Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Five Myths About the GOP That Just Won't Die

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Abeth,

    In this you are wrong. Oppertunity exists for those who seek it. The cheif if right - its not easy but nobody said it was. Nobody said it should be. BUT - if you want it - you can work for it and achieve it.

    If you removed some of the 'handout' mentality, you remove the incentive to remain 'on the system's dime'. I fully support the notion that if you receive government assistance, you should have either paid into it or work for it. SSI and unemployment are paid into, welfare and food stamps would be worked for. There is nothing wrong with expecting a days work for this.

    Lastly - for those who (SCFIRE) lambast buisness owners are evil and not paying a living wage etc etc etc. Grow up. If you own a buisness, you shoulder the risk of losing everything to get it going and keep it going. The reward for this is ownership of it and its profits. You pay your workers a market driven wage. They can choose to accept your wages or work elsewhere. If you don't pay enough - nobody will stay. As the owner, its your *right* to operate you buisness with the pay scales you want - in accordance with applicable laws. The goal of your buisness is to grow and make you, the owner, a lot of money. It is NOT to provide jobs for others. The jobs for others is a side benefit.

    Comment


    • #47
      Beth,

      Now you are just making excuses. I have known single working parents who have not only gone to school, but finished their masters and doctorate. As for money, the schools and governments give away scholarships for a lot of people. There are grant programs that low income individuals can get to go to school for free. I went to college for free, HOW?, instead of partying and doing poorly in high school like many of my peers, I graduated with a 4.0 GPA and got a full scholarship. Like I said, everyone in our country has the opportunity for education. As for getting the grades, that is up to the person to WORK for it, something a lot of people in our country have long forgotten to do.
      Last edited by mcwops; 08-20-2010, 08:28 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        [QUOTE=The nots so new FNG;1198548]Abeth,

        In this you are wrong. Oppertunity exists for those who seek it. The cheif if right - its not easy but nobody said it was. Nobody said it should be. BUT - if you want it - you can work for it and achieve it.

        Absolutely correct. I delayed entry into college for six months to work for my initial tuition, worked weekends and Holidays, worked a co-op education program where you find a sponsor company and work a term and go to school a term. Lived in a rooming house, couldn't afford the dorms. Had no scholarships or financial help from a single parent, and some educational loans that were paid back the first year after I graduated. Drove old clunkers for cars but I was a good mechanic and could keep them running. The reward for this effort has been a challenging and rewarding career and a comfortable financial life style.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
          Your $10 an hour that long ago was far more than what most poor folks make these days. Today you're lucky to get paid $10, and more likely to be paid $7-$8 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that's like being paid $4 an hour when you were making $10. (That is, assuming you were going to school in the 90's.)
          I went to college in 1991. That 10 bucks an hour didn't get me any financial aid. I was also living in a nice apartment and had other luxury expenses that I could have changed if needed... in other words, I would've gone to school if I was making less.

          I think you are overstating inflation, btw. The rent at that apartment complex has not increased 100%.

          You just don't get it. Real incomes are collapsing, and as income falls opportunities close off. Sure, you can kick and scratch your way to all kinds of things, but these days some people just can't afford to risk it all on *maybe* getting a job when they're done with school.
          No risk, no reward. It's that simple.

          There are plenty of people who are in the situation you describe who have DONE it.
          I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

          "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

          Comment


          • #50
            I'm not saying it wasn't possible then, and I'm not saying it isn't possible now. I am stating a true-to-blood fact that it is much harder today than it was two decades ago.

            Consider. The cost of living has increased, the cost of housing has increased, and the average (real) wage paid to anyone working has either remained static or declined. When you don't make enough to do anything, much less go to school, you don't go to school. Losing everything and going to school homeless sounds oh so romantic, but it's not the way things work. Just back in 2000 I could grab everything I needed to eat for the day at around $5. Now you're lucky to spend less than $15, and that without any real increase in pay. That means that my most basic cost - eating - has increased 300% with maybe a 10% raise in what I'm on average going to be paid. Housing has increased in cost as the value of properties increased, and looks set to continue to increase despite the drop in values because we continue to pay it. On average the cost of rent has increased nearly 200%, and all with no real increase in average pay. School has increased in cost far more than 300% in the last two decades, and do I need to make the point about pay again?

