Smoking the victory (Obama) cigar...

[Shh!]

Which part? The part where he says social security is bankrupting our nation? In 2007 our nation budget was somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars, over 40% of that was spent on social security. 1.15 trillion dollars... we spend less than half that in national defense, the next closest cost.

Uh oh, you've just guaranteed a non-response from Cheapy. He hates facts.

 

[Shh!]

I spend 8-10 hours a day, 4 days a week talking to underwriters and financial institutions, so trust me when I tell you that unless you have at least a 680-720 credit score with a lot of liquid assets, you ain't getting no loan.

Totally, 100% incorrect. Unless by "ain't getting no" you mean "will get a". Hard to tell with those double negatives.

 

[Shh!]

As for not taxing wealthy people, or wealthy businesses, what your saying is that the poor people get screwed either way you look at it? You think thats right? Anyway, businesses can only raise prices so much before people will stop paying for items they don't need, and businesses will go under.

You are so close it's scary. What happens when businesses go under or rich people leave? Once the vault is empty, where will the government steal the money to pay for all the people with their hands out? This isn't Star Trek. The world runs on money, plain and simple. People don't provide goods and services out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Shh!]

Yes, the current administration was very nice to drastically cut Pell Grants. Although they did increase loans. But you're not going to be able to feed even a 3 person family on Pell Grants and Loans. The students under my employ usually get tuition, and books paid for and then about $1000.00 left over. If you're in School Full time, 1000.00 to cover 16 weeks of housing, food and other expenses ain't enough. Although Health-care is taken care of by being a student, although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is regarding my particular example.

Can you show me where exactly it spells out the "right" to higher education? Where does it say you or I should have to pay for someone else to go to school while still supporting his/her family? I keep flipping through my copy of the Constitution and I can't seem to find that...

 

[Black magick]

First of all the notion that the people who are not rich are not so because they lack initiative is I think a bit short sighted.
The question that I'm asking is: if the government feels that if must tax its citizens then which group of people does it make more sense to tax? People can CAN afford it or people who CAN'T?

Is it the governments place to save every person who is struggling financially? No. Would it be the wise government that would do all it could to prevent these struggling people from being in such a situation? Yes it would. Because what happens when millions of people are poor, when millions of people have no insurance, when millions of people are in a place of unrest? You get at best financial turmoil (check) and at worst you get increased crime, and violence (witch I would wager would soundly fit within the role you propose the government should fill, that of protecting you, and making sure the country doesn't turn to char chaos).

I know people want to think that terrible messes will just fix themselves and that if you in a bad situation its only because you are stupid and lazy, but its just not the case.

(p.s. apologize if im a little scattered, im at work, and posting when I get a moment)

I never said ALL who aren't rich aren't hard workers, but for many that IS the case. So I asked why a hard worker should have to care for said person, way to put a twist on my words. People should be taxed depending on how much they make, but i fail to see what that has to do with my post.

First, find figures and I'll give your "millions" some serious thought, also what do you define as being poor exactly? To your insurance statement, insurance is not something to be given out... You want to know why? If insurance is given out either A. Coverage will mean next to nothing B. Taxes will skyrocket to pay for it. C. Insurance companies close down because they can't afford to insure the masses. Also, where do you get that "millions" are in a place of unrest? Either put up figures or everyone reading will know you are making assumptions. If it was so bad why isn't crime increasing everywhere? See my last post on my opinions if violence increased.

Messes won't fix themselves, but doing the wrong thing in an attempt to fix them will only make them worse. ^^

 

[Shh!]

No.

That is not all that you are saying.

I'm very tired and I don't know that I'll continue in this conversation moving forward so hopefully I will say everything that I wanted to concisely enough.

Without being condescending towards you, I want to iterate that your position is exactly what is wrong with this country and by in large the entire world.

There will always be haves and have nots, but by giving people the choice, the opportunity to be one or the other is the definition of freedom.

