Is it "patriotic" to pay higher taxes?

[Lost Guitar]

The government spends 2.7 Trillion/year. That is more than twice the average american's salary every second. Are you willing to be patriotic, and give them more money?

[MistreatedLewis]

The government spends 2.7 Trillion/year. That is more than twice the average american's salary every second. Are you willing to be patriotic, and give them more money?

It all depends on what the money is paying for.

Not if it is going towards unnecessary wars.

But I am if it is going towards programs that make the USA a stronger country.

[chr35919]

taxes are patriotic. high taxes is a relative term.

[Lost Guitar]

Inspired by Biden, who says high taxes are patriotic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes

[chr35919]

95% of americans get an income tax reduction so...i guess he's calling for the rich to be patriotic?

[jdmpsu339]

Biden is a bumbling fool. Every day it's a new gaffe.

No wonder Obama doesn't want to be seen near him.

[MistreatedLewis]

Inspired by Biden, who says high taxes are patriotic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes

Yeah you forgot the "for the wealthy" part. Way to spin.

[jiggajm18]

it depends on what republicans think. they're the true patriots.

[chr35919]

Biden is a bumbling fool. Every day it's a new gaffe.

No wonder Obama doesn't want to be seen near him.:lolriiight.


did you see palin on speed last night? she was ruffling feathers! mmkay

[MistreatedLewis]

it depends on what republicans think. they're the true patriots.

:lol:thumbsup

Democrats hate Amerca.

[Lost Guitar]

Yeah you forgot the "for the wealthy" part. Way to spin.

Actually, that is reflected in the poll options. Some just aren't sharp enough to pick up on it.

[ShotgunDMB]

lol, Joe Biden is a fucking idiot. :lol

[Lost Guitar]

If you want to be REALLY patriotic, just make the check out to Biden himself.

[jiggajm18]

If you want to be REALLY patriotic, just make the check out to Biden himself.

true, but flying your flag as high as possible and slapping a Support Our Troops sticker on your Ford F150 is how you can be the most patriotic.

[ShotgunDMB]

If you want to be REALLY patriotic, just make the check out to Biden himself.

Something really patriotic would be sending Joe Biden's dumbass back to that dump of state, Deleware.

I'm pretty sure the last homeless guy I saw on the street gave more money to charity than Obama and Biden combined. Maybe they should take care of home first, before they start taking more money from the doers of this country.

I think AntsMarching.org conservatives should start a "Move Obama's brother out of the hut" fund. :thumbsup

[Jake]

It all depends on what the money is paying for.

Not if it is going towards unnecessary wars.

But I am if it is going towards programs that make the USA a stronger country.



:lol

taxes are patriotic. high taxes is a relative term.

:lol

Inspired by Biden, who says high taxes are patriotic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes


:lol:lol :lol:lol

it depends on what republicans think. they're the true patriots.


:lol:lol:lol

[jmudmbphan]

Something really patriotic would be sending Joe Biden's dumbass back to that dump of state, Deleware.

I'm pretty sure the last homeless guy I saw on the street gave more money to charity than Obama and Biden combined. Maybe they should take care of home first, before they start taking more money from the doers of this country.

I think AntsMarching.org conservatives should start a "Move Obama's brother out of the hut" fund. :thumbsup

well arent you just classy and mature.....and hypocritical...

[Lost Guitar]

true, but flying your flag as high as possible and slapping a Support Our Troops sticker on your Ford F150 is how you can be the most patriotic.


I agree that would be patriotic, especially if the flag and the sticker were made in America. Circulating money into the American economy is great, though not quite as good as giving it directly to politicians.

You could also start a small business which provides jobs to Americans. That would also be really patriotic, if you can afford to do it with the money you have left after the government takes +40%. But if you think your children may be able to manage it after you are gone, think again. We're going to bring back the death tax, so that the business will likely have to be sold to multi-billionares like Warren Buffet. That is really patriotic.

[MistreatedLewis]

I agree that would be patriotic, especially if the flag and the sticker were made in America. Circulating money into the American economy is great, though not quite as good as giving it directly to politicians.

