RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 5:38:24 AM)

quote:

So here we are, on the brink of the logical 'next generation'. Entitlements are now expected. 'Success', 'wealth', 'accomplishment', and 'achievement' are now looked at as evil and in need of 'redistribution'. The generation raised where finishing last and striking out every time you came to bat during little league still 'earned' them a trophy now wants the same concept applied to their daily life. (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth


Man, am I sick of this smoke screen.  Were you up in arms when Regan reduced the capital gains tax and 'redistributed' the tax burden down onto the poor and middle class?
 
I cannot decide if wealthy people keep repeating this because they are truely upset or if this has become the left-handed way of bragging..."I'm so wealthy I'm supporting McCain'.
 
It seems like specious nonsense to me.
 
candystripper  [sm=pole.gif]



kittinSol -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 5:51:15 AM)

The mere idea of loosing undeserved privileges is a terrifying one to certain people, even if it's only routed in disinformation and GOP propaganda - this is why there is so much emotional upheaval and anger flying around. 



Mercnbeth -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 5:58:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

quote:

So here we are, on the brink of the logical 'next generation'. Entitlements are now expected. 'Success', 'wealth', 'accomplishment', and 'achievement' are now looked at as evil and in need of 'redistribution'. The generation raised where finishing last and striking out every time you came to bat during little league still 'earned' them a trophy now wants the same concept applied to their daily life. (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth


Man, am I sick of this smoke screen.  Were you up in arms when Regan reduced the capital gains tax and 'redistributed' the tax burden down onto the poor and middle class?
 
I cannot decide if wealthy people keep repeating this because they are truely upset or if this has become the left-handed way of bragging..."I'm so wealthy I'm supporting McCain'.
 
It seems like specious nonsense to me.
 
candystripper  [sm=pole.gif]
Reagan raised the tax burden on the middle class? Funny - I was one and paid less tax, less interest, got to keep more of what I earned, and had more disposable income than ever before or since. Were you working for one of the many failed government programs that deservedly got canceled?

Then again, I'm not voting for McCain, nor am I "wealthy". I only want to be able to spend what I've earned on my family as opposed to contributing more than 40% on people who believe they are entitled to government hand outs. On the other hand it appears that failures want to be rewarded by voting for Obama. When you promise to rob Peter to pay Paul as an election platform - you get a lot of Pauls to vote for you.

I'm happy you support a candidate who sees secret ballots as wrong, who believes that spending US taxpayer money at the UN, and wants to follow the practice of Bush in giving out another economic stimulus check. You have blind faith in a man who will put trillions of dollars more into additional social engineering programs and create additional government bureaucracy.

There is no Obama plan only Obama spending and taxing. The special interest groups have put a lot of money into the campaign and expect to be paid. There will be more unemployment, more failed businesses, and more failure in general. The spending is very specific the details vague and use only the 'best case'. There is no budget. Sure, it's my opinion, one that is confident enough not to impacted by accusations of racism, elitism, or simple name calling. Obama is style and rhetoric and nothing he proposes will have a positive impact on the country. It does have a lot of hands outs and people seeking them will support him. Pick any of the issues identified an show how it isn't so.

Me - I'm voting NO for both.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 6:03:28 AM)

And all of these arguements and all the BS that has gone on with taxes, is another good reason to remove the tax cut/hike smoke screen that politicians use to get votes. Move to a consumption tax and no more IRS as we know it, no more complicated tax laws that you need a CPA and a Tax Attorney to figure out, no more loop holes for those that can play that game, and everyone will be paying their share.

To be fair, the tax increase Obama proposes is about the same as it was in the 90's, prior to the Bush tax cuts. Wealthy people and small businesses still flourished then, and that tax increase will not cause them to suddenly go under. It will possibly slow the economy a very small amount, but compared to other factors it would be negligable.

I am not voting Obama because I do not believe in the same ideology that he seems to support, and I believe he will be just another business as usual politician.

Good post, though I feel it extreme but extremes of both sides seems to be the way of the US lately.



TreasureKY -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 6:09:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam

We're not giddy; mostly I think we are apprehensive about the real potential of a continuation of the current worldwide disastrous situation, so we are desperaly hoping for a change.  Trust me when I tell you that our position is driven entirely by reason, not emotions. 


