit society even if some dont get it.

In case you really haven't figured out the shellgame yet, most of the programs must be/will be continued by the local municipalities, which just means an increase in state and local taxes usually greater (because of increased inefficiency) than the illusory "tax cut" that forced the Federal program cut in the first place.

Example:
Cuts proposed by the President in these grant-in-aid and other programs would put additional
pressure on state and local government budgets. Reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) funding
from the federal government would force states to decide between reducing the important human
and other services they are providing with these federal funds or raising their own taxes or cutting
other state and local programs to make up for the lost federal funding.

For example, the reduction
in federal funding for elementary and secondary education funding grants to the state proposed by
the President would cost Texas an estimated $269 million in 2011. If that cut were to occur, Texas
would have to decide whether to reduce what it spends on education by $269 million or to increase
state taxes or cut state funding for other purposes to offset the reduction in federal funding.
While state and local governments are in better fiscal health now than they were a few years ago,
they generally still face problems providing the resources needed to meet growing state needs for
education, transportation, and health care and are in no better position to bear the costs of the
programs the President proposes to cut than is the federal government.

Good point. Federal tax cuts just mean state taxes have to rise. And state taxes tend to be regressive. So taxes on the middle class are going up on both the state & federal levels. So are expenses the middle class pay large amounts of their income in like retirement planning, higher education, healthcare, fuel, etc.

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pr.pdf

So look forward to higher state taxes, federal taxes & expenses for the middle class.
 
Longhorn85 said:
So what you're saying is that if people become more independent and rely less on govt services we can keep more of the money that we earned in the first place.

You worked in the military and your education was funded 70-100% by the government (just like most everyone elses education). You are dependent too.
 
needtogetas said:
hay lets just get it out there.government wast is the reason for the debt.plain and simple.wast wast wast and more wast.wast on the side of both partys and each one of them are in on it.they have us all fighting each other like dumb ass's
over wither reb,or dem are going save us all.its a bate and switch people.

the reb have us all pointing figers at the dems and the dems have us pointing the figer at the rep all the wile the government as a hole is slipping 20's out your
back pocket and loving it.stop looking at rep or dem left or right and start looking at the hole thing.there fucking you right in the ass.government wast is why we are fucked not rep fault and not dem fault.

Private citizens waste tons of money too. Ever see someone drink a $100 bottle of wine or drive a Hummer?

As for all the government 'waste' look at the benefits we recieve.

Functioning scientific, transportation, oversight, judicial, etc. infrastructure
A strong scientific backbone
An educational system which is subsidized heavily
PRograms to protect the poor
A military to protect us
Various domestic protection programs from natural disaster, crime, terrorism, etc.
A retirement that is far more secure than would be otherwise

Not a bad thing for 32% of income. Find me a person making 20k a year who could enjoy all those benefits for $6400 a year in private funds.

Citizens who rail against gov. waste are like teenagers who hate their parents, but remain oblivious to all the benefits their parents give them. Live in a country with a 0% tax rate for a while if you want to see where all your wasted tax money is going.
 
Longhorn85 said:
So what you're saying is that if people become more independent and rely less on govt services we can keep more of the money that we earned in the first place.

Are you sure you're not a republican?
Oh, but that's where we differ. I'm saying that you won't actually keep more because your expenses have gone up as well. Services are services. Either the government spreads the cost of services among a large base...or you pay for what you alone need without the benefit of the economies of scale.

Those who are poorer will take home more from the government because their taxes are less. However, I'd expect that they'd have to pay more for their services because they aren't subsidized anymore. Thus, they actually keep less.

As for being a conservative vs a liberal vs a NDP...it just depends on the debate...:)

Except for being a NDP, I'll never say that I belong in that group.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Private citizens waste tons of money too. Ever see someone drink a $100 bottle of wine or drive a Hummer?

How is that a waste if the person who earns and spends the money enjoys expensive wine and large SUVs?? It's called freedom of choice.

You would prefer the federal govt decide what is proper and what is wasteful to spend one's own money on?

You have a truly liberal elitist mind.
 
Longhorn85 said:
How is that a waste if the person who earns and spends the money enjoys expensive wine and large SUVs?? It's called freedom of choice.

You would prefer the federal govt decide what is proper and what is wasteful to spend one's own money on?
The part that I find funny about this statement is that GW said that there should be a limit to some people's freedoms.

To me, it seems like the US isn't really served by either side.
 