You have no accountability towards the purpose your ideals are trying to serve. Your post states that just because we have the money, we should spend it. You make no mention of what 'needy' is nor what actually qualifies as such. Your post assumes that people cannot afford things, but ignores the fundamentals of economics. In reality... people actually can afford those things, but choose not to. The sole purpose of government is to protect it's peoples freedom... yet not provide for them anything. It is a one way relationship... plain and simple.

The government holds no responsibility towards its people aside from ensuring each able-bodied person has the opportunity to pursue their own individual endeavors.

Re-read that.

It's the foundation of our constitution.

This notion that our government has a moral responsibility to provide for its people what they otherwise could have obtained, but chose not to is the beating heart of the problem.

The onus is on the people to take care of each other, provide to the needy, chase wealth... otherwise known as the American dream. Providing for oneself through his or her own actions. Your civic duty is only to ensure that your brothers and sisters also have that same opportunity...

The whole problem is this line of thinking that the government can solve the problems the people... between and amongst themselves ignore. It's totally ludicrous and it's eating at this country from the inside out.

With all of this said (and much more that could have been) I will end this post with some quotes:

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. -- Winston Churchill, 1948

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Discours pronounce a l'assemblee constituante le 12 septembre 1848 sur la question du droit at travail

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. -- Ronald Reagan

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. -- Ayn Rand

God Bless and good night.

Post of the year. :bowdown:

 

[Shh!]

People need to understand that with success comes responsibility.

No, with success SHOULD come responsibility. It is not the government's job to determine if I've given enough.

 

[Shh!]

"Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

"So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor."

Socialism is widely accepted to be a redistribution of wealth (aka property and labor). If you don't think that's what you are advocating, I'd like to know how you can justify that thought.

 

[Tiberius]

I did lay some of the blame on the banks, I even said that in my post. I have worked restaurants, bartending, retail sales and many blue collar jobs in the past.

I would be more inclined to help those people that work (instead of the ones who are able and don't) but make low wages. But it begins with educating them on spending practices.

I can't count how many times I have gone into an apartment and the people have no furniture, a mattress on the floor with not box springs or bed frame. But they got a big screen TV!

Or they live in a rundown slum apartment but they drive a brand new Mustang.

There has to be a priority shift in America before we can truly help anyone. That is why the market is doing what it is. As a people we have gotten out of control.

My suggestion would be Dave Ramsey as President

I second that motion! Ramsey is great.

 

[Shh!]

People should be taxed depending on how much they make,

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" - Karl Marx.

Congratulations, you're now a communist

 

[Shh!]

Did you or your wife or any of your children ever go to a public school? Did you ever ride on public transportation? Have you ever driven you car on a road? Have you ever been protected, or made to feel safe by the police, or the armed forces? Have you even enjoyed a public park, or lake, or trail, or river? Have you ever checked a book out from the library?

Yes, and ALL of those (except some roads and armed forces) are provided by LOCAL governments and mostly by ballot (levies). That's the way it should be, not by Uncle Sam reaching into my back pocket, taking my wallet and putting my money in a charity bucket.

Have you ever lived through a natural disaster?

No but that is one of the few things the Fed should take care of because it's actually infrastructure.

Have you ever had a loved one age to the point that they can no longer work? Have you ever had such an aged relative suffer from a sickness....

Yes, I have. My Grandmother died of Alzheimer's. However, my Grandfather worked his whole life and scrimped and saved to make sure she was taken care of. They also paid into social security and only used it for its intended purpose: a safety net for her health.

This is how a government works. They take tax money for things that people need to have, and enjoy. We all pay for it. The notion that the people who CAN'T afford it should be more responsible for footing the bills rather than the people who CAN afford it, is simply counter productive.

And the notion that rich people pay more just because they have it is communism. Why do you insist on punishing success? I believe in a national sales tax, that way everyone gets to decide how much they contribute but everyone still contributes.

 

[Hera - Siege]

Yes, the current administration was very nice to drastically cut Pell Grants. Although they did increase loans. But you're not going to be able to feed even a 3 person family on Pell Grants and Loans. The students under my employ usually get tuition, and books paid for and then about $1000.00 left over. If you're in School Full time, 1000.00 to cover 16 weeks of housing, food and other expenses ain't enough. Although Health-care is taken care of by being a student, although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is regarding my particular example.