I'm sorry, but I'd have to disagree about it not being emotional.  While certainly not all (and thank you for the links), the general behavior I've seen from Obama supporters strikes me as overly emotional.  It reminds me of the attention starved outsider who, upon being allowed to join into a conversation with a group of peers, gets so excited that he cannot control himself.  He gets loud and exuberant, laughing at everything, gleefully offering any contribution that might remotely endear him to the group.  From an observer's viewpoint, it really is sad.

But, you are right, though, it is desperation... and it's that desperation that worries me more than anything. 



candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 6:16:51 AM)

quote:

I'm happy you support a candidate who sees secret ballots as wrong, who believes that spending US taxpayer money at the UN, and wants to follow the practice of Bush in giving out another economic stimulus check. You have blind faith in a man who will put trillions of dollars more into additional social engineering programs and create additional government bureaucracy. (Exerpt.)

Mercnbeth


Hey, good morning Merc...you're certainly up early.  We do not always agree...perhaps we rarely agree...but I appreciate your intelligence and nuanced posts.  Having said that, it seems to me symptomatic of the general tone of the election threads on this site that you'd call my support of Obama 'blind faith'...implying I suppose that your support of McCain is the product of research and reasoning?  Because any reasonable person who researched the matter would agree with you?
 
If in fact you were a member of the middle class (and strangely it seems even Bill Gates wants to claim that he is....as if being wealthy were somehow shameful nowadays...bizarre) during the Regan era you may well have felt a lessening of your tax burden...but it remains a fact that Regan did reduce the capital gains tax rate and the number and rate of the tax brackets for ordinary income and in so doing, reduced the tax burden of the wealthy by increasing the  self-same burden on others....namely the poor and middle class.
 
You yourself cannot measure this burden shift.  To properly anaylze it, you need to examine the percent of all US government income from income tax on non-corporations which was paid in by the wealthy prior to and after these changes.  However, it is intuitively and unarguably clear that the vast majority of the income from capital gains tax was paid by wealthy non-corporations....middle class and poor people generally have no capital assets to accrue gains upon.  Ipso facto, if the government continued to derive the same or even more income from income taxes on non-corporations and wealthy people paid less, then middle class and poor people paid more.
 
Taking your position to its logical extension, you should not have to pay taxes of any sort.  However, since the inception of the country it has been the case that taxation was not an impermissible 'taking of private property' but rather the patriotic duty of every American.
 
candystripper  [sm=pole.gif]



Mercnbeth -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 6:32:35 AM)

quote:

implying I suppose that your support of McCain is the product of research and reasoning?  Because any reasonable person who researched the matter would agree with you?

I wish you had the ability to read - I'm not supporting or voting for McCain. I think it is the 100th time that I've said that there is only one candidate I support less, for a myriad of reasons, than Obama and that is McCain.

However, I do feel that any reasonable person who researched the matter would come to the same conclusion.
quote:

Regan did reduce the capital gains tax rate and the number and rate of the tax brackets for ordinary income and in so doing, reduced the tax burden of the wealthy by increasing the  self-same burden on others....namely the poor and middle class.

You want to stimulate growth and investment - the logical action is to eliminate the capital gains tax not increase it and require that any successful business be subject to punishing taxation for their income AND the increased value they've earned. Better to give it that money to bail out failed companies and individuals - right?

By the way - how can the tax burden be increased on a group of people not paying any? Cutting programs and making people be self sufficient isn't a 'tax' its called personal accountability. I know - it's not popular with Obama supporters, but it doesn't represent a tax increase.
quote:

Taking your position to its logical extension, you should not have to pay taxes of any sort. 
Convoluted logic, or perhaps even prejudicial, but not reasonable. Get rid of all the income tax and make everyone, including corporations, pay a consumption tax on all purchases. It is the only way to get corporations to pay a tax. For individuals it would end the loopholes, end the shelters, end the scams; then again, you'd end the tax lawyers, accountants, and the countless millions of useless bureaucrats - so I'd expect you'd be against that version of fair.



samboct -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 6:50:02 AM)

"But, you are right, though, it is desperation... and it's that desperation that worries me more than anything."