EnderJE said:
The part that I find funny about this statement is that GW said that there should be a limit to some people's freedoms.

Of course, there are limits in a civilized society. We can't shoot whomever we want whenever we want, yell fire in a crowded theatre, etc.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Of course, there are limits in a civilized society. We can't shoot whomever we want whenever we want, yell fire in a crowded theatre, etc.
Like I said, it wasn't quite in the same context, but it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read your post.
 
Longhorn85 said:
How is that a waste if the person who earns and spends the money enjoys expensive wine and large SUVs?? It's called freedom of choice.

You would prefer the federal govt decide what is proper and what is wasteful to spend one's own money on?

You have a truly liberal elitist mind.

How is it waste if the only reason that person has the security to drink wine is because of the military and criminal justice system, and the only reason the foods they eat and cars they drive are safe is because of gov. oversight?

You sure like jumping to conclusions. I notice you did nothing to address any of my points about tax cuts which is expected. Instead you jumped on this.

If you earn your money w/o any protection from foreign militaries, if you fund your education 100% privately, if you fund your retirement 100% privately, if you fund your own police/fire department/healthcare 100%, if you never partake in any healthcare or scientific research funded by public dollars, etc. then you can talk about what to do with 'your own money' because you will have earned it 100% on your own at that point. Until that point if you are gong to partake in the benefits of the taxation system you have to pay your share. If not, then don't enjoy the benefits anymore. Its a circular argument, but fundamentally it is true. I don't mind taxes, they are a responsibility of living in a competent civilization.

The point fundamentally is that you guys think 'any' government spending is waste (except the military of course) and 'any' private spending is good. You guys should read the book 'moral politics'.
 
Gov expenditures

Education: 900 billion
Healthcare: 800 billion
Military: 500 billion
SS: 500 billion
national debt interest: 300 billion
CJ system: 200 billion
Science: 150-200 billion


There is some overlap in those (ie, military education and healthcare is counted as military and education and healthcare, healthcare for teachers is counted 2x both as a healthcare expense and as an education expense, etc) but overall those are teh general numbers.

Those are the main expenditures. How are they wasteful? If they were done privately several would be more wasteful than publically.

Examples:

SS: Galviston privitized SS.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-55450618.html

Some do better, some worse. Married couples generally do worse. High income people do far better. Their disability incomes are higher though. All in all Galviston is going to leave the poor and the married worse off than under public SS.

Table 3.--Initial monthly retirement benefits(1)

[In 1998 dollars]

Family/earner type Galveston(2) Social Security(3)

Single:
Low $733 $763
Middle 1,700 1,269
High 2,402 1,689
Very high 3,489 1,974

Married:
Low 670 1,139
Middle 1,555 1,895
High 2,197 2,522
Very high 3,192 2,948

Healthcare: I've debated this to death. The evidence shows that public healthcare costs less and is better than private. Resurrect one of my threads for evidence.

Education:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp#section5

Summary
In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant. Adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics resulted in reductions in all four average differences of approximately 11 to 14 points. Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero.

Comparisons were also carried out with subsets of private schools categorized by sectarian affiliation. After adjusting for student characteristics, raw score average differences were reduced by about 11 to 15 points. In grade 4, Catholic and Lutheran schools were each compared to public schools. For both reading and mathematics, the results were generally similar to those based on all private schools. In grade 8, Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools were each compared to public schools. For Catholic and Lutheran schools for both reading and mathematics, the results were again similar to those based on all private schools. For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools. In mathematics, the average adjusted school mean for Conservative Christian schools was significantly lower than that of public schools.

Ie, no big difference.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Gov expenditures

Education: 900 billion
Healthcare: 800 billion
Military: 500 billion
SS: 500 billion
national debt interest: 300 billion
CJ system: 200 billion
Science: 150-200 billion
I'd cut the total 50% year one, then go 5-10 years cutting the total an additional 25% per year.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'd cut the total 50% year one, then go 5-10 years cutting the total an additional 25% per year.

By year 3 you'd be down to 0%. What would you cut and what would you replace it with? I assume all healthcare & SS would be eliminated at first, what would you do with the military, educational system, justice system & scientific research? Would you privitize them all or what?
 
Lao Tzu said:
By year 3 you'd be down to 0%. What would you cut and what would you replace it with? I assume all healthcare & SS would be eliminated at first, what would you do with the military, educational system, justice system & scientific research? Would you privitize them all or what?
Ouch! P0wned by math.

