You Can Not Help the Poor by Destroying the Rich

[TLSnell1981]

Please, the right cannot just run away from the trainwreck that they supported called the GWB administration.

Ok, if you want to blame congress since everything happened since the last election, then will you admit that 9/11 was all Bush's fault and the republican congress since they won the 2000 election?

Well?

I'm not blaming everything on the Dems. Just sayin'.....they have a responsibility for this mess too.

9/11 is a cheap shot.

 

[DancingBear]

Very good. I "checked" this quote in the wee hours of the morning. (long night) Thank you for correcting this. I should have put the word "quote" in my check...came back exactly as you said.

Kudos to you for accepting this correction gracefully, AND including the update in your OP. As I noted in my "Daniel Patrick Moynihan" thread, it seems a very rare occasion around here.

 

[shelly3girls]

That is true. The first time we maxed out, I was shocked. Couldn't understand why we didn't have to pay Fica past a specific amount. To this day it still confounds me. (of course I don't mind the period of the increased check-who would) It is a tax break I honestly never really understood. And I benefit from it.

This needs to be done b/c SS benefits have a max also. You should not rightfully tax someone on their full income if you are going to give them the same benefit as someone who has paid a great deal less into the system. Well, I guess you can and call it their American duty...

 

[TLSnell1981]

Kudos to you for accepting this correction gracefully, AND including the update in your OP. As I noted in my "Daniel Patrick Moynihan" thread, it seems a very rare occasion around here.

Contrary to popular opinion...I really DON'T know everything.

 

[Charade]

This needs to be done b/c SS benefits have a max also. You should not rightfully tax someone on their full income if you are going to give them the same benefit as someone who has paid a great deal less into the system. Well, I guess you can and call it their American duty...

I'm not sure if you are arguing for or against the SS cap.

The bulk of my property taxes goes to school funding. I will never get a direct benefit from that as we have no children in the system.

I'm told it's my duty because it benefits society as a whole.

 

[MossMan]

People tend to forget....the DEMS have been in charge of Congress for the last two years. They have controlled the committees and the agenda. I know, the President gets the entire blame. This is only because "most" Americans don't understand how the government works. I think the argument that works with most independants...that I know...is balancing the power. They do not want to see one party in complete control.

No, the President does not get the entire blame. But when you control all government, you are going to get some of the blame.

Take a look a the polls. Congress is not very popular. Americans aren't happy with the job they have done. But most of the blame is being attached where it belongs - to the party that has mostly been in control. Pelosi may be disliked but Bush is despised.

Here's something else. It doesn't matter how many ridiculous names McCain's campaign team can come up with to call Obama, that's not going to change anyone's opinion about how badly the Republicans have done in power. So to prattle on about how terrible an Obama Presidency is going to be only reminds people how horrible a Bush Presidency was.

 

[whjoyjr]

I'm not blaming everything on the Dems. Just sayin'.....they have a responsibility for this mess too.

9/11 is a cheap shot.

I asked you that if you wanted to put the blam on the last congress for the current mess since the Democrats won control of congress in 2000, then the republicans would need to accept blam for events happening after the 2000 elections.

You said no. Done.

 

[shelly3girls]

I'm not sure if you are arguing for or against the SS cap.

The bulk of my property taxes goes to school funding. I will never get a direct benefit from that as we have no children in the system.

I'm told it's my duty because it benefits society as a whole.

I would argue for the ss cap. I see your point about school funding. I feel differently about SS than other benefits as I see it as supposedly a program where you pay into it to eventually receive payment out. I think if there is no cap on the amount you pay in then there should not be a cap on the amount you receive. I am too young to know exactly how SS works and I surely do not expect it to be around by the time I am of retirement age but from what I understand the amount of your expected benefit is based on what you currently pay into it.

 

[JPN4265]

And irrelevant. No one is suggesting anything that would "destroy" the rich.

Another red herring desperation appeal.

We almost forgot our place. How dare us question the chosen one, for we shall burn in......well you get the drift.....Kneel to the chosen one

As to kneeling to the chosen one, how do your knees feel? Must be pretty raw by now.......

 

[bicker]

We live in a free country. People are able to spend their paychecks as they see fit. Why should the government tell them how to do so?

Precisely: After taxes, people should be able to do what they wish with their income. Taxes, therefore, should include the costs of society's responsibilities to its citizens.