Umm- where have you been in the last several months?  Those of us who've been watching the turmoil in the stock markets, heard calls for a massive bailout of banks and insurers which had to pass RIGHT NOW, and hearing about widespread global repercussions do not exactly feel confident that this administration, which has done such a wonderful job of handling crises such as Katrina and 9/11 is well equipped to deal with a global economic meltdown.  Especially because way back in September 2008, this same administration was telling us that the economy was fundamentally sound.  Those of us who questioned the administrations take on things were shouted down at that time and before- but saying "I told you so." is little comfort to families losing their homes and those watching the massive destruction of their capital in the stock market.

To anyone who thinks that reducing taxes and government spending is the way out of a depression- you just flunked US history.  Herbert Hoover, the wonderful republican president of the time, kept calling for "tightening our belts, and this will pass."  Well, it doesn't work.  When the economy runs out of steam, the government has to prime it by setting up projects which put people to work.  FDR's response was to build infrastructure.  I think it worked pretty well.  My biggest grumble with Obama's plan to build power plants using renewable sources of energy is that it's too small- at a lousy $15B and 5,000 jobs, its not going to make much of a dent.  Add some zeroes and I'll be happier.

In terms of a deficit- yup, FDR didn't have to worry about that- the country was still on the gold standard.  Carter fell on his sword to deal with the deficit that Johnson and Nixon left him from the Viet Nam war- he allowed a healthy inflation which drove the retirees nuts.  But it enabled us to pay off the deficit with cheap dollars.....

(and thanks Mia- you're a good soul.)

Sam




candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 7:00:09 AM)

quote:

You want to stimulate growth and investment - the logical action is to eliminate the capital gains tax not increase it and require that any successful business be subject to punishing taxation for their income AND the increased value they've earned. Better to give it that money to bail out failed companies and individuals - right?

By the way - how can the tax burden be increased on a group of people not paying any? Cutting programs and making people be self sufficient isn't a 'tax' its called personal accountability. I know - it's not popular with Obama supporters, but it doesn't represent a tax increase.  (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth
 

Merc, dear, we need to define out terms.  With the current tax structure, assuming ordinary income of no special sort, a single individual without children will be taxed on every dollar over and above the personal exemption, more or less, and I consider some of these people poor.  Surely you've heard the term 'working poor' before?
 
Conversely, generally speaking, I consider people of sufficient means to accrue capital assets to be wealthy, since unless wealth is inherited or awarded, it must be earned, and most middle class and poor people are forced to consume all their income -- thus, cannot save enough to matter.
 
As for cutting government entitlement programs, I'm not necessarially disagreeing with you.  I favor doing away with price supports for big agriculture, for example.  I used to oppose the veterans' preference in hiring and still have mixed feelings about it, while I mourn the demise of the old G.I. Bill that allowed my family to move from the common laborer to the educated professional in one generation after arriving here in the U.S.
 
The point is, an 'entitlement program' is just that...no more or less...regardless of whether it benefits the wealthy or the poor or someone in the middle class.  Even programs such as the much-maligned welfare which obviously benefit the poor arguably also benefit the wealthy as they do not have to reside in a third world country.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by a 'consumption tax'....some people argue in favor of a national sales tax, others argue for a Value Added Tax such as Canada uses to replace the income tax.  Do I think a 'better' tax could be designed?  Certainly a simpler one could be....but is that the sole purpose of a tax?  Do you wish to stimulate the economy?  Prevent the concentration of great wealth?  Support marriage?  Encourage parents to pay child support?  Etc.  And those evil tax attorneys and the devious loopholes they design?  Who do you imagine their clients to be?  The poor?  The middle class?  No...it is the wealthy that hire them and lobby Congress and contribute to campaigns, etc., all in an effort to devise ways to avert their tax burden.
 
Finally, I cannot imagine why you believe or inferred that I support the recent bailout....I have mixed feelings on the matter as I have no real grasp of the macro-economics involved.  It frightens me terribly that the World Bank had to take action because the Federal Reserve was simply not powerful enough to effectuate the rescue....if in fact we needed rescuing, or were rescued.  However, I see the bailout as a massive windfall for many evil doers and am not at all happy that there is no concurrent rush to prosecute.
 
Your turn.
 