Let's run the numbers:

Existing budget of "X"...

Year 1: 0.5 * X
Year 2: 0.5 * 0.75 * X
Year 3: 0.5 * 0.75 * 0.75 * X
Year 4: 0.5 * 0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 * X

(you should see a pattern emerging)

Using a sequence like this, it's reaaaaaaly hard to get to zero unless you start with X=0.
 
Lao Tzu said:
By year 3 you'd be down to 0%. What would you cut and what would you replace it with? I assume all healthcare & SS would be eliminated at first, what would you do with the military, educational system, justice system & scientific research? Would you privitize them all or what?

Of all those things you listed only the military is a Federal constitutionally-mandated power.
 
redguru said:
Of all those things you listed only the military is a Federal constitutionally-mandated power.
Yup.. all the other stuff has all been slipped-in.

They should have required a constitutional amendment too, but the process was subverted in the name of the "greater good".
 
mrplunkey said:
Yup.. all the other stuff has all been slipped-in.

They should have required a constitutional amendment too, but the process was subverted in the name of the "greater good".
So, are you saying that you don't believe in the "greater good"? Are you saying that you'd cut SS, CJ, and Science down to zero?

Clearly, we aren't going to agree on those things, but I don't see it working for everyone. Again, I look to third world countries who have that type of environment and see the rich being very rich and the poor kidnapping them. That type of lifestyle may not happen in US (first vs third), but desperate times have made people in those other countries do desperate things.
 
EnderJE said:
So, are you saying that you don't believe in the "greater good"? Are you saying that you'd cut SS, CJ, and Science down to zero?

Clearly, we aren't going to agree on those things, but I don't see it working for everyone. Again, I look to third world countries who have that type of environment and see the rich being very rich and the poor kidnapping them. That type of lifestyle may not happen in US (first vs third), but desperate times have made people in those other countries do desperate things.
I'd drastically cut back (or eliminate) any program that wasn't called-for in the constitution. Then, if someone wanted to add one (i.e. SS), I'd follow the constitutional amendment process before implementing it.
 
Someone explain to me why/how tax cuts work universally. My understanding (from what I've been told by economists) is that they only work in certain economies.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'd drastically cut back (or eliminate) any program that wasn't called-for in the constitution. Then, if someone wanted to add one (i.e. SS), I'd follow the constitutional amendment process before implementing it.
Fair enough.

I would agree that having an acceptable way to introduce social programs would be better then the "surprise! we're going to fuck you!" way we get them now. That way, everyone who truly believed in the greater good would be able to voice their opinions and be represented.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'd drastically cut back (or eliminate) any program that wasn't called-for in the constitution. Then, if someone wanted to add one (i.e. SS), I'd follow the constitutional amendment process before implementing it.

Support for social programs like medicaid, medicare or SS runs in the 80-95% range. Even though republicans would attempt to stop them I believe in the long run even with const. amendment requirements that we would still have social programs.
 
Democrats weren't the ones who took tax monies to run a unilateral, ill concieved, and completely prepare-less war

Democrats also did not give tax breaks without any means of financing the tax breaks...

ole farte' said:
I've never met a liberal democrat who liked tax cuts. it translates into less money they can throw away on their pet social programs, which translates into votes on election day from their main constituants. ........Democrats got what it takes to take what you got.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Support for social programs like medicaid, medicare or SS runs in the 80-95% range. Even though republicans would attempt to stop them I believe in the long run even with const. amendment requirements that we would still have social programs.
Social Security *barely* squeeked-by at the time of its passage. People wanted assurances that it wouldn't become an entitlement and that it would be self-supporting and even with them it almost didn't pass.

I bet the founding fathers would have flipped-out if they'd known we changed "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness" to "Life, liberty, healthcare, retirement, and the pursuit of happyness -- even if someone else has to pay for it."
 
Lao Tzu said:
If you earn your money w/o any protection from foreign militaries, if you fund your education 100% privately, if you fund your retirement 100% privately, if you fund your own police/fire department/healthcare 100%...

Once again your liberal elitist mind is at work. Citizens earn money first, then pay taxes, which fund govt services.

Chicken before the egg. Individual before the state.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Once again your liberal elitist mind is at work. Citizens earn money first, then pay taxes, which fund govt services.

Chicken before the egg. Individual before the state.
Yup... I think we need a federally-funded mandatory class in school where each kid has to write "ITS YOUR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH" 100x each day.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Once again your liberal elitist mind is at work. Citizens earn money first, then pay taxes, which fund govt services.