You could also start a small business which provides jobs to Americans. That would also be really patriotic, if you can afford to do it with the money you have left after the government takes +40%. But if you think your children may be able to manage it after you are gone, think again. We're going to bring back the death tax, so that the business will likely have to be sold to multi-billionares like Warren Buffet. That is really patriotic.

Why start a business when Wal-Mart will just destroy it in a few years anyway and everyone loses except wal-mart. Might as well just go work for wal-mart, no?

[Lost Guitar]

Why start a business when Wal-Mart will just destroy it in a few years anyway and everyone loses except wal-mart. Might as well just go work for wal-mart, no?

Maybe all business should adopt Walmart's policy of educating employees on the numerous handouts given by the generous Democrats.

[MistreatedLewis]

Maybe all business should adopt Walmart's policy of educating employees on the numerous handouts given by the generous Democrats.

i'm not sure how that's related to my comment or this thread really, but ok.

[Jake]

i'm not sure how that's related to my comment or this thread really, but ok.



what he means is taxes wouldn't be so high if we didn't have so many silly government policies that give away money for no legitimate reason... Matthew Lekso wrote a book on it.

[MistreatedLewis]

what he means is taxes wouldn't be so high if we didn't have so many silly government policies that give away money for no legitimate reason... Matthew Lekso wrote a book on it.

Ah, well while some programs I agree are silly, like giving Palin money for her bridges and now roads to nowhere, some of those government programs you find silly I find very necessary - like welfare, social security, and medicaid for example.

[jdmpsu339]

Ah, well while some programs I agree are silly, like giving Palin money for her bridges and now roads to nowhere, some of those government programs you find silly I find very necessary - like welfare, social security, and medicaid for example.

If only Biden and Obama had voted against funding of the bridge to nowhere, the state of Louisiana would have had more money to help rebuild after Katrina. :shrug

[jmudmbphan]

If only bush didn't wait to hold emergency funds for LA after Katrina so many people wouldnt have died :shrug

[Lost Guitar]

Ah, well while some programs I agree are silly, like giving Palin money for her bridges and now roads to nowhere, some of those government programs you find silly I find very necessary - like welfare, social security, and medicaid for example.

Yeah, Walmart agrees with you. Welfare is very necessary. With welfare, Walmart can drive other businesses who actually pay a livable wage out of business. Then welfare is even more necessary.

If no one would accept Walmart's low wages, Walmart would have to compete on a more level playing field.

[Jake]

Ah, well while some programs I agree are silly, like giving Palin money for her bridges and now roads to nowhere, some of those government programs you find silly I find very necessary - like welfare, social security, and medicaid for example.



this isn't the thread to discuss this, but LBJ's Great Society (welfare) has done more to keep minorities down than anything in history since slavery. Blacks on average had higher standard of livings prior to Welfare than after (look it up).


You need to ask yourself: Are you giving money people to 'help' them, or b/c it makes you feel good to 'help them'? Because only one of those statements are true.



... carry on to people willing to pay more tax. I'll be emailing you all next year to pick up a portion of my tax burden.

[Lost Guitar]

this isn't the thread to discuss this, but LBJ's Great Society (welfare) has done more to keep minorities down than anything in history since slavery. Blacks on average had higher standard of livings prior to Welfare than after (look it up).


You need to ask yourself: Are you giving money people to 'help' them, or b/c it makes you feel good to 'help them'? Because only one of those statements are true.



... carry on to people willing to pay more tax. I'll be emailing you all next year to pick up a portion of my tax burden.


A wise man once said "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." A Democrat then replied "Give a man someone else's fish everyday for life, and if he has children who are unwilling to fish, give him more fish. When we have nurtured an entire culture of people who are unwilling to fish, we can more easily get elected by promising to give them more of other people's fish."

[Lost Guitar]

Then Joe Biden chimed in and said "it is patriotic to give the government your fish."