*Wink*
 
candystripper  [sm=pole.gif]



Termyn8or -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 7:38:06 AM)

Merc, I meant no insult with the smoke joke. I just thought your analogy (way back in the beginning) was quite unusual. In fact I have to admit to being a Trekkie as well. Might have to start a thread on that.

I think a distinction must be made between different entitlements. People have lost retirement benefits that they worked for. That is not a handout.

For most people, all their lives 15.2% of everything they earned was remitted to social security. That is also not a handout.

As far as redistribution of wealth, that has already happened. The thing is it was redistributed from the commoners to the jet set. Maybe it's time for a re-redistribution.

T



Mercnbeth -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 7:38:32 AM)

quote:

Conversely, generally speaking, I consider people of sufficient means to accrue capital assets to be wealthy, since unless wealth is inherited or awarded, it must be earned, and most middle class and poor people are forced to consume all their income -- thus, cannot save enough to matter.
Forced? There is a gun to their heads to consume? Maybe you support additional limits on advertising for things so they won't be so tempted? Their decisions determine their ability to save or not. People are too gullible and affected and are forced to make decisions to purchase cell phones, the internet, laptop computers, cable TV or houses and cars they can't afford. These are NOT necessities. They also aren't entitlements.
quote:

you wish to stimulate the economy?  Prevent the concentration of great wealth?  Support marriage?  Encourage parents to pay child support?  Etc.  And those evil tax attorneys and the devious loopholes they design?  Who do you imagine their clients to be?  The poor?  The middle class?  No...it is the wealthy that hire them and lobby Congress and contribute to campaigns, etc., all in an effort to devise ways to avert their tax burden.

What the hell is your point?

Yes I want to simulate the economy and see the ability of anyone, rich, poor, or middle; to keep more of what they earn as a good thing. What is your threshold of "great wealth" and why should yours, or Obama's definition determine of policy?

I think "great wealth" is living in a place you can afford, health, and being appropriate warm or cool depending on the season. However, I don't think anyone is, or should be entitled to anything more than the ability to accomplish that goal.

To be crystal clear - lawyers are leaches. They produce conflict not resolve it. Unless you are some new form of lawyer, there is no law enforcement coming from a lawyer; only aversion of enforcement or prosecution - depending on who is paying them. Unfortunately the legal industry has infected our government and now has a mission statement of creating the very loopholes that foolish folk seek to avoid the regulations they put in place.

Granted, I'm one of those foolish folks who hires a lawyer too smart to have to work for, or be elected to, government office. He will insure I pay a little tax as possible and take every one of those loopholes his fellow leaches holding elected office implement. I can only do so - because lawyers have provided the means.

It is self defeating to want to change that system and support a consumption tax. A tax on each and every purchase made by any entity; corporate or person. However, I'd so so in a heart beat if it would eliminate the disparity that proportionally, I pay LESS tax than a person making $25k.  How is it, Well even though I pay my lawyer produced minimum, deducting and including every legal means to do so, when I spend I only pay local sales tax and often get to deduct that too. Paying, as you do where I live, 8.25% of my disposable income when I buy something, or paying the tax on gas, real estate, motor vehicle fees, is a much bigger proportional part of a $25k salary than it is mine. I appreciate you wanting to keep it that way and keep my tax attorney on my payroll.

Maybe its an ego thing.

Everyone making more than you - isn't wealthy. Envy of success and seeking to bring it down doesn't make you any richer. Letting the government determine how much is 'wealthy' and how much income is 'too much'; limits you much more than it does to anyone who has managed to put enough money on the side to just not play the game that Obama intents to play.

Instead of wanting and expecting the government to provide everything perhaps people should try something different - working for it. What exactly currently stands in your way from doing so? Given the intended policies of Obama there will be a plethora of more hurdles in the way should he prevail next week.



candystripper -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 8:32:50 AM)

quote:

Forced? There is a gun to their heads to consume? Maybe you support additional limits on advertising for things so they won't be so tempted? Their decisions determine their ability to save or not. (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth


Well, I won't attack this as silly. Though I think it is...how on earth do you expect a single mom making $10 an hour with two kids in day care to save?  But nonetheless, let's assume she can.
 