Chicken before the egg. Individual before the state.

I like the term 'liberal elitist'. that is fun. Not as fun as irrational fanatic conservative but still a fun little insult.

Citizens do not earn money first, w/o various gov. protections they wouldn't be earning money in the first place. How would people be earning money w/o an educational system, transportation system, justice system, military, etc? Did you fund your own education or pay for the roads you drive on to get to your job everyday? If you guys don't want to benefit from the taxation system stop using it. Plunkey, when he owned his business which made him rich, probably hired various people with advanced degrees. The educational system is $900 billion a year in tax subsidies, if you don't want to pay for it then stop using it. You guys want to get rich off the taxation system but you don't want to pay for it.

It is a circular argument but still true. Repay your debt to the taxation system for all the benefits you've gotten from it, then start running on libertarian grounds.
 
Lao Tzu said:
I Citizens do not earn money first, w/o various gov. protections they wouldn't be earning money in the first place.
Wow, Chairman Mao would have been proud. I guess we all do owe everything to goverment. Perhaps we should just nationalize everything and let the goverment hand us back what it deems "our fair share". That would simplify all this, wouldn't it?
 
mrplunkey said:
Wow, Chairman Mao would have been proud. I guess we all do owe everything to goverment. Perhaps we should just nationalize everything and let the goverment hand us back what it deems "our fair share". That would simplify all this, wouldn't it?

What is fair is for you guys to stop benefiting from the tax system if you aren't willing to pay taxes yourself. Didn't you get rich off of biomedical stuff? The educational system if $900 billion a year and about half of all medical research is funded publically. The military and criminal justice system protected you from threats while you built your business. If you want to benefit from other people's taxes, then pay your own as well.
 
Lao Tzu said:
If you want to benefit from other people's taxes, then pay your own as well.

Did I indicate somewhere that I was not a taxpayer? Please show me where. You claim we are undertaxed, I say we are overtaxed.

You also are under the false impression that govt creates wealth, since you think govt services are somehow possible before income is generated by citizens.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Did I indicate somewhere that I was not a taxpayer? Please show me where. You claim we are undertaxed, I say we are overtaxed.

You also are under the false impression that govt creates wealth, since you think govt services are somehow possible before income is generated by citizens.
You, living in the US, have no idea what it means to be overtaxed. That's not to say that your taxes could change or that the lower tax that you pay is justification for keeping it at the present rate...
 
Lao Tzu said:
What is fair is for you guys to stop benefiting from the tax system if you aren't willing to pay taxes yourself. Didn't you get rich off of biomedical stuff? The educational system if $900 billion a year and about half of all medical research is funded publically. The military and criminal justice system protected you from threats while you built your business. If you want to benefit from other people's taxes, then pay your own as well.
My medical software company used no medical research. We provided a quickbooks-like product for managing operating rooms. The only credit the fed could glean from our product would be that if their reimbursement system weren't so horribly fucked-up, we wouldn't have been able to charge $300k-$600k per installation of the software.

While I owned and ran the company, I paid payroll taxes, sales and use tax, franchise taxes, etc. etc. I also complied with all the indirect taxes such as ADA, DoL, EEOC, etc. etc. Each year I also paid income tax on my profits. After its sale to GE, I paid yet another round of taxes in the form of capital gains. That's when I got clever and decided I was through paying taxes. I put virtually 100% of the proceeds into tax-free municipal bonds and have "checked-out" of the tax-and-spend fiasco our goverment has created.

If this ethanol deal hits it big and I find another windfall of cash, you can rest assured I will park it overseas. I'm disgusted with the confiscatory nature of our goverment now and you can rest assured I will do every single thing legally possible to deny the goverment revenue.

Even with measures already taken, this year I'll pay around $98,000 in taxes from the rental of a building to GE and I'll pay around $100,000 on a progress payment resulting from the sale of Inobis. I'll also pay around $100,000 due to how the software company was spun-out back in 1999 but I hope to offset that with a loss from a startup company we invested in 2001. State and local taxes will probably sting me for another $75,000 as well. So bottom line, I know I'll pay around $275k-ish this year and I consider almost every cent wasted.

So bottom line, if the rest of the country wants to be taxed into oblivion that's just great -- I personally am tired of playing along. I won't have the progress payment due next year, and when the GE lease expires in 2009 I'll probably sell the building and protect that money from taxes as well.
 