            $10 an hour in 1990 would be similar to $20 an hour today. You could afford nice things on $10, and now you can barely afford nice things on $20. This has direct ties to GOP policies that I simply cannot and will not agree with. You can hang all the talk of opportunity you want in front someone, and they may even "kick and scratch" their way out from time to time. Most people simply can't afford to take that risk. They already have a place to live, a job that doesn't pay much but it's enough to eat on, and going to school might jeopardize both. Most minimum wage employers don't look kindly to altering their schedule for your school needs, and with how expensive education has become they may not be able to afford it anyways.

            In 1990 opportunity was real. In 2010 it's a fast closing door. The GOP has far too much blame in the mess to not hold them accountable.

            I think you are overstating inflation, btw. The rent at that apartment complex has not increased 100%.
            That may be true of that particular complex, but that may be specific to your community. In my own the cost of living has continued to outpace any rise in income, and to quite a large degree. There's two kinds of inflation to consider - actual monetary inflation, that being the devaluation of money based on too much supply, and outright price inflation. The former hasn't been much of an issue since Volcker. The latter has increased in size and scope since before Clinton left office. I know someone will attempt to bring up that one begets the other, and to some degree it does. Economically speaking, they're capable of being two independent phenomena - and as of now, they most certainly are.

            I really don't want to argue the moral principle with you guys. You won't see it from my end, and I won't see it from your end. I do feel we have a lot more in common than you're giving me credit for. Take welfare for example. I've read a bunch of posts now lambasting the system for paying people to not work, essentially. Where that happens I'm all for cutting people off the rolls. Make them work for it. I'd even agree with making people work for welfare. Why should I support someone who doesn't want to support themselves? Where I draw the line is someone who quite simply is incapable of, or due to circumstance unable to, support themselves. I accept it as my civic duty to help that person. Less poverty equates to less crime, and a rising tide raises all yachts, no?

            So where you see me defending a whole legion of lazy slobs, in actuality I'm defending the (majority) segment that is doing the right thing - working for what they can, trying to get ahead, but just not able to do it without help.

            Comment


            • #51
              abeth86,
              Your whole post is one long excuse.
              My mother's favorite phrases were "It's amazing what you can do with $50 worth of paint and a little elbow grease" and "Can't never did anything"
              Neither will you when you blame lack of motivation and effort on someone else and sound like you're more than happy to sit on the government dole.
              The people who grew up in the Great Depression and WW11, my parents and my wifes parents had it far tougher then you or my generation and they survived and prospered with gumption, hard work and "Elbow Grease"

              Comment


              • #52
                Beth,

                Two big issues I see.

                The first is people living within their means. In my earlier example, I talked about some of the Section 8 housing in my area. You can drive into that neighborhood anytime, and see newer late model vehicles in the parking lot. You will see these people sitting around with nothing better to do than drinking, smoking, or whatever. It would seem to me, that if you have to live off government assistance, you would not be able to afford smokes, or booze. You would be lucky to even own a vehicle, yet I see many who own more than one. Not to mention, anyone with any pride in themselves, or AMBITION, would work any job they could to support themselves, not sit idly by while someone else takes care of them. But that is not what I see.