If she works 40 hours a week she'll make $400.  Forget about payroll taxes for the moment just to keep it simple.  Let's say she can save three months' salary a year.  That's $1200.  She'll owe what?  28% of $120? Assuming she can achieve a stunning 10% rate of return on investment?  How on earth does she become a major player in the US government's income stream from capital gains tax, compared to a wealthy family with, say $12,000 in capital gains every year?  Or $120,000?

quote:

What is your threshold of "great wealth" and why should yours, or Obama's definition determine of policy? (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth


Well, I am pretty comfy with Obama's definition of wealth....an individual income over $250,000.  But I agree, you could put the black line anywhere...it is necessarially arbitrary.  However, the guy who makes $250,001 isn't going to be adversely affected...it's the guy making $750,000 or $250 million who will be.  That's because so much more of the $750,000 guy's income will be taxed at a higher rate.  This country has had a progressive income tax for as long as it has had an income tax at all.  Obama hasn't proposed anything radical here, Merc.

quote:

To be crystal clear - lawyers are leaches. They produce conflict not resolve it. Unless you are some new form of lawyer, there is no law enforcement coming from a lawyer; only aversion of enforcement or prosecution - depending on who is paying them. Unfortunately the legal industry has infected our government and now has a mission statement of creating the very loopholes that foolish folk seek to avoid the regulations they put in place.

Mercnbeth


Well, so as to not hijack the thread, I'll ignore your lawyer-bashing for the moment.  No, the average government employee is not a lawyer, and no, the average human being over 21 is not a lawyer.  We're plentiful but we have not yet taken over the planet, lol. 
 
As you admit, lawyers are not guided missiles.  We do not write legislation, bring suits, etc. unless someone is PAYING us for our trouble....and we SERVE that client's interests....so to blame the tax bar for tax loopholes is just silly.  Without the wealthy, there would not BE a tax bar.
 
quote:

Everyone making more than you - isn't wealthy. Envy of success and seeking to bring it down doesn't make you any richer. Letting the government determine how much is 'wealthy' and how much income is 'too much'; limits you much more than it does to anyone who has managed to put enough money on the side to just not play the game that Obama intents to play.  (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth
 

Good Lord Merc...what are youi smoking?  Obama has not proposed that the government would tax all income above $250,000 at the rate of 100%....historically we have had marginal rates as high as 92% but that's been awhile, and the WEALTHY on whom they were imposed found it fairly easy to avoid them. No one...certainly not Obama...is saying some income is 'too much'. There is no gang of theives on its way to your house to confiscate all your luxury items.

quote:

Instead of wanting and expecting the government to provide everything perhaps people should try something different - working for it. What exactly currently stands in your way from doing so?  (Excerpt.)

Mercnbeth
 

Merc, this is beneath you.  We do not know one another personally and I doubt you have any access to information on my personal finances apart friom what I myself have written here...just as I do as to yours.  As it happens, I've been poor, middle class, upper middle class, etc.  However, I don't base my position on tax policy based on what will benefit me personally.
 
I'm sure your tax lawyer will devise ingenious ways for you to avoid the full brunt of any tax increase Obama manages to pass which affects any portion of your income, Merc.  Believe, pigs are not about to fly.
 
candystripper  [sm=pole.gif]



FullfigRIMaam -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 8:39:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I'm sorry, but I'd have to disagree about it not being emotional.  While certainly not all (and thank you for the links), the general behavior I've seen from Obama supporters strikes me as overly emotional.   From an observer's viewpoint, it really is sad.

But, you are right, though, it is desperation... and it's that desperation that worries me more than anything. 
I won't argue about whether our discussions here get emotional, as discussions do tend to get that way on both sides of the argument. 
I don't tend to see anything wrong with emotions, especially when backed up by factual and relevant information.   I and most of the posters here who support the democrat, do so based on our understanding that this country is in a desperate situation economically and politically, and so we seek to remedy that situation by supporting the person we feel is the best (academically and phillosophically) equipped candidate.  
quote:

John McCain's educational background:

McCain struggled in naval academy, finishing 894th out of 899 students,
and was rejected by the U.S. National War College until his family intervened
with the Secretary of the Navy. In active service, McCain was, by his
lengthy acknowledgement in a commencement address last year, a
"discipline problem" of violent disposition and frequent insubordination
who came late to the task of proving himself.
Barack Obama's educational background:
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his first
year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a
writing competition. In his second year he was elected president of the law
review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and
supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.
Obama's election in
February 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was
widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.
He graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 and
returned to Chicago where he had worked as a summer associate at the
law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.]