EnderJE said:
You, living in the US, have no idea what it means to be overtaxed. That's not to say that your taxes could change or that the lower tax that you pay is justification for keeping it at the present rate...

Living in Europe, not the US right now, but that is not a requirement to appreciate a reasonable level of taxation. It is natural to want to keep as much as possible of what you earn for you and and your family.

At least it is natural to me.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Living in Europe, not the US right now, but that is not a requirement to appreciate a reasonable level of taxation. It is natural to want to keep as much as possible of what you earn for you and and your family.

At least it is natural to me.
You missed the part about "not that it's a justification for having any tax level", didn't you? No worries.

The point was that an American citizen doesn't really the meaning of overtaxed given the low rates of that country compared to more socialized regimes. Although, one could argue the "quality of life" as a counter, but it's hard to measure that.
 
mrplunkey said:
My medical software company used no medical research. We provided a quickbooks-like product for managing operating rooms. The only credit the fed could glean from our product would be that if their reimbursement system weren't so horribly fucked-up, we wouldn't have been able to charge $300k-$600k per installation of the software.

While I owned and ran the company, I paid payroll taxes, sales and use tax, franchise taxes, etc. etc. I also complied with all the indirect taxes such as ADA, DoL, EEOC, etc. etc. Each year I also paid income tax on my profits. After its sale to GE, I paid yet another round of taxes in the form of capital gains. That's when I got clever and decided I was through paying taxes. I put virtually 100% of the proceeds into tax-free municipal bonds and have "checked-out" of the tax-and-spend fiasco our goverment has created.

If this ethanol deal hits it big and I find another windfall of cash, you can rest assured I will park it overseas. I'm disgusted with the confiscatory nature of our goverment now and you can rest assured I will do every single thing legally possible to deny the goverment revenue.

Even with measures already taken, this year I'll pay around $98,000 in taxes from the rental of a building to GE and I'll pay around $100,000 on a progress payment resulting from the sale of Inobis. I'll also pay around $100,000 due to how the software company was spun-out back in 1999 but I hope to offset that with a loss from a startup company we invested in 2001. State and local taxes will probably sting me for another $75,000 as well. So bottom line, I know I'll pay around $275k-ish this year and I consider almost every cent wasted.

So bottom line, if the rest of the country wants to be taxed into oblivion that's just great -- I personally am tired of playing along. I won't have the progress payment due next year, and when the GE lease expires in 2009 I'll probably sell the building and protect that money from taxes as well.
However, you still have a Richard Simmons avatar. :)
 
EnderJE said:
However, you still have a Richard Simmons avatar. :)
I do!

He's not gay, you know. He's just a misunderstood exercise genious.
 
mrplunkey said:
I do!

He's not gay, you know. He's just a misunderstood exercise genious.
You do realize that now you've undermined your whole argument...

"Tax cuts blah blah blah..."

"Yah, but you've got a Richard Simmons avatar."

"DOH!"
 
EnderJE said:
You do realize that now you've undermined your whole argument...

"Tax cuts blah blah blah..."

"Yah, but you've got a Richard Simmons avatar."

"DOH!"
He's a genious I tell you! A genious!
 
mrplunkey said:
My medical software company used no medical research. We provided a quickbooks-like product for managing operating rooms. The only credit the fed could glean from our product would be that if their reimbursement system weren't so horribly fucked-up, we wouldn't have been able to charge $300k-$600k per installation of the software.

While I owned and ran the company, I paid payroll taxes, sales and use tax, franchise taxes, etc. etc. I also complied with all the indirect taxes such as ADA, DoL, EEOC, etc. etc. Each year I also paid income tax on my profits. After its sale to GE, I paid yet another round of taxes in the form of capital gains. That's when I got clever and decided I was through paying taxes. I put virtually 100% of the proceeds into tax-free municipal bonds and have "checked-out" of the tax-and-spend fiasco our goverment has created.

If this ethanol deal hits it big and I find another windfall of cash, you can rest assured I will park it overseas. I'm disgusted with the confiscatory nature of our goverment now and you can rest assured I will do every single thing legally possible to deny the goverment revenue.

Even with measures already taken, this year I'll pay around $98,000 in taxes from the rental of a building to GE and I'll pay around $100,000 on a progress payment resulting from the sale of Inobis. I'll also pay around $100,000 due to how the software company was spun-out back in 1999 but I hope to offset that with a loss from a startup company we invested in 2001. State and local taxes will probably sting me for another $75,000 as well. So bottom line, I know I'll pay around $275k-ish this year and I consider almost every cent wasted.