[jdmpsu339]

If only bush didn't wait to hold emergency funds for LA after Katrina so many people wouldnt have died :shrug

If only the Army Corps of Engineers had followed through on Congressional mandates in 1965, 1972, and 1979, the levees would not have collapsed, and damage done to New Orleans would have been minimal, and fewer people would have perished. :shrug

[MistreatedLewis]

Yeah, Walmart agrees with you. Welfare is very necessary. With welfare, Walmart can drive other businesses who actually pay a livable wage out of business. Then welfare is even more necessary.

If no one would accept Walmart's low wages, Walmart would have to compete on a more level playing field.

This wouldn't be a problem if Wal-Mart paid the same livable wages as everyone else.

[jdmpsu339]

A wise man once said "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." A Democrat then replied "Give a man someone else's fish everyday for life, and if he has children who are unwilling to fish, give him more fish. When we have nurtured an entire culture of people who are unwilling to fish, we can more easily get elected by promising to give them more of other people's fish."

:lol

I have heard this before, scary how true it is.

[jdmpsu339]

This wouldn't be a problem if Wal-Mart paid the same livable wages as everyone else.

then they would have to charge higher prices, which would drive their customer base away, causing lower sales, which would lead to the closing of stores and the firing of many of the people they hired at "fair" wages.

[MistreatedLewis]

then they would have to charge higher prices, which would drive their customer base away, causing lower sales, which would lead to the closing of stores and the firing of many of the people they hired at "fair" wages.

Oh well. That's how it goes. Those people then would be hired by other businesses that would be competing with Wal-Mart.

[Lost Guitar]

Oh well. That's how it goes. Those people then would be hired by other businesses that would be competing with Wal-Mart.

Its a good thing Walmart educates their employees on welfare, so they don't have to compete. Maybe that is why Obama opposed the Clinton welfare reform.

[MistreatedLewis]

Its a good thing Walmart educates their employees on welfare, so they don't have to compete. Maybe that is why Obama opposed the Clinton welfare reform.

Would be a moot point if minimum wages were raised to where they should be.

[jdmpsu339]

Would be a moot point if minimum wages were raised to where they should be.

you do understand that increasing the minimum wage actually increases the unemployment rate, right?

[WolfmanDMB]

come on, i was hoping to vote present.

[MistreatedLewis]

you do understand that increasing the minimum wage actually increases the unemployment rate, right?

I'm not convinced that it would in the longterm. I also don't know how much it would in the longterm. I do know that employed people would be able to live on what they were making. I also would be in favor of increasing government aid to those out of work to make up for the increase in unemployment.

In further news, if we lower the minimum wage down to $0.01/hour I'm pretty sure we could eliminate the unemployment problem in this country completely. Whoohoo!

[MistreatedLewis]

come on, i was hoping to vote present.

:lol:)

[Jake]

I'm not convinced that it would in the longterm. I also don't know how much it would in the longterm. I do know that employed people would be able to live on what they were making. I also would be in favor of increasing government aid to those out of work to make up for the increase in unemployment.

In further news, if we lower the minimum wage down to $0.01/hour I'm pretty sure we could eliminate the unemployment problem in this country completely. Whoohoo!



wrong.


If a company profits $100 a year, and they are a profit-seeking company (which 98% of American businesses are), and they have to pay employees more money, limiting their profit to $95, they will have to find a way to increase the profit back to $100.


They can either raise the price of their product, or lay off an employee or 2 to regain the needed profit.


That's why 'minimum wage' is so misleading, and an ill conceived notion - very misleading.

[MistreatedLewis]

wrong.


If a company profits $100 a year, and they are a profit-seeking company (which 98% of American businesses are), and they have to pay employees more money, limiting their profit to $95, they will have to find a way to increase the profit back to $100.


They can either raise the price of their product, or lay off an employee or 2 to regain the needed profit.


That's why 'minimum wage' is so misleading, and an ill conceived notion - very misleading.

Or find other ways of cutting costs. And if they don't, someone else will.

[jdmpsu339]

I have an idea! Let's raise minimum wage to $20,000 an hour so everyone who has jobs can afford rocket ships and NFL franchises!

These are necessities, and I demand the government to expand its influences on the private sector even MORE!!!!