Undergraduate
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA
Undergraduate, 1981-1983

Columbia University
B.A. Political Science with specialization in international relations
Thesis topic: Soviet nuclear disarmament

Graduate
Harvard Law School
J.D. magna cum laude 1988-1991

President, Harvard Law Review
1993-2004 Visiting Law and Government Fellow, then Senior Lecturer,
in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Taught
courses on the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional
law
Perhaps you are more intellectual in your approach to the subject, and for that reason, I hope you will use the available information to decide for yourself. 
I think it more sad that given the current state we find ourselves in, that this is a close ellection at all.   I find it astonishing based on all available information, the qualifications of both candidates, the current mess we find ourselves at home and internationally, that the man who expresses a fantastic understanding of the issues (national and international) is running only slightly ahead of the incumbent party in power.   M



slvemike4u -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 8:42:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam

We're not giddy; mostly I think we are apprehensive about the real potential of a continuation of the current worldwide disastrous situation, so we are desperaly hoping for a change.  Trust me when I tell you that our position is driven entirely by reason, not emotions. 


I'm sorry, but I'd have to disagree about it not being emotional.  While certainly not all (and thank you for the links), the general behavior I've seen from Obama supporters strikes me as overly emotional.  It reminds me of the attention starved outsider who, upon being allowed to join into a conversation with a group of peers, gets so excited that he cannot control himself.  He gets loud and exuberant, laughing at everything, gleefully offering any contribution that might remotely endear him to the group.  From an observer's viewpoint, it really is sad.

But, you are right, though, it is desperation... and it's that desperation that worries me more than anything. 

Funny thing is Treasure I find I agree with most of your opinions here.There are many who have felt they were invisible and ignored by the Bush/Rove White House...and yes they do seem to be giddy and excited at the thought of having a President who addresses their concerns.Imagine that!!!!



FullfigRIMaam -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 9:14:43 AM)

quote:

The goal is homogenizing the citizens, and people are loving it! It happens as a result of my generation being the first whose parents didn't want their children to experience the 'pain' they encountered and the sacrifices they made during the 'Depression' or a 'World War'. Raised thus, my generation took the concept further. We felt protection and insulation from the realities of life was such as good idea that skinned knees and torn shirts were life altering and traumatic events and banned 'tag' and other 'rough games' from the school playgrounds.
And Merc, where do you get this stuff?   Do you really think the goal is to make everyone the same?   As human beings I think it important we are all equal, but there is no vast conspiracy to make everyone catch up with you and your personal wealth level.   
Is rolling back taxes to to the Clinton years so that we don't become the commonwealth of china really that detrimental to your psyche?   Or would it really be better if we gave up all of the privilleges we currently have to live in a dignified manner as a country so that folks who are wealthy can hold on to a little more money?   M



Mercnbeth -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 9:25:42 AM)

quote:

Well, I am pretty comfy with Obama's definition of wealth....an individual income over $250,000. 

And why wouldn't you be - your definition of 'fair' is when someone who has more gives it in taxes to people like you. However, if only 5% of the people will be effected but only 1.5% of people report $250k on their taxes how do you believe Obama? Which one of those numbers do you think will change - more than likely that $250k will shrink considerably just to pay for his proposed 'bail out' failures programs.

quote:

As you admit, lawyers are not guided missiles.  We do not write legislation, bring suits, etc. unless someone is PAYING us for our trouble....and we SERVE that client's interests....
What I admitted to is that lawyers don't contribute anything but conflict and self perpetuating litigation. However I do agree with you that they don't have any moral compass and only serve their payment source.
quote:

what are youi smoking? 
Smoking again! Has any supporter of Obama read any of his books or writings? It would be more appropriate to speak of his policies deriving from his smoking and snorting days in his past that he documents.

The overall policy does not make economic or social sense. His plan is to put the burden on any company or individual who has generated income or value and use the revenue to create start up businesses. Start-ups fail 90% of the time. New technology take years and millions to initiate. There is no logic to a 'trickle up' because it gives money access to people who, without a government program, would not qualify. How did that work for the mortgage industry?