So bottom line, if the rest of the country wants to be taxed into oblivion that's just great -- I personally am tired of playing along. I won't have the progress payment due next year, and when the GE lease expires in 2009 I'll probably sell the building and protect that money from taxes as well.

Well there you go. If you guys want to create a society of low gov. spending and low taxes be my guest. But I doubt you will get anywhere, your views on gov. are a minority view. I don't think most people will be willing to give up 15-20k a year in taxes in exchange for no military, CJ system, retirement help, tons of help for science & the poor, an educational system, etc.

Do you work with GE? Do you know Kenneth Miller?
 
Longhorn85 said:
Did I indicate somewhere that I was not a taxpayer? Please show me where. You claim we are undertaxed, I say we are overtaxed.

You also are under the false impression that govt creates wealth, since you think govt services are somehow possible before income is generated by citizens.

What I said earlier was that Sweden, with a 50% tax rate has a growth rate of 4.2% of GDP. The US with a 32% tax rate has a growth rate of 3.4%. If taxes are the main/sole cause of economic growth or stagnation why does Sweden grow?

Government intervention can create wealth. If government builds infrastructure, funds education and scientific development and protects the people then economic growth will be better. Supposedly if the US gov had put just $50 billion a year for a few years into making broadband mainstream then the US economy would now be $500 billion larger than it is now.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Well there you go. If you guys want to create a society of low gov. spending and low taxes be my guest. But I doubt you will get anywhere, your views on gov. are a minority view. I don't think most people will be willing to give up 15-20k a year in taxes in exchange for no military, CJ system, retirement help, tons of help for science & the poor, an educational system, etc.

Do you work with GE? Do you know Kenneth Miller?
I worked for GE for exactly two years. Worked in Med Systems in Engineering, then Marketing, then ran Business Development (M&A) for GEMS-IT (the information technology arm). Loved the company, but it wasn't the place for me long-term.

And my views are irrelevant. If the populace decides to tax themselves into oblivion, it won't be me paying the bill. I guess I should hope for a 90% tax rate anyway, since that would give me more buying power.
 
Lao Tzu said:
What I said earlier was that Sweden, with a 50% tax rate has a growth rate of 4.2% of GDP. The US with a 32% tax rate has a growth rate of 3.4%. If taxes are the main/sole cause of economic growth or stagnation why does Sweden grow?

Government intervention can create wealth. If government builds infrastructure, funds education and scientific development and protects the people then economic growth will be better. Supposedly if the US gov had put just $50 billion a year for a few years into making broadband mainstream then the US economy would now be $500 billion larger than it is now.
Yeah... goverment is great at infrastructure. You should take the tour of the new Oak Ridge National Labs facility. Less than five minutes into the tour, they show you two identical buildings placed 90 degrees from each other. The privately built one cost $218 per square foot and the identical federally built one cost $375 per square foot. That's goverment for you.
 
mrplunkey said:
Yeah... goverment is great at infrastructure. You should take the tour of the new Oak Ridge National Labs facility. Less than five minutes into the tour, they show you two identical buildings placed 90 degrees from each other. The privately built one cost $218 per square foot and the identical federally built one cost $375 per square foot. That's goverment for you.

Comically I remember reading in popular science not too long ago about either GE or Johnson&Johnson (hopefullly GE) has a problem with redundant scientific research. Over 10% of their scientific research is redundant because they don't keep good records of previous experiments. With better record keeping their productivity will go up.

If I were an idealogue I could take that isolated incident and say 'see, private industry is incompetent, lets all become communists' but I'm not going to do that.
 
mrplunkey said:
He's a genious I tell you! A genious!
A great marketer. You should see the profit gains from Sweating To The Oldies. I shit you not. I saw an analysis on that direct marketing product awhile back. It came out just before the mass market fitness crazy and he made out like a bandit.

Of course, you can't help but smile when you see him. lmao...he should lead the armies into Iraq
 
mrplunkey said:
He's a genious I tell you! A genious!
A great marketer. You should see the profit gains from Sweating To The Oldies. I shit you not. I saw an analysis on that direct marketing product awhile back. It came out just before the mass market fitness crazy and he made out like a bandit.

Of course, you can't help but smile when you see him. lmao...he should lead the armies into Iraq.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'd drastically cut back (or eliminate) any program that wasn't called-for in the constitution. Then, if someone wanted to add one (i.e. SS), I'd follow the constitutional amendment process before implementing it.
So you would eliminate corporate welfare and the Federal Reserve Bank?
 