                The second issue I see often, these poor people often have at least one large tv, cell phones, name brand clothing, etc. Our definition of poor has shifted over the years. It used to mean you were lucky to have a roof over your head, and shoes on your feet (often poor didn't). They didn't have expensive electronics and fancy belongings. It is called living within your means. Our society is so materialistic, even the poor spend their last dime on things they don't need. Even if you gave one of these people a million dollars, most of them would wind up right back in the same place they were. That is not just me spouting off, studies have shown that people in poverty are abt to return there. You can look at lottery winners and see that. Those that were poor at managing what little they had, usually wind up bankrupt, sometimes in less than a year. You could take all the money in the country and divide it equally among everyone, but numerous economic studies agree, within 5 years, the same people who had money will get it again. Why, because those are the people who are entrepreneurial, and will strive to succeed.

                Even today, anyone in this country can become great. If you want it, you can reach it. It takes hard work, dedication, and AMBITION though. If you want to sit back and play the victim, the world is against me, well I have no sympathy for you. There are no boundaries except for what you make for yourself.

                Most liberals like to paint the wealthy as having it easy, never work hard, and that couldn't be farther from the truth for most. What the liberals hide is that most of those people started with very little, they earned everything they had, and deserve to reap the fruits of their labor.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  I won't bother reposting the rest of your response to my squashing of your race baiting. Your statement clearly tried to tie every Democrat to the crushing of african-american rights in the 1960's. This is not only historical fantasy, it's race baiting.
                  It's not race baiting. I was responding to how scfire86 made a comment that the Republicans flip-flop on. I simply pointed out that (factually spealing) large numbers of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act. You call it race baiting. I call it an historical fact.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  You're right, I don't know you. Why would I want to know someone who carelessly repeats race baiting talking points?
                  You call it race baiting. Call it what you want to, but that was not my attempt. You obviously do not believe as you have this feeling that you know what I was thinking, despite me telling you that you are wrong.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  My apologies for ever thinking you were a fireman on a firefighter's forum, also.
                  This is a public forum, you can be a professional basket weaver and post here. When I joined this forum a LONG time ago, I was a firefighter. I have since moved on in my life.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Sure, you *can* do better. If you had bothered to read what I posted about social security before you blindly responded with nothing but more talking points and spite, you'd see that I clearly understand the problems facing SSI in the future. I simply disagree with some of the proposed methods of "fixing" it.
                  That is fine. And I did read what you posted, you just feel that I did not. I disagree with some of the plans too. However when I see the huge amounts I pay into it, and see what little I will get out (which will likely be lower) and see better means of receiving money in my retirement, I have to ask why the government-run program cannot.

                  And the Democrats/liberals/AARP people think the entire thing should be shelved in conservative's eyes. Not true. But what better way to rile up the largest, most reliable voting block in our citizenry.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Since you seem to believe I'm an idiot, (still following? Good.), I won't really bother going back and forth with you. You'll keep blindly parroting on talking points, and I'll keep doing what I can to keep the likes of you out of public office. At least you understand that SSI's issues come from fiscal irresponsibility on both sides, which is more than can be said for most.
                  I do not believe that you are an idiot. I got sick of you telling me what I meant when I plainly wrote it in English but you extrapolated whatever you wanted from what I wrote.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  I doubt they'd be sitting outside their Section 8 housing smoking and drinking if they had real opportunities for advancement in life.
                  Opportunities exist. But large segments of the population opt to not take them.....hence we have multiple generational lines that suck off the tit of government programs. My family is rife with folks who sit outside Section 8 housing, smoke/sell dope, and do NOTHING to further themselves. I also see it every day at work.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  The evidence shows it.
                  What evidence? Please support your statement.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Last I checked, a job at McDonald's doesn't pay the bills, and that's about all some of these people are qualified for.
                  McDonald's may not pay the bills as the burger flipper, but you use the opportunity to help you pay for school so that you can move forward and up in your life. Making a career out of McDonald's is not how one does that. However, you also move up to become supervisor, manager, or something else.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Not for lack of ambition, but lack of education and opportunity.
                  Right. I will give you education. Our education system sucks. Our schools in the inner city (where the poor and minorities are congregated in large numbers) are failures. There is an educational gap. But the individual is responsible for their lot in life.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  No, they don't. It's more like the top 50% pays the majority of income taxes.
                  Um, yes they do. You should research the matter. See, as of 2008 the top 5% of wage earners pay 60.63% of all collected income taxes (per IRS data.) That is those making over $160,041 per annum. Being that 60% is a majority - most is paid by them. The bottom 50% (making less than $32,879) pays 2.89% of all income taxes.

