Re: OT who said this ?

Lone Haranguer wrote:

Robert Allison wrote:

Lone Haranguer wrote:

Robert Allison wrote:

The republicans didn't control both houses and the executive?



Yep; that's how they got the tax cuts passed. Democrats would have preferred a major recession, as long as it happened on Bush's watch.


And they agreed that the progressive taxes were fine.


Not really. The Republicans just lacked the inclination to change them.

They didn't

change the progressive nature of the taxes, just the degree.


And the Democrats have been screaming purple murder ever since. Can you explain why that should be?

Because it is now less fair.

You can call it a "progressive tax" but no matter what you call it, that's what it boils down to.



I call a dog a dog because that is what it is called. Either that or perro.



So you agree that a progressive tax by its nature has to be unfair?


No, I agree that a progressive tax is fair.


Fair to whom? The guy working part time at Wal-Mart and getting money from other taxpayers through an "earned income tax credit". Or the guy having to shell out thousands of dollars to subsidize the Wal-Mart worker's lifestyle?

Fair to everyone. If you have thousands of dollars to shell out to subsidize some guy then you are probably doing OK. Better than the walmart guy anyway. And you know, you don't HAVE to pay taxes,....remember, you can move.

I believe that your position is that it is their money to begin

with and we are simply taking less of it from them.



Try to be consistent.

I am consistent. You keep dragging in the red herrings.

If it is the rich peoples money then it is also the poors.

The rich earned theirs and are entitled to keep it and the same goes for the poor. Taking less from the rich doesn't change how much is taken from the poor. That's a bogus argument.

Taking less of it from them is not robbing the rich.




Nor is taking less from the rich taking anything from the poor.



So a tax system that is progressive which takes less from the poor is not robbing from anyone is it?



Unless it takes more from the rich than it does from the poor, which is what a progressive tax does.


So, taking less from the rich is not taking anything from the poor, but taking less from the poor IS taking something from the rich?


If they are getting the rich man's taxes as an earned income tax credit, then yes. Even if getting food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, heating supplements, etc. at the expense of other taxpayers, it's taking something from the "rich". I.e. anyone's taxes going to subsidize the "poor".

So it is not the progressive tax structure that you don't like, it is the EIC. Well, vote against it in the next election, or write your congressman. You should not have to put up with helping people.

What is it that the rich cannot afford because there is less taken from the poor?


Totally irrelevant. You sound like you are consumed with class envy. The rich might want to buy a new yacht instead of contributing to the upkeep of Joe Sixpack and his 8 kids. Tell me why this is wrong?

I am doing OK. No envy here, actually, just the opposite. I wouldn't mind being rich, but I feel rich in other ways, just like you.

It is not wrong for them to want to buy a new yacht. They are free to do whatever they want as long as its legal.

Joe Sixpack should be held responsible for his own actions instead of depending on a safety net to save his fat ass from poor life decisions.

Who is Joe Sixpack? He sounds like a loser. One of the ones that abuse the system? Report him and get him busted off the welfare roles. Leaves more for those who need it if we get rid of the freeloaders.

Then lower the tax rates across the board. Why should high achievers pay what low achievers don't?



Perhaps you should ask that question like this:

Why should fortunate people pay the same as unfortunate people?



So all lottery winners should divide their winnings with everyone else, even those who never buy a ticket?

That is what you are advocating. Fortunate versus unfortunate are terms you are using to replace one who works harder and thus has more income.


I will tell you what, lets take an executive from IBM and let him switch jobs with a laborer that digs ditches all day long. Then lets ask him which one works harder.


More irrelevant twaddle. If the ditch-digger is competent enough to hold the executive's job, he'd have it or one just like it.

Working hard does not always mean more income. Sometimes it means just barely getting by. The working poor are not all lazy, contrary to what you have been led to believe.

Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the rich republicans. They say this all the time in the hopes that someone will believe it.




It's a fact. The evidence is there in many cities.



It happens. As a general rule, it is incorrect.



You need to travel more.


So do you. We probably all need a little time away from our cocoons.


I'm traveling now. Meeting new people every day.

Visit some unemployment offices. Meet some people that are down on their luck.

The laws that created a permanent underclass of welfare recipients were passed by Democrats. AFDC has resulted in 70% of black children being born to unmarried mothers. You can thank Democrats for that.



Wow! So if a mother is on AFDC her husband is more likely to leave her!



Odds are that she never had a husband.

That is astounding. What about all the others on AFDC? Is it the

same for them? Or is it true only if they are married to blacks? What if the husband doesn't know that his wife is on it, is he still likely to leave? What if it was made top secret? Would that help?



It sounds like you know nothing about the problem. AFDC made it possible for unmarried women to get an income simply by having children.


And that makes SOME people have babies so they can get a check from the government.


Yep and AFDC made it all possible. Instead of lifting people out of poverty, it created a huge class of people who will NEVER be anything but poor.

Man. I happen to know a few people that it helped when they were going through hard times. You're right, it never lifted them out of poverty, but after they got over the hard times, the lifted themselves. That would have been much harder for them to do without the little extra help.


How many people do you know personally that are doing

this? If it is as universal as you say, they you must be able to name at least one.


I could name a bunch. When I took my last vocational college classes there were a number of them who gloated about their free income.

Free medical care, (many students had none unless still covered under their parents policies) an income without working part time (most students had to have a part-time job to make ends meet) free baby-sitting. The welfare mothers were always signed up on the party sheets while other students were working.