You have a poor opinion of business owners....the ones that "pay low wages and reap the benefits"? You neglect to say...they are also the ones who borrow the money and put everything they have at risk.... to own their business. If they business goes bankrupt....do the employees share the owner's financial burden? They will have to find another job....things aren't that simple for the owner. They still have the loans to pay back and possibly lose their home....and will still need to seek other employment.

I agree completely. If people feel that they're underpaid, then find another job. As long as employers are treating employees fairly and honestly, they are justified in playing them whatever the labor market is willing to take, subject to reasonable minimum wages, which should, of course, reflect the cost of living, so the employer is not, effectively "dumping" the employee's poverty onto society's back.

 

[bicker]

OK fine -- take the first line out of the OP,How about the next 5-6 lines?I see wisdom.You see red herring?

Absolutely. But still red herrings -- reflections of desperation AFAIC: No one is suggesting we "weaken" the "strong". No one is suggesting that we "discourage thrift". No one is suggesting "pulling" anyone down. These are all false accusations based on twisted distortions of the proposals.

 

[bsnyder]

Precisely: After taxes, people should be able to do what they wish with their income. Taxes, therefore, should include the costs of society's responsibilities to its citizens.

I agree completely. If people feel that they're underpaid, then find another job. As long as employers are treating employees fairly and honestly, they are justified in playing them whatever the labor market is willing to take, subject to reasonable minimum wages, which should, of course, reflect the cost of living, so the employer is not, effectively "dumping" the employee's poverty onto society's back.

Could you define society's "responsibilities" to its citizens?

 

[bsnyder]

Absolutely. But still red herrings -- reflections of desperation AFAIC: No one is suggesting we "weaken" the "strong". No one is suggesting that we "discourage thrift". No one is suggesting "pulling" anyone down. These are all false accusations based on twisted distortions of the proposals.

Unintended consequences....

 

[bicker]

I already have. Beyond that, I suspect the people for whom my message will be useful and is intended already knew what society's responsibilities are without anyone having to describe them.

 

[bicker]

Unintended consequences....

Not even "consequences". Rather, projections of doom-and-gloom without basis in fact.

 

[bsnyder]

I already have. Beyond that, I suspect the people for whom my message will be useful and is intended already knew what society's responsibilities are without anyone having to describe them.

In other words, your posts are simply intended to preach to the choir?

 

[bsnyder]

Rather, projections of doom-and-gloom without basis in fact.

I believe that projections of doom-and-gloom would more accurately describe your irrational fear of Christians.

 

[bicker]

In other words, your posts are simply intended to preach to the choir?

No, rather to the undecided. I surely have no intention on preaching to the ministers of McCain/Palin sect.

I believe that doom-and-gloom would more accurately describe your irrational fear of Christians.

I have no fear of Christians. Perhaps you have a fear of non-Christians, and that's making you say that.

 

[minnie61650]

I believe that doom-and-gloom would more accurately describe your irrational fear of Christians.

I for one do not fear Christians as I am one myself.
I do however fear the Fundamentists who are a minority and whom wish to impose their values and believes on all of the US citizens.

Such as those who wish to outlaw abortion once again.

I remember the the heatbreak of the women who took the Thalidomide durg back in the 1960's. Some of those wemon wanted to chose abortions.
Those who went to court were denied the right to an abortion.
Others went to back alley's for abortions and risked infections and complications. Those who were wealthy enough flew overseas to get an abortion.

Others either by choice or circumstance gave birth to deformed babies.

Definition of Thalidomide baby
Thalidomide baby: An infant affected by prenatal exposure to the drug thalidomide. This medication was prescribed to pregnant women for treatment of morning sickness until removal from the market in 1962. It causes a wide variety of serious birth defects, including short, flipper-like limbs. Most thalidomide babies have lived into adulthood. This population is now reaching middle age, and in some cases new health problems are emerging.

Link:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11322

 

[bicker]

I for one do not fear Christians as I am one myself.
I do however those Fundamentists who are a minority and whom wish to impose their values on all of the US citizens.

Yes, I've clearly referred to them as "reactionaries" or "zealots" in every message I've mentioned them in. I don't refer to them as "Christians" alone, or even at all, necessarily, since some of these folks I know to be Jewish, and I'm sure there are others who are Muslim, etc.

It is a bit disingenuous for anyone to assert that I have regularly referred to these folks as "Christians" alone.