                  Remember, 47% of all taxpayers last year paid not one single penny in overall income taxes.

                  This from the chart found below. Also not that those in lower 50% of all wage earners have been paying less and less every year, while EVERY category in the top 50% of wage earners has been paying MORE every year. Yet we are CONSTANTLY being told by liberals/progressives/Democrats that we do not pay enough.

                  http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  The lower earner paying less taxes feels those taxes in ways that the rich man never will.
                  To a point this is true. However, the tax system is less than equitable for those (such as myself) who came from poverty, busting their @$$ along the way, to ensure that they succeed in life.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Nobody notices that the problem erupted when the tax codes were futzed by Reagan?
                  Perhaps we should review that Congress controls the tax law. So, considering that the Democrats (mind you I am not a Republican) are actually responsible for "futzing" the tax codes?

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Nobody notices that the problem was exacerbated by deregulation and new tax loopholes allowing corporations to ship our jobs to China for cheaper labor?
                  Oh we notice. My Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, pushed for tax benefits for a solar panel manufacturer to get tax breaks to build a new factory 20 miles from me. In the less than 4 years since that occurred, employees are fewer......as they sent the positions to China. Great use of my tax dollars. No company should get benefits for doing so.

                  Instead, make the taxation flat. Ease the understandability and operability of the tax code. Won't happen, and we both know that.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Kerry didn't "dodge" anything, unless he owed a tax and never paid it. Instead, he kept the boat elsewhere and under the proprietary umbrella of his wife's company, thus he didn't technically owe a dime. You say it was a dodge, I say it is a symptom of a wider taxation problem.
                  It's a shell game, you and I both know it. He gets a nice $7,000,000 yacht to use whenever he wants, and shelters it in his wife's corporation. John Forbes "Do You Know Who I Am" Kerry is less than a greatly respected man, even here.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  If the rich are able to avoid paying taxes so easily, why haven't we fixed the problem? Could it be because the wealthy have a commanding control of government? You tell me.
                  Many reasons. One is the wealthy control. Add to this the tax lawyers and accountants being powerful enough to keep a stupidly ridiculous tax code that even the IRS cannot keep straight and advise us - the taxpayer - correctly on. I love the fair tax or a flat tax for everyone.

                  Hell, I pay a large amount every year in taxes, yet because I make over a certain amount I cannot contribute to a Roth IRA, and because I do not own a house cannot claim interest on a mortgage, and because I do not have children I cannot claim any deductions.

                  Make the tax code easy to understand.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  He's a bastard for refusing to pay his workers an acceptable, living wage because his bottom line might be hurt a little bit. He's a bastard for skimming millions off the top that he didn't rightfully earn through his own hard work. He's not a bastard if he does the opposite.
                  He is a criminal for skimming off the top.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  You seem to be under the impression that every business owner creates a product or provides a service, and that is simply not true.
                  You seem to think that this is how I feel - yet you are wrong.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Most corporate leaders don't provide anything but tacit guidance to their department, and leave the real work to those beneath them.
                  True, they don't provide anything. But the guy that opened that store took on all the risk, and runs his store working insane hours daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly to keep it going.

                  But some schmuck who runs GM gets millions annually for running it into the ground, then the government comes along and bails him out.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  He would ask why the modern business class is so eager to leave this country high and dry at tax time through tax havens, placing this great country in graver fiscal risk.
                  Because they want to save money so that their stock owners can make more in dividends.