I have seen alot of freeloaders in my lifetime, too. What is your point? That there are freeloaders? Good luck getting rid of them. They have been around since the beginning of man.

What the heck is a party sheet?

Or is this just a part of the whole "bash the democrats on everything" campaign? AHA! You see how that whole agenda lowers your credibility on everything?



You'd have some credibility if you knew anything about this topic.

Researchers Greg. J. Duncan and Saul D. Hoffman write that the proportion of children born to single black women in the U.S. jumped from less than 25% in the early 1960s to about 60% in 1985, one-third of whom are teenagers.

(Now closer to 70%)

Charles Murray, Mikhail Bernstam and P.L. Swan argue that public assistance programs make out-of-wedlock childbearing economically appealing to teenagers.

#
More than half of the women who had been single teen mothers and had used AFDC before their children turned 2 were poor at age 26. Nearly 3/4 of these women became female heads of households.

#
Women who had 2 or more out-of-wedlock teen births and had depended on AFDC to care for their infants had the highest poverty rates, they find. By age 26, 75% of these women were poor, 83% received AFDC, 10% were married, and their family's earned incomes were under $4,000 on average.


Part of your millions of dollars spent on studies.


The ones I mentioned were on light rail.


Do they happen to discuss the aspect of this societal influence that shows that if they actually try to work their way out of government assistance programs, they quickly become ineligible for many of the programs that make it possible for them to work (child care, health care).


If you read the above, you will note that those who avoided assistance programs fared far better than those who used them.

Yeah, I know, and there were no other factors which had a determination in the outcome. I have seen studies like that before. You can cook statistics to show almost anything but the truth.

IOW, they would ALL have been better off if the programs had never existed. It was a trap and a snare, designed by Democrats to keep a permanent welfare class as part of their voting base. It's working just as designed.

This is part of the health care program in america today. If

they stay poor, they have health care for their children. If they move up, they lose it. I agree. These things must be changed. When they do not work, change them. But wait, that would be socialism.


Wrong. Socialism was starting those programs. Ending them would make people responsible for their actions instead of subsidizing their poor decisions.

Yes, and no one ever honestly needs any help.

Any you want to keep things just as they are? Oh thats right, anything different is socialism.


Childish babble.

Well, you have to speak in terms that the person spoken to can understand.

Ready to talk about changing some of the programs we have in place, now?


Have you read Bush's ideas?

All of them? No. Most of the current ones, yes.

What do you think about Edwards plan? How about the one that Mitt Romney instituted in Mass.?


Too much government involvement. That drives costs up, not down.

Why did it help to balance the state government then?


You may call it special treatment, I call it common sense.

I call it idiocy. Take a hike through Detroit or East St. Louis and see what your policies lead to. Then tell us your ideas are common sense.
LZ




Common sense, to an ignorant man, can seem like idiocy.

Creating and maintaining a permanent underclass has created millions of illiterates and criminals who are no asset to society. That is not common sense. Democrats created them and want them shackled as their permanent voting base. Immigrants are their next target.
LZ



Who has the keys to their chains?



Those who shape the policies of the Democratic party.

I will go and release them for you,

LZ, just tell me who to talk to.



They'll laugh at you. FDR found a winning formula for them and they are interested in maintaining this base and even expanding it.
LZ


Barack Obama is appealing to me. The reason that he is appealing is because he talks about how most of the politicians and many of our citizens are stuck in this sixties mentality about civil rights and keeping socialism at bay and all of the tired old arguments that came out of the sixties revolution.


Talk is cheap. What legislation has he actually written?

What legislation has Bush actually written?

He says that it is time to move past those old disagreements and take on the problems facing america today. Rehashing old wounds does nothing to help us with the new challenges facing America.


Political rhetoric.

But true.

I see and agree with him on that issue. So far he is the only one that recognizes just how lame all of that old cold war stuff is in the modern world.


Talk is cheap. How much has he contributed to the welfare of the United States?

Probably about twice what you have.

I will have to look into his ideas to see if I can support him, just for that reason.


Ideas are cheap. Deeds speak a lot louder. Does he have a record of useful deeds?

Yes.

LZ just reminded me about how tired I am of all that.


Another 14 months of bullshit to wade through.
LZ

Which is why I haven't taken the time to study many plans by the candidates yet. No sense in studying something if it doesn't have a chance.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Top 10 things Obama blames a lack of economic recovery on.
    ... Bush ... the poor are oppressing the rich. ... pay one particular tax: the federal income tax, ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: OT Impoverished meanies oppress the suffering wealthy
    ... Their current favorite theme is even more amazing: the poor are oppressing the rich. ... HALF of America pays NO taxes. ... About 46% of Americans - mostly students, elderly, and unemployed - don't make enough money to pay one particular tax: the federal income tax, which is progressive. ... But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT who said this ?
    ... that's how they got the tax cuts passed. ... Democrats would have preferred a major recession, as long as it happened on Bush's watch. ... The rich earned theirs and are entitled to keep it and the same goes for the poor. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT who said this ?
    ... that's how they got the tax cuts passed. ... Democrats would have preferred a major recession, as long as it happened on Bush's watch. ... The rich earned theirs and are entitled to keep it and the same goes for the poor. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT who said this ?
    ... Democrats would have preferred a major recession, as long as it happened on Bush's watch. ... Because the people with money still have money, while the poor can less afford to feed their kids, take them to the doctor, buy medicine, maintain their vehicles, buy insurance, etc. ... If more of their tax money had been left in their pockets, ... The rich earned theirs and are entitled to keep it and the same goes for the poor. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)