Can you show me where exactly it spells out the "right" to higher education? Where does it say you or I should have to pay for someone else to go to school while still supporting his/her family? I keep flipping through my copy of the Constitution and I can't seem to find that...

I'll take a page out of Vortex's handbook and say "If you're going to quote me, do so in context."

The quote has nothing to do with a claim to a 'right' to higher education. Mo suggested that in order to improve one's healthcare they go to school and thus obtain a better job. I was merely pointing out that in order to go to school it would be difficult to support a family at the same time as attending school full time and that Mo's suggestion regarding Pell Grants or Loans would not be sufficient as they cover mainly to cost of tuition and books and not living expenses. [Not that they should cover living expenses.]

And just out of curiousity, if you're a college graduate, how did you pay for college?
Did you accept the grants & loans offered if you applied for financial aid? If so, I certainly hope you practiced what you preach and turn down the grants and only took the loans because you don't believe in 'hand-outs?'
Or perhaps you were fortunate enough to have a family that could afford the cost of tuition?
Save your pennies and pay out of pocket?

I'll tell you mine to start, I went to college later in life, so I was able to pay out of pocket for my tuition without the need of financial aid. Although in my final semester I had to borrow against our home equity because my daughter was born and the extra expenses due to having a child.

 

[Shh!]

I'll take a page out of Vortex's handbook and say "If you're going to quote me, do so in context."

The quote has nothing to do with a claim to a 'right' to higher education. Mo suggested that in order to improve one's healthcare they go to school and thus obtain a better job. I was merely pointing out that in order to go to school it would be difficult to support a family at the same time as attending school full time and that Mo's suggestion regarding Pell Grants or Loans would not be sufficient as they cover mainly to cost of tuition and books and not living expenses. [Not that they should cover living expenses.]

You are correct. I merely skimmed what you quoted to reply to before reading what you wrote. I apologize. That being said, I worked full time while going to school full time (granted, it was only for 1 year) and my wife is obtaining a masters while working full time AND running her own business. Amazing what motivation will do, huh?

And just out of curiousity, if you're a college graduate, how did you pay for college?
Did you accept the grants & loans offered if you applied for financial aid? If so, I certainly hope you practiced what you preach and turn down the grants and only took the loans because you don't believe in 'hand-outs?'
Or perhaps you were fortunate enough to have a family that could afford the cost of tuition?
Save your pennies and pay out of pocket?

Yes, I won life's lottery and grew up in a middle class family where my parents planned for the future and sent me to college. Being the ungrateful dumbass college kid that I was, I dropped out 3/4 of the way through school to get married and had to finish up later in life after my divorce. When I returned to school, I got tuition reimbursement from my *gasp* job and took out loans to pay for the rest. My wife, who I mentioned previously, also is taking out loans to pay for her masters.

Loans (even low interest gov't loans), yes. Grants, no. You want it, pay for it. Higher education is not a right.

I'll tell you mine to start, I went to college later in life, so I was able to pay out of pocket for my tuition without the need of financial aid. Although in my final semester I had to borrow against our home equity because my daughter was born and the extra expenses due to having a child.

You managed to find a way to make it happen without a handout. Good for you.

 

[Shh!]

You guys can argue any litlle point that you believe to be true til yer blue in the face, but like it or not your new mama is Obama. So pucker up.

When he's done with us, we won't be able to pucker up any more. Maybe he'll be nice and use some Vasoline?

 

[Shh!]

You apparantly had too much cigar last night, this election was not about white and black, it was about young and old. This is a new generation and a new America, and they simply WILL NOT stand for the bull that has been tolerated in the past.

You're right about that. This is a generational thing. Sadly, the new generation doesn't understand what built this country and how we've arrived at this moment in time. They've been bombarded by teachers, professors, and media about how awful the US is. The path for them to destroy our country out of guilt has been illuminated by the communist rejects and retread hippies that infest education and the media. Unfortunately, like lemmings they are all too eager to travel down it. Even more tragic is that this country probably will never recover and our children will only know it by the stories we tell them.

