What made you mad today?

[Spookymufu]

you can word it anyway you like, but the fact remains he wants to take money from high earners...yes earners not lazy SOBs and give it to lazy SOBs. If you earn the money you should keep the money not have to hand it over to people that dont work. I dont care if someone makes millions of dollars a year, I have no right to that money, it's not mine, I didnt earn it. If I want more money then I need to work harder to earn it plain and simple. The higher wage earners that Obama wants to take money from already pay more in taxes then you or I ever will.
And as far as roads and schools and all that, state and local taxes that you, me, and everyone else pays partially goes to that fund and portions the billions of dollars in stimulus money the Dems voted on also was supposed to go to those things, but who knows if it really did because NO ONE read the the package.

[adrian]

War... Famine... Death... Grass hoppers.....

now one just don't quite belong now does it?

[Spookymufu]

yeah....back on topic I guess......what was the topic anyway?

[MacPhantom]

you can word it anyway you like, but the fact remains he wants to take money from high earners...yes earners not lazy SOBs and give it to lazy SOBs.

It's not a matter of wording; it's a fairly straightforward presentation of numbers demonstrating that the proposals are not, in fact, socialism. And you can't tell me that Wall Street traders work harder than your local teachers or firefighters or policemen (or garbagemen, for that matter).

If you earn the money you should keep the money not have to hand it over to people that dont work. I dont care if someone makes millions of dollars a year, I have no right to that money, it's not mine, I didnt earn it. If I want more money then I need to work harder to earn it plain and simple.

Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. People who are born into wealth have limitless options and open doors in front of them. People born into poverty have to struggle for everything they ever get. Some are lucky enough to have intelligence or talents which allow them to achieve far beyond where they began, but some aren't. It isn't about taking money away from people and giving it to others. The essential theory behind a progressive tax structure is that those with the most wealth benefit the most from the social structure and physical infrastructure of our country, and should therefore pay the most for its use. Their higher earning, deserved or not, is still far higher even if they pay a higher percentage. An extra percent of their income paid in will not effect their lifestyle at all, where as an extra percentage paid in by a lower income worker can have a drastic impact. I think I illustrated that point quite clearly in my numerical presentation.

The higher wage earners that Obama wants to take money from already pay more in taxes then you or I ever will.

As they should. Because they will use the services provided by those revenues more than we will. Money means freedom of movement. The rich travel more than the poor; shouldn't they contribute more to the roads and the airports? The rich have more property to protect; shouldn't they contribute more for the police and the army that protect them and their stuff?

And as far as roads and schools and all that, state and local taxes that you, me, and everyone else pays partially goes to that fund

Exactly, but they are supplemented by Federal Dollars which also come from all of us. The principles of progressive taxation I'm talking about ought to exist on both a state and federal level.

and portions the billions of dollars in stimulus money the Dems voted on also was supposed to go to those things, but who knows if it really did because NO ONE read the the package.

That is simply untrue. Many of the people who voted for it read it, and anyone who wants to read it can find it online. And furthermore, in my town, I just read in the local paper that two ramps connecting our major highway to another major road will be rebuilt in the next six months with stimulus money, a project that would not have happened otherwise (and in a location where a huge number of fatal accidents occur because the existing traffic pattern is so bad). And I live in the most conservative county of the most conservative district in an otherwise liberal state. That money isn't going to win the Democrats a congressional seat. It's going to help the people in this town, pure and simple.

Hey Spooky, if we keep up this discussion, we are bound to make SOMEONE mad (you can make the liberals mad, and I'll make the conservatives mad)....And then, we'll still be on topic!!

[adrian]

and all this because of Obama lol i'll just blame him for it all.. its easy and immature buy hey.. i've got to put a name and face to evil some how lol and his name is just so much fun to say when i'm mad lol blame Obama

i'm no where nearl as educated in politics as you guys are (though i like reading about it)

[Spookymufu]

you have perfectly made my point, the dems dont want people to have to work hard to get where they want to be, they want to hand it to them. No I dont think poor people should be handed money, I think if they want a better life then they should get educated and make it happen. This is the USA, any one can make something of them selves if they apply them selves, thats how this country became what it was, if your born into money great, thats awesome, if your are and so inclined to help others then donate time, money, services whatever, but no one should be forced to give money to poor people.....sorry but I just dont believe in social programs designed to hand out money or services to people that arent willing to bust their a$$ to make it better for them selves. If people want to donate to charity then fine, if they dont want to they shouldnt have to. I have no problem with the class system, you want to be in a better class, work hard and get there, if you cant do that then stay in the ghetto.