WODIN said:
So you would eliminate corporate welfare and the Federal Reserve Bank?
As far as corporate welfare, I'd like to see every single last penny of it cut. None. Nada. Zero... and any politician who proposed it should be hung low from the nearest tree.

As far as the Federal Reserve, I'd actually have to think about that one. Since our currency isn't tied to gold that would take some thinking-through.

Oh, and I'm for *any* tax cut as well. If someone proposed a tax cut for gay hemophiliac claustrophobes I'd be all for it because at least it takes a little $$$ out of our fuckstick goverment's hands. They'd do less damage that way.
 
mrplunkey said:
Oh, and I'm for *any* tax cut as well. If someone proposed a tax cut for gay hemophiliac claustrophobes I'd be all for it because at least it takes a little $$$ out of our fuckstick goverment's hands. They'd do less damage that way.

What about all the poor and elderly people who have come to depend on taking your money away from you and spending it on themselves? have you no heart?

Dr. Nordstroms recommendations for your selfishness:

Go home and watch the movie "Christmas Carol" at least 10 times.

Read the bible, esp. the part where jesus says give all your money to the poor.

Go live in a used mobile home and be proud that you are contributing to society rather than sucking it dry.
 
Lao Tzu said:
What about all the poor and elderly people who have come to depend on taking your money away from you and spending it on themselves? have you no heart?

Dr. Nordstroms recommendations for your selfishness:

Go home and watch the movie "Christmas Carol" at least 10 times.

Read the bible, esp. the part where jesus says give all your money to the poor.

Go live in a used mobile home and be proud that you are contributing to society rather than sucking it dry.

Jesus was also a large proponent of free will. What you are condoning is taking the money, not personal charity.
 
Lao Tzu said:
What about all the poor and elderly people who have come to depend on taking your money away from you and spending it on themselves? have you no heart?

Dr. Nordstroms recommendations for your selfishness:

Go home and watch the movie "Christmas Carol" at least 10 times.

Read the bible, esp. the part where jesus says give all your money to the poor.

Go live in a used mobile home and be proud that you are contributing to society rather than sucking it dry.
I used to live in a single-wide mobile home. Been there, done that.
 
redguru said:
Jesus was also a large proponent of free will. What you are condoning is taking the money, not personal charity.

He wasn't much of a proponent when he was being crucified.


ZING!
 
mrplunkey said:
I used to live in a single-wide mobile home. Been there, done that.

Did you have a weight bench in the front yard and a half rebuilt engine in the bedroom or was this a grad school thing?
 
Lao Tzu said:
Did you have a weight bench in the front yard and a half rebuilt engine in the bedroom or was this a grad school thing?
No it wasn't a grad school thing. It was the first handfull of years in my life. It was an old, 54' long single-wide trailer made by an aluminum fabrication shop converted over from airplane manufacturing after WWII.

And we didn't have enough money for a weight bench or half a rebuilt engine in the front yard. That was the kind of stuff rich folks had.
 
mrplunkey said:
No it wasn't a grad school thing. It was the first handfull of years in my life. It was an old, 54' long single-wide trailer made by an aluminum fabrication shop converted over from airplane manufacturing after WWII.

And we didn't have enough money for a weight bench or half a rebuilt engine in the front yard. That was the kind of stuff rich folks had.
Sweating to the oldies worked wonders, eh?
 
EnderJE said:
Sweating to the oldies worked wonders, eh?
It did!

Actually... the Richard thing is an old joke. I used to online game with my son and I don't know if you know about online gamers, but they tend to be waaay out of shape. Also, many of them are overweight. Well, I used to *religiously* log-out and exercise every day, as I stayed in pretty good shape. The rumor among the guild was I was "Sweating to the Oldies", so I began expousing the benefits of listening to Richard Simmons philosophy. I'd drone on and on in guildchat about "Touching your inner richard" and how "We all have a little bit of Richard inside us". Then we had a meet-up at Fanfaire and my cover was blown.
 
mrplunkey said:
It did!

Actually... the Richard thing is an old joke. I used to online game with my son and I don't know if you know about online gamers, but they tend to be waaay out of shape. Also, many of them are overweight. Well, I used to *religiously* log-out and exercise every day, as I stayed in pretty good shape. The rumor among the guild was I was "Sweating to the Oldies", so I began expousing the benefits of listening to Richard Simmons philosophy. I'd drone on and on in guildchat about "Touching your inner richard" and how "We all have a little bit of Richard inside us". Then we had a meet-up at Fanfaire and my cover was blown.
lmao...