 

[Black magick]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" - Karl Marx.

Congratulations, you're now a communist

Nay sir, income tax goes for everyone who makes money, so naturally the rich who make alot will pay more. But the rich shouldn't pay it all like socialism implies. Also, that quote was meant for services the people could preform for each other, while the government completely controlled everything monetary.

 

[Hera - Siege]

Yes, I won life's lottery and grew up in a middle class family where my parents planned for the future and sent me to college. Being the ungrateful dumbass college kid that I was, I dropped out 3/4 of the way through school to get married and had to finish up later in life after my divorce. When I returned to school, I got tuition reimbursement from my *gasp* job and took out loans to pay for the rest. My wife, who I mentioned previously, also is taking out loans to pay for her masters.

Loans (even low interest gov't loans), yes. Grants, no. You want it, pay for it. Higher education is not a right.

Sounds like your wife is above and beyond, that's quite a bit to take on.

To counterpoint, not every job has tuition reimbursement, quite frankly I bet few do. And in the context of my argument, if you're in a job that doesn't provide adequate health insurance, then I highly doubt they are going to provide tuition reimbursement.

And you do practice what you preach, I applaud you for that, and I agree, Higher education is not a right, and the government has done a good job in making sure that can happen through loans & grants.

And finally, if you went to a public school, someone else paid in part for your education so while you paid for it, you really didn't pay completely for it. At the State University I work at we're about 30% tuition, 70% state funded, and where does that state money come from in part? Yeap, taxes.

Not that this tangent really relates much to national healthcare short of showing that 'handouts' are given at many levels, and I believe that in some cases, making available health-care at an affordable or in cases of required surgeries or medicines, zero-to-little overall cost is not a bad thing. [Sorry daughter in my lap and desiring mucho attention, I hope you can gleam how I'm trying to relate them here. . .]

 

[Shh!]

Nay sir, income tax goes for everyone who makes money, so naturally the rich who make alot will pay more. But the rich shouldn't pay it all like socialism implies. Also, that quote was meant for services the people could preform for each other, while the government completely controlled everything monetary.

That depends. Do you think the "rich" should pay 35% while the "poor" pays nothing? Or 5%? That's communism friend and why I am in favor of a national sales tax.

 

[Ole Cheapy]

That depends. Do you think the "rich" should pay 35% while the "poor" pays nothing? Or 5%? That's communism friend and why I am in favor of a national sales tax.

IMO both 35% and 39% is too much, but the 35% was out in place by bush, yer mama Obama only wants to raise it another 4%. That's not that big of a raise imo. But like i said both 35% and 39% is unfair, but it's necessary. Poor kids DO NOT deserve to die because they are poor! If that means you have to wait in line an extra 3 days for your boob job, then so be it!

*Use the movie "John Q" as an example*

 

[Sweeney]

This thread long ago eroded into a series of personal attacks against a persons political philosophy. Labels are easy to throw around.. try rational argument next time. Any serious point gets countered with "That's one of the dumbest things I've heard", with no evidence to back it up (It's impossible to have evidence of opinion). Or "That's Communism", when in fact the reason communism fails is that power is something that cannot be redistributed. Ask any scholar and they will tell you Communism is the best form of government, on paper.

Imagine the pride this nation would feel if it ranked #1 in education, #1 in health care, #1 in life span.. for all of the population. Instead the US ranks mid to low level (I could look up figures, but the semi-socialism of europe speaks for itself as how many countries have free college education and health care).

When compared against the standard of living, basic math will tell you the rich can afford to pay more in taxes than the poor, without much detriment.

All this bull won't change anyone's mind.. you've stopped having a debate and insist on nit-picking each others words. I haven't posted in this thread for a long time, since it degraded into childish banter, and assuredly this will be my last post on the matter.

 

[Uvtha]

This thread long ago eroded into a series of personal attacks against a persons political philosophy.

Yeah... I stop wanting to post in this thread because of the tenor of some of the people (not all of course). But this is what always happens when you discuss religion or politics especially online. I just need to learn to stop posting in these things.

 

[Petra Fyde]

And on that note I think it's time for;

​