[adrian]

a man (i can't remember who) once said that "the fall of a country will come once efforts (money) becomes divided" its true.. one will will work hard to have more taken to give to one who works less.. there fore driving in the thought "i shouldn't work so hard if i don't have to"

today there are more and more people on well fare than there EVER has been and the numbers aren't only growing.. they're exploding!! its out of hand now

[MacPhantom]

you have perfectly made my point, the dems dont want people to have to work hard to get where they want to be, they want to hand it to them.

I challenge you to cut and paste my words where I argue that people who don't work hard should have money handed to them.

I'm not arguing for handing money to people who don't work. I'm arguing that people who work hard and earn less money should have to pay less, because taking more of their money creates a substantial hardship in their lives.

No I dont think poor people should be handed money,

Congratulations, you've built a great strawman! You can use him as a Halloween decoration!

The fallacy of the strawman is when you create a point of view different from the argument I've presented, and then argue against that, because you can not refute my actual argument. I'm not saying poor people should be handed money. You'll have an easy time arguing against it; it's an indefensible position to take. That's why I didn't take it.

I think if they want a better life then they should get educated and make it happen.

Wow! What an excellent idea! I agree with you completely! Just one thing though... Doesn't higher education cost money? How exactly does a poor person get an education, which costs money, so they can earn more money, if they don't have money to begin with??

The answer to THAT question is my actual argument.

This is the USA, any one can make something of them selves if they apply them selves, thats how this country became what it was,

Indeed... That is how President Barack Obama became president. Are you familiar at all with his biography?

if your born into money great, thats awesome, if your are and so inclined to help others then donate time, money, services whatever, but no one should be forced to give money to poor people

It sounds cold, but let's just forget about poor people for a minute. You seem to be arguing that nobody should pay any taxes at all, because the money might not benefit only you; it might somehow benefit someone else. I don't want to misstate your argument. Is that what you are arguing? That nobody should have to pay taxes? Cause I'm arguing about WHO should have to pay HOW MUCH; whether or not anybody should pay anything isn't a liberal vs. conservative argument.... It's a government vs. anarchist argument...

.....sorry but I just dont believe in social programs designed to hand out money or services to people that arent willing to bust their a$$ to make it better for them selves.

No apology necessary. I don't believe in it either. That's why I'm not arguing for it. Still can't figure out why you're arguing against it when no one is arguing for it.

If people want to donate to charity then fine, if they dont want to they shouldnt have to. I have no problem with the class system, you want to be in a better class, work hard and get there, if you cant do that then stay in the ghetto.

Again, I'm not talking about people in the ghetto. I don't think many people with $50,000 incomes live in the ghetto. I'm talking about a fair system to determine WHO pays HOW MUCH.

And Adrian:

a man (i can't remember who) once said that "the fall of a country will come once efforts (money) becomes divided" its true.. one will will work hard to have more taken to give to one who works less.. there fore driving in the thought "i shouldn't work so hard if i don't have to"

If you'll observe the numbers I presented a few posts back, even under the most liberal tax structure being proposed by Democrats, a guy earning $1,000,000 still takes home almost thirteen times as much as a guy earning $50,000. Let me say that again. THIRTEEN TIMES as much money. Are you telling me that is a disincentive to work hard??

today there are more and more people on well fare than there EVER has been and the numbers aren't only growing.. they're exploding!! its out of hand now

I'd love to see some facts or figures, a study or some research to back that up, Adrian, because I think that it is quite frankly flat out false. I'd grant you that, due to the economic crisis (mostly caused by people earning well over $1,000,000 per year) and the resulting job losses, many people are on unemployment. But unemployment is a temporary program designed to keep people from falling off a cliff when unexpected crisis comes, not a long term subsidization as "welfare" suggests. Unemployment is one of those kooky liberal ideas designed for hardworking people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own, to help tide them over as they seek new employment, so they don't have to turn to crime to feed their families.