Yep, I used to game 5 years ago. Belonged to a clan and competed and the whole thing. Then, I played the Sims....

I can still remember the day....

Me: "Hey Honey! Look at this! I finally saved enough money to buy a better house in this game. Now, I'm using the new computer I bought!"

Wife: "So, let me get this straight. You're a software architect in the real world and a computer programmer in your virtual world? You're married and bought a house? And, to top it off, you're playing a game of yourself playing a game?"

Me: "Ummm....yeah."

Wife: "And I married you because...?"

Me: "You're an idiot?"

lmao...I stopped religously playing games since that day. Now, it's a few hours here and there. I mainly do research now for fun and online debates...:)
 
EnderJE said:
The point was that an American citizen doesn't really the meaning of overtaxed given the low rates of that country compared to more socialized regimes.

I disagree. One of the reasons we have low taxes is because we as citizens demand that it be so. Often liberals and politicians will throw out arguments like, "don't complain about our gas prices, you should see how much they pay in Europe" or "sure they pay more taxes in Canada but they have universal healthcare"

When hit with this logic most Americans respond, "Screw those guys, I'm an American and I like having cheap gas, cheap groceries, low taxes and choosing my own doctor"

That's why US politicians who promise to raise taxes usually lose.
 
mrplunkey said:
It did!

Actually... the Richard thing is an old joke. I used to online game with my son and I don't know if you know about online gamers, but they tend to be waaay out of shape. Also, many of them are overweight. Well, I used to *religiously* log-out and exercise every day, as I stayed in pretty good shape. The rumor among the guild was I was "Sweating to the Oldies", so I began expousing the benefits of listening to Richard Simmons philosophy. I'd drone on and on in guildchat about "Touching your inner richard" and how "We all have a little bit of Richard inside us". Then we had a meet-up at Fanfaire and my cover was blown.
LMFAO!

That's hilarious.
 
Longhorn85 said:
I disagree. One of the reasons we have low taxes is because we as citizens demand that it be so. Often liberals and politicians will throw out arguments like, "don't complain about our gas prices, you should see how much they pay in Europe" or "sure they pay more taxes in Canada but they have universal healthcare"

When hit with this logic most Americans respond, "Screw those guys, I'm an American and I like having cheap gas, cheap groceries, low taxes and choosing my own doctor"

That's why US politicians who promise to raise taxes usually lose.

Taxes in Canada & the US are about equal for healthcare, 9 vs 8% of GDP respectively.

Most americans want universal healthcare, even if it means higher taxes

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/universal_healthcare.html

"The public says it is willing to pay more in taxes to provide every American with health care coverage. In August 2003, Pew found Americans favoring, by 67 percent to 26 percent, the U.S. government guaranteeing “health insurance for all citizens,” even if that meant repealing most of “recent tax cuts.” And the majority was scarcely diminished (67 percent to 29 percent) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to “raising taxes.” Similarly, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion Strategies (GQR/POS) found, in January 2004, a 69 percent to 28 percent majority saying that they would be willing to pay more per year in federal taxes to assure every American citizen received health care coverage."

Many programs of universeal healthcare gives you more freedom of choice to pick your doctor than HMOs, PPOs or having no insurance.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Read the bible, esp. the part where jesus says give all your money to the poor.

Should we give it directly out of our pockets? (i.e., charitable donations, which make up the majority of aid in the US)

Or inefficiently, through the govt, where most of it can be wasted on bueracracy?

BTW, Jesus on taxes: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
 
Try to enact universal health care, see how far it gets. Hillary tried it once before when Bill was in the White House and both houses were Democratic. The next election wiped out the Democrat Majority in the house.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Should we give it directly out of our pockets? (i.e., charitable donations, which make up the majority of aid in the US)

Or inefficiently, through the govt, where most of it can be wasted on bueracracy?

BTW, Jesus on taxes: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Charity is about $250 billion a year in the US. Things like SS, education subsidies & healthcare run about $2 trillion.

That was a joke about giving to the poor. I just hope someday you conservatives are mature enough to understand what bad people you all are. When you do I have a signed copy of Al Franken's biography in a sealed first class envelope with your name(s) on it.
 
Top Bottom