Now if you believe that employment should be guaranteed and provided by the government - that's another issue. I think it is the only logical way for Obama's programs to be implemented. Everything has to come from the government and that is the point of my post.

Try providing an logical alternative result instead of rhetoric. 'Ideal' is not reality and there are people who have more because they've worked for it and earned it. There are people who don't have anything for the same reasons. Currently there is nothing in the way for an individual to achieve either result.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I think a distinction must be made between different entitlements. People have lost retirement benefits that they worked for. That is not a handout.

For most people, all their lives 15.2% of everything they earned was remitted to social security. That is also not a handout.


T -
I don't know how old you are, but I'm 52 and don't have any hopes of seeing any of the 15% I've given to SS over the years. The numbers just don't work.

ANY investment is a gamble. At this moment in time - stock investments made recently lost value. There was no gun requiring that anyone's investments be in financial instruments that were subject to that risk. However was there a complaint when the returns were 14% on the same investment? Should the people who cashed in have to give it back in the spirit of fairness?

And what of retirement plans? The problem that GM and other similar US industries isn't their management, their workers, or their product. The problem is that during the 'good times' they committed to a pension plan for their workers - (Fairly negotiated - I'm not saying it's wrong) that they can not now afford. Who foresaw that the result of deregulating the lawyer industry would result in so much artificial cost to be added to health care and product liability that now nearly 50% of the cost of a GM car goes to funding the health costs for retirees and product liability? My parents are living in an assisted living facility paying more than $8k per month because of a GM pension and health retirement plan. They are NOT unique. The bail out plan that GM wants isn't about productivity its relieve from that pension/health care burden.

quote:

The thing is it was redistributed from the commoners to the jet set.
How exactly did this, or does this, happen? How were "commoners" prevented from doing anything? What is a "commoner". You make it sound like a commoner is someone who can't be held responsible for their own fate and wants to sit on their ass expecting the government to take care of them. What hurdle isn't in my way that is in the way of your "commoner"? And if, my 'wealth' or my income and assets are a goal - how will any of Obama's programs effect that result?



MzMia -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 9:50:05 AM)

Happy Halloween Everyone.
Booooooooo
 
I don't always agree with Mercnbeth and TreasureKY, but ya know what?
They have the right to their opinions.
The older I get I am more of a moderate on many issues.
Now, I did not vote for Bush {ya know MzMia is always screaming he is the
worse President ever}[;)].
But, I have never really disliked Senator McCain and sometimes I secretly like him.
{please don't tell anyone}[8|]
I appreciate his service to our country, he appears to be a real person, and even has
a sense of humor. 
 
The great thing about America is we are still allowed to have diverging opinions.
At the end of the day, what I hope we all want is for America to start digging out of
our economic slump, and for our country to remain what I consider still the best
country in the world.
One thing is for certain, if Senator Obama wins the election in 4 days, he is going to need
Senator McCain's support and I hope they will be able to work well together.
Senator Obama is well aware that he is going to have to work with both the members of the
House and the Senate, and also get support from the majority of most of the American citizens
to make the changes he is proposes.
As bad as things are these days {recession/depression} we are all going to have to make some
sacrifices and work hard to make our country, the great country that we all believe it is.



FullfigRIMaam -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 9:57:10 AM)

quote:

But, I have never really disliked Senator McCain and sometimes I secretly like him.
{please don't tell anyone}
I used to love John McCain for his moderate and reasonable views on most issues...  This year however, with the messages he's approved, I think he's lost his mind and dignity.   M



MzMia -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 10:01:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam

quote:

But, I have never really disliked Senator McCain and sometimes I secretly like him.
{please don't tell anyone}
I used to love John McCain for his moderate and reasonable views on most issues...  This year however, with the messages he's approved, I think he's lost his mind and dignity.   M


I know he has been acting mean and desperate.[8|]
But he was so damn funny at the Alfred E. Smith dinner.
I am still watching it and laughing at both sides.
 YouTube - John McCain at the Alfred E Smith Memorial Dinner 2



FullfigRIMaam -> RE: Surrendering Opportunity for Success by Pursuing Survival (10/31/2008 10:08:02 AM)

Agreed, they both looked fantastic, and were incredibly funny.
Thanks for the link, I was looking for it.   M



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02