                  And I feel this country is in a grave financial risk by politicians spending more than they take in in taxes. They spend against future income. They spend leaving HUGE unfunded liabilities for future generations. They spend so that 40%+ of our annual budget is paid for in DEBT....and growing every year.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  You, on the other hand, are a cheap-labor conservative. You believe that corporations should run roughshod over the rights of man because "they earned it".
                  I believe labor should be paid what it is worth, and at a market wage. If some company is paying less, they do not last long or have insufferable turnover (i.e. Wal-Mart.) You seem to think that you know me - when you do not. Corporations that do run "rough shod" have not earned that right, and do not get my money if I can help it.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  They are no more long-term than my desire to eat is satisfied by a sandwich.
                  If you say so.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Anyone who gambles their retirement on the financial success of corporations they have no controlling stake in is a fool.
                  Or they are making an investment that, on average returns 7% or more so that they can afford to live when they retire. And investments in stocks should only be PART of any retirement plan.

                  Does this mean that you opt to not participate in your community's pension plan?

                  I choose to not contribute additional funds to my 401(k). My employer contributes, unmatched, money into a fund for me. I choose to save in other means because I do not trust man to make decisions beyond what is good for them in the short term.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  This isn't a 2-year hiccup, it's no correction. It's a financial disaster the likes of which hasn't been seen before.
                  The economy will rebound. It just does not happen as quickly as people want. The Great Depression was bound to be repeated.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  The Great Depression's causes weren't as great, nor as widely capable of destruction, as our own self-delusion titled "great recession".
                  Maybe, maybe not. But we are only 2.5 years into this. You must be clarevoyant.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  Ten years from now we'll be going back to the drawing board to establish another New Deal, and it'll all be the fault of those who believed that corporate greed was an essentially good thing.
                  Great, another New Deal that will cost us money, increase taxes more than they will already be to pay for all these other ridiculous programs, and consolidate power in the government. Just what I want.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  What offends my sensibilities as an American is that Verizon has more rights than I do. If Verizon steals my money, I can't sue unless I pay out the nose to fight them in court.
                  If you owe them money, by agreeing for their (or any other business's) services they have every right to your money that you owe them.

                  Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                  If I owe Verizon money, they'll haul me in front of a court commissioner and have my wages garnished.
                  If you owe them money, by agreeing for their (or any other business's) services they have every right to your money that you owe them.
                  "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

                  The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

                  "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

                  "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

                  www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by donethat View Post
                    abeth86,
                    Your whole post is one long excuse.
                    My mother's favorite phrases were "It's amazing what you can do with $50 worth of paint and a little elbow grease" and "Can't never did anything"
                    Neither will you when you blame lack of motivation and effort on someone else and sound like you're more than happy to sit on the government dole.
                    The people who grew up in the Great Depression and WW11, my parents and my wifes parents had it far tougher then you or my generation and they survived and prospered with gumption, hard work and "Elbow Grease"
                    It is an excuse. I started in 1996, making $7 an hour, busted my arse working one full-time and one part-time job (about 60 hours per week), went to EMT school. Finished EMT school, started working full-time as a police dispatcher and part-time as an EMT, going to school for 8 hours a week. Did this for 2 years. Worked 48 hours a week as a firefighter and went to school full-time, and worked part-time. Got 2 A.S. and a B.S. that way to allow me to go to PA school. Grew up bouncing in and out of poverty with DCFS funds.

                    I did it with hard work, bad sleep, and determination. Excuses are made by those that never had to bust their arse to get where they want to be, and are used by those that don't want to do it. No one showed me how to do it, I just did it. And so did a lot of people I went to school with, and a lot of people that I work with.
                    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

                    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

                    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

                    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

                    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                      No, it offers a load of debt (if you qualify) to go to school. That's if your grades in school were enough to get that far. This country offers very little to those without means.
                      Why does the country have to offer it?