[adrian]

it doesn't take numbers (which could be researched and put "incorrectly as it always will be" onto paper) to stroll through your local well fare homes and see JUST WHO IT IS thats getting "THEIR" share... its been in music for the past 20 years, its been in tv, and its been in our crime rate.. well fare is poorly managed and always will be.. any time some one else's money is taken unwillingly and given to people who will willingly take it.. it will always be poorly managed because the only winner in that entire equation is (you guessed it) the one who recieves.. now we can sit here all day and throw out numbers, dates, names, on and on and on and keep saying "this isn't true" but the sad fact is... is YES.. 100% of the homes broken into in just Forrest Park (my neighborhood and as an example) were by people from the projects.. in matter of fact.. look up crime rates in the cities/towns your in... look where the crime rate is highest... rates increase the closer you get to government funded homes....

why? time is easier there... these are people who are paid (by us) once a month to buy everything we have to buy plus more because they can. it doesn't take numbers, because NO ONE WILL EVER HAVE AN ACCURATE NUMBER, just common sense. take a walk through your local projects and ghettos.. you'll see the tax dollars they're smoking and driving... the kids they're having... the clothes they're wearing..

i can't give you numbers but i can say that in the past 2 years our project homes have been multiplied by 4!!!! wanna know how i know? i helped build them.. now they look the same.. run down and littered by crime.. in fact, Valley Alabama just burried a man who was shot and mugged last weekd at the local grocerie near these projects...
our tax dollars paid for that gun and bullet

[adrian]

and no... not for a man who makes $1,000,000... but i only bring in 25,000 before taxes... and the one's on well fare live without half the stress of bills that i do... plus they're driving better cars and can buy more groceries...

i'm not worried about the one who makes $1,000,000... i'm worried about ME... and so is the next guy who is worried about HIM... these are the one's who make up America... not the ones who make 1,000,000. yea... MY money is divided and I notice it.. its common sense that the guy making 1,000,000 isn't going to frett as much.. heck i wouldn't either

[adrian]

hahahaha man did we get off subject.. well i guess well fare makes me mad lol

[Spookymufu]

I'll adrees a few of your comments,

ever heard of the united negro college fund, thats just one option people who dont have money can take advantage of to get an education and it doesnt take from rich peter to support poor paul. There is also scholarships kids can win if they apply them selves and many other ways.

Obama got to be elected president not because he made something of himself, thats how he got to congress, he got to be president because;

1. he promised to take money from the rich and give to the not so rich, so he pretty much bought votes.

2. his election was a knee-jerk reaction to the anti Bush feeling at the end of his term thanks in no small part to the liberal press giving Bush a raw deal

3. he promised to pull out troops from Iraq and that made the far left nuts happy

4. Acorn

5. the liberal press made a sweet heart out of him and vilified McCain and beat Palin to a pulp

6. because he wasnt a white Republican

as far as taxes, I think a flat tax would be a more fair way to go, yes it would mean the rich get richer but again, anyone can make something more of them selves if they are willing to sacrafice and work hard. Give people something to shoot for if they are so inclined.

[Pumpkin_Man]

Okay, I am not too happy about taxes either, but the problem I have is that I'm paying huge property taxes for the local school system. I think a user tax should be charged on those who can afford it. But I do think Education is necessary. I just think that those who can afford to pay a user tax on the public schools should do so.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Mike

[adrian]

well here are my last thoughts... my view on big government being for the people is like an athiest to God... i'll believe it when i see it

[MacPhantom]

it doesn't take numbers (which could be researched and put "incorrectly as it always will be" onto paper)

Know what I like about numbers? 1 + 1 is always 2, no matter what you feel in your gut, or who's bumper sticker you put on your car.

to stroll through your local well fare homes and see JUST WHO IT IS thats getting "THEIR" share... its been in music for the past 20 years, its been in tv, and its been in our crime rate.. well fare is poorly managed and always will be.. any time some one else's money is taken unwillingly and given to people who will willingly take it.. it will always be poorly managed because the only winner in that entire equation is (you guessed it) the one who recieves..