                      Why does the government have the be big with all of its teets hanging out for people to suck off of?
                      "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

                      The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

                      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

                      "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

                      www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        It's not race baiting. I was responding to how scfire86 made a comment that the Republicans flip-flop on. I simply pointed out that (factually spealing) large numbers of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act. You call it race baiting. I call it an historical fact.
                        I already said it earlier, the south voted against Civil Rights. Both Democrat and Republican. It was the final chapter of the civil war, or so we can all hope. It wasn't a partisan issue. It was an old hatchet that needed to be buried.

                        You call it race baiting. Call it what you want to, but that was not my attempt. You obviously do not believe as you have this feeling that you know what I was thinking, despite me telling you that you are wrong.
                        I assumed, given your original tone, that you were another hyper-partisan hack. Reading your newest post leads me to believe otherwise, and I apologize.

                        That is fine. And I did read what you posted, you just feel that I did not. I disagree with some of the plans too. However when I see the huge amounts I pay into it, and see what little I will get out (which will likely be lower) and see better means of receiving money in my retirement, I have to ask why the government-run program cannot.

                        And the Democrats/liberals/AARP people think the entire thing should be shelved in conservative's eyes. Not true. But what better way to rile up the largest, most reliable voting block in our citizenry.
                        The easiest way to fix it is by funding it with things we don't need to be spending money on. The DoD's budget comes to mind. Are we really safer by spending $1.2 trillion on national defense, when every other country in the world handles their defense with a fraction of that? Cancel a couple of the DoD's hairbrained projects and you can fund SSI, Medicare, and bring education standards up to par across the board. The money is there, we're just throwing it away on a crumbling empire.

                        Opportunities exist. But large segments of the population opt to not take them.....hence we have multiple generational lines that suck off the tit of government programs. My family is rife with folks who sit outside Section 8 housing, smoke/sell dope, and do NOTHING to further themselves. I also see it every day at work.
                        It's not large segments, it's small segments. They do exist, those that want their free lunch without washing the dishes. I'll never deny that. What I will deny is that the best solution to the problem is eliminating welfare all together. A lot of people genuinely need welfare to keep going. The big question today is does unemployment need to come under the axe, to which I vehemently say no.

                        But that's for another argument.

                        What evidence? Please support your statement.
                        Poor kids given scholarships find themselves in decent schools and turn out well. For example.

                        This from the chart found below. Also not that those in lower 50% of all wage earners have been paying less and less every year, while EVERY category in the top 50% of wage earners has been paying MORE every year. Yet we are CONSTANTLY being told by liberals/progressives/Democrats that we do not pay enough.
                        The reason those in the lower 50% are paying less, is because their wages aren't changing or are falling. The reason those in the upper 50% (or upper 5%, especially) are paying more is that their income has exploded 400% in a decade. Even with lower taxes, the sheer volume of money they have dictates higher overall tax figures. They should still be paying more, especially given that they are most culpable for the most recent disaster - and yet their incomes are still ballooning, while everyone else watches their income collapse or disappear all together.

                        To a point this is true. However, the tax system is less than equitable for those (such as myself) who came from poverty, busting their @$$ along the way, to ensure that they succeed in life.
                        You aren't lacking in success because of your tax bracket. You're successful despite it, as you seem to attest to. What you pay in taxes in no way harms you. I read a study somewhere, can't remember off the top of my head, but happiness ends at $250,000 a year. Your income covers all of your needs, basic and luxury, at $150,000. I won't shed a tear over a millionaire losing a hundred grand more taxes in a year, and if I were a millionaire I wouldn't be shedding a tear, either. I'd have so much money it wouldn't make a difference.

                        Perhaps we should review that Congress controls the tax law. So, considering that the Democrats (mind you I am not a Republican) are actually responsible for "futzing" the tax codes?
                        It was Reagan who wanted massive tax cuts, and Reagan who got them. It was Reagan's push for deregulation. Congress may control tax law, but popular will tends to push even an opposition Congress to do the President's bidding.

                        Many reasons. One is the wealthy control. Add to this the tax lawyers and accountants being powerful enough to keep a stupidly ridiculous tax code that even the IRS cannot keep straight and advise us - the taxpayer - correctly on. I love the fair tax or a flat tax for everyone.

                        Hell, I pay a large amount every year in taxes, yet because I make over a certain amount I cannot contribute to a Roth IRA, and because I do not own a house cannot claim interest on a mortgage, and because I do not have children I cannot claim any deductions.
                        A fair tax involves graduated tax brackets, which we have already. A flat tax penalizes the lower classes and benefits the upper classes. Like I said before, someone making $30,000 a year feels 30% more than someone making $1.5 million. Sure, the tax code could use simplification, but simplify it too far and you open loopholes. Closing the loopholes should be the goal, and ensuring the rich and corporations pay their taxes instead of hiding income offshore is something we can all get behind. Yes?

                        He is a criminal for skimming off the top.
                        There's a big difference between a small business owner and a mega business CEO. The small business is a one store deal with maybe a few little satellite stores. The owner has a vested interest in the company because he *did* build it, he put his own money and blood and sweat and tears in to it, and if it goes under - so does he. He's not making millions anyways, he's probably living comfortably in the high middle class. A mega business CEO is a tradeable commodity. He wasn't around when the business was born, was voted in by shareholders based on his experience in raising the bottom line for investors at other companies, and has a vested interest in squishing wages. He also happens to be paid hundreds of millions for doing, essentially, nothing. His work didn't earn the corporation money, the employees being paid nothing did. He's skimming the top.

                        In the GOP's world, he's a hero of the American dream. In the real world, he's a parasite with a golden parachute. His millions were saved through layoffs, outsourcing, and keeping wages static. The same millions he saved are the ones he gets paid. Sure, he *should* be a criminal, but this is the corporate class we're talking about here. They have their own set of laws, and most recently their corporations are actually persons!

                        True, they don't provide anything. But the guy that opened that store took on all the risk, and runs his store working insane hours daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly to keep it going.

                        But some schmuck who runs GM gets millions annually for running it into the ground, then the government comes along and bails him out.
                        In a perfect world, GM would've been left to fail while the mom and pop down the street would pick up the business. Unfortunately the auto industry employs far too many Americans in decent paying jobs, and it was in our collective interest to bail out a fundamentally flawed corporation. The problem is that we don't learn. The government bought a controlling stake in the company, and instead of altering the practices that lead to its failure they essentially subsidized and rewarded failure. It's a joke.

                        Regardless, the CEO of Megacorp X did not slave for anything. He likely had no attachment to the company before being hired, and the severance packages they receive ensure they don't need any attachment after they leave.

                        Because they want to save money so that their stock owners can make more in dividends.
                        Bingo. It's only legal because we haven't legislatively closed the legal loophole which allows it. A corporation certainly has financial obligations to its stockholders, but it has a moral obligation to those who work for it - and the country it resides in. Somewhere along the way we all lost sight of that.

                        And I feel this country is in a grave financial risk by politicians spending more than they take in in taxes. They spend against future income. They spend leaving HUGE unfunded liabilities for future generations. They spend so that 40%+ of our annual budget is paid for in DEBT....and growing every year.
                        We only started spending on debt again at the beginning of the Bush presidency. We had pulled ourselves out of one financial hole quite well, and immediately jumped in to another one. It's easy to print money like it's candy and blame the other side for fiscal irresponsibility, especially when the money you're printing is buying votes with things like Medicare D and the war on terror.

                        Does this mean that you opt to not participate in your community's pension plan?

                        I choose to not contribute additional funds to my 401(k). My employer contributes, unmatched, money into a fund for me. I choose to save in other means because I do not trust man to make decisions beyond what is good for them in the short term.
                        Same deal as you. My salary is essentially twice what I'm paid. Half of it goes in to a state-run pension plan that gets invested in "safe stocks". I don't contribute a dime out of pocket.