You seem to be venturing into "strawman" territory here, arguing about welfare when I'm talking about a progressive tax structure that predominantly effects middle income earners. I get the emotion involved in the idea that someone should take your hard earned money and give it to people that don't work, but that's flat out not the issue. The issue is that keeping roads and schools and firefighters and an army and a power grid up and running requires a government and costs money, and who ought to pay what percentage of that money. The amount of taxpayer money that goes to the sort of "welfare" you are railing against is a tiny fraction of the amount of money spent on just the military.

now we can sit here all day and throw out numbers, dates, names, on and on and on and keep saying "this isn't true" but the sad fact is... is YES.. 100% of the homes broken into in just Forrest Park (my neighborhood and as an example) were by people from the projects.. in matter of fact.. look up crime rates in the cities/towns your in... look where the crime rate is highest... rates increase the closer you get to government funded homes....

why? time is easier there... these are people who are paid (by us) once a month to buy everything we have to buy plus more because they can. it doesn't take numbers, because NO ONE WILL EVER HAVE AN ACCURATE NUMBER, just common sense. take a walk through your local projects and ghettos.. you'll see the tax dollars they're smoking and driving... the kids they're having... the clothes they're wearing..

The crime rate is highest where the poorest people live. Why? They have less to lose. Wouldn't this be an argument for combating poverty?

How does poverty propagate? Children who are born into poverty are more likely to be less well educated. Why? Because local schools are mostly funded by local tax revenues. Isn't this an argument for federal subsidies to underfunded schools?

i can't give you numbers but i can say that in the past 2 years our project homes have been multiplied by 4!!!!

"I can't give you numbers but here's a number!" I think what you mean is, you can't give me actual, verifiable numbers that might confirm your opinion, or refute it, but you CAN make up numbers that absolutely support your claims!!

wanna know how i know?

Only if it involves actual counting.....

i helped build them.. now they look the same.. run down and littered by crime.. in fact, Valley Alabama just burried a man who was shot and mugged last weekd at the local grocerie near these projects...
our tax dollars paid for that gun and bullet

Everything you're saying is an argument in favor of reducing poverty. Reducing poverty isn't about welfare, and to suggest that that is the only way the government spends tax dollars in attempting to reduce poverty (and, by proxy, crime), is a vast oversimplification at best, and a gross distortion at worst.

I like to debate in specifics because gut reactions, anecdotal evidence, and broad generalities are so rife with inaccuracies it is hard to know where to begin. I understand that there are strong emotions here, but emotions only serve to get people mad, and other than getting us BACK ON TOPIC!!, being mad doesn't serve any real useful purpose.

i'm not worried about the one who makes $1,000,000... i'm worried about ME... and so is the next guy who is worried about HIM... these are the one's who make up America... not the ones who make 1,000,000. yea... MY money is divided and I notice it.. its common sense that the guy making 1,000,000 isn't going to frett as much.. heck i wouldn't either

Adrian, this is EXACTLY what I'm arguing for. This is why I voted for Obama. Obama wants to cut taxes for people who earn $25,000 per year, and pay for the tax cut by putting the tax rate for the guy making $1,000,000 back to what it was in the 90's, when millionaires were doing just fine. And the justification is that you're gonna miss an extra $1,000 per year a heck of a lot more than that guy will miss an extra $10,000. It's just basic fairness.

And Pumpkinman, I can understand how you feel. If you haven't got kids in the public schools, you wonder why you should have to pay for them. But think of the chaos if everyone got to pick and choose exactly what our tax dollars went to. The reason we elect officials is to make those decisions, based on what the constituents want, based on facts and figures suggest. Education and poverty are inversely proportionate, just as poverty and crime are closely linked. There are some things I'd rather not have my taxes spent on, but on the whole I get a pretty good return on what I put in. I don't have any kids, and I get a nasty shock every year when I file local taxes, but the schools around here are among the best in the state, and the neighborhoods reflect that.

Spooky, I'll catch you on the next post.