                        Great, another New Deal that will cost us money, increase taxes more than they will already be to pay for all these other ridiculous programs, and consolidate power in the government. Just what I want.
                        It will cost us money, it will increase taxes, and it will grow the power of government. As stated before, we can all blame the concept that corporate greed is essentially good, and the political dogma of free market capitalism above all else. Money has no feelings, no sense of morality, and worships no God. Letting such a thing decide what is best results in exactly the problems we have today.

                        If you owe them money, by agreeing for their (or any other business's) services they have every right to your money that you owe them.
                        The point of the story was that Verizon can garnish your wages, but if Verizon goes broke then your money is gone. You can't sue the CEO for your money back.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                          The easiest way to fix it is by funding it with things we don't need to be spending money on. The DoD's budget comes to mind. Are we really safer by spending $1.2 trillion on national defense, when every other country in the world handles their defense with a fraction of that? Cancel a couple of the DoD's hairbrained projects and you can fund SSI, Medicare, and bring education standards up to par across the board. The money is there, we're just throwing it away on a crumbling empire.
                          Right. Lets take away from one of the things the Federal Goverment is actually supposed to provide and create more social programs. Sounds like members of the EU. Not saying DoD's procurement and oversight couldn't be better but it's also been the biggest financial target around since the 80's. The reality is that our Navy and Air Force is woefully underfunded.. even the land forces, if not for the two wars, would be approaching pre-WWII numbers.

                          I know that's not the topic of this thread, but anyway..
                          So you call this your free country
                          Tell me why it costs so much to live
                          -3dd

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                            The point of the story was that Verizon can garnish your wages, but if Verizon goes broke then your money is gone. You can't sue the CEO for your money back.
                            The point is, you received a service from Verizon, then didn't pay the bill. Don't like it, don't do business with them. Don't blame them from trying to collect the money you owed.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Are you kidding me? We dump over a trillion dollars in to the DoD, they are most certainly *not* underfunded. We spend more per soldier than any other industrialized nation on the earth, and for what? Shinier guns than the next guy? We spend billions of dollars on incredibly unreliable ideas like star wars, invade other countries in wars of choice without any responsible method of paying for it, and yet we can't figure out how to fund social security??

                              We shouldn't be exporting our military across the globe when we can't afford it. End of story. The idea that if we cut a few hundred billion out of their budget we'll end up at pre-WW2 levels is the most blind statement made in this thread. The defense budget wasn't anywhere near as large as it is today in the 60's and 70's, when we were actually defending against a real threat, and that's even accounting for inflation. We put more money in to it because it gets votes, being tough on communists/terrorists/dictators/whatever. We have to cut funding for education and public works projects because we have to invade another country first?

                              Get real.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by mcwops View Post
                                The point is, you received a service from Verizon, then didn't pay the bill. Don't like it, don't do business with them. Don't blame them from trying to collect the money you owed.
                                Eh, I was using the corporate name as an example. I don't owe them money and I wasn't personally sued. Regardless, I'm getting at the expansion of corporate rights at the expense of yours. Perhaps a poor metaphor, let me change it up a bit.

                                BP is fresh in everyone's mind. If I personally skimped on safety, blowing up an oil rig and killing people in the process, and dumped a few million gallons of oil in to the Gulf, then sullied everyone's property, and then promised payment but didn't make those payments (while lying and saying that I had), I'd be arrested. I'd be tried for criminally negligent homicide. Then I'd be sued the snot out of. I'd be left destitute for the rest of my life, not to mention in prison. BP, on the other hand, gets away with it because they have corporate rights and can only be dealt with in civil courts.

                                Make more sense? I do what they did, I suffer the swift hand of justice. They do what they did, and only have to worry about a soured public image and how big their golden parachutes will be.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X