[Lost Guitar]

I'm not convinced that it would in the longterm. I also don't know how much it would in the longterm. I do know that employed people would be able to live on what they were making. I also would be in favor of increasing government aid to those out of work to make up for the increase in unemployment.

In further news, if we lower the minimum wage down to $0.01/hour I'm pretty sure we could eliminate the unemployment problem in this country completely. Whoohoo!


:lol LMFAO.

Paying people not to work will really help unemployment.

[colegibson]

Absolutely not









Joe Biden is a dumbass.

[jdmpsu339]

:lol LMFAO.

Paying people not to work will really help unemployment.

I know, I'm seriously having trouble keeping a straight face reading that post.

[ShotgunDMB]

Someone should do a minimum wage poll.
I'm against it. :)

[MistreatedLewis]

I have an idea! Let's raise minimum wage to $20,000 an hour so everyone who has jobs can afford rocket ships and NFL franchises!

These are necessities, and I demand the government to expand its influences on the private sector even MORE!!!!

No, I think $20,000 is too much.

[Lost Guitar]

I would suggest to anyone looking to make a high hourly wage, the best thing you could do would be to acquire a marketable skill.

[MistreatedLewis]

:lol LMFAO.

Paying people not to work will really help unemployment.

Well regardless of how to handle any short term increase in umemployment, minimum wages need to be raised significantly.

[MistreatedLewis]

I would suggest to anyone looking to make a high hourly wage, the best thing you could do would be to acquire a marketable skill.

And people who can't should die?

[ShotgunDMB]

Well regardless of how to handle any short term increase in umemployment, minimum wages need to be raised significantly.

No, they don't. How much is a cashier at Wal-Mart worth? It that skill worth a significant wage that will drive up the cost of goods, lower revenue, and cause job cuts? Absolutely not. In America, you get paid what your talent and skill is worth.

[Lost Guitar]

And people who can't should die?

I would say that the only people who "can't" obtain a single marketable skill are those who are already dead, or too young to work.

"Won't" is a more appropriate word.

[Lost Guitar]

Well regardless of how to handle any short term increase in umemployment, minimum wages need to be raised significantly.

And what is it exactly about increasing unemployment that makes you think it would be "short term?"

[MistreatedLewis]

No, they don't. How much is a cashier at Wal-Mart worth? It that skill worth a significant wage that will drive up the cost of goods, lower revenue, and cause job cuts? Absolutely not. In America, you get paid what your talent and skill is worth.

I disagree. In America, everyone willing to work at all should get paid enough to pay for a roof over their head and decent food to eat.

[Jake]

Or find other ways of cutting costs. And if they don't, someone else will.



what other way is there? Cut down on buying staples? Employees and sales of your goods and services make up 95% of your operating budget.



back to the original thread topic, if the government practiced restraint, we'd pay 1/2 as much as we do in taxes. It's that simple

[MistreatedLewis]

I would say that the only people who "can't" obtain a single marketable skill are those who are already dead, or too young to work.

"Won't" is a more appropriate word.

How does someone without a marketable skill attain one? What do you consider a marketable skill. And why do you feel that cashiers don't deserve to live?

[Lost Guitar]

what other way is there? Cut down on buying staples? Employees and sales of your goods and services make up 95% of your operating budget.



back to the original thread topic, if the government practiced restraint, we'd pay 1/2 as much as we do in taxes. It's that simple

Yeah, most people don't realise that the bulk of your taxes, i.e. federal income taxes, make up for almost none of the government benefits that you see. Your schools, roads, police and fire protection are all paid for by local taxes.

[MistreatedLewis]

And what is it exactly about increasing unemployment that makes you think it would be "short term?"

The market will adjust. You free marketeers should love that line of thinking.

[MistreatedLewis]

Yeah, most people don't realise that the bulk of your taxes, i.e. federal income taxes, make up for almost none of the government benefits that you see. Your schools, roads, police and fire protection are all paid for by local taxes.

Except for Sarah palin's road and bridges to nowhere.

[Lost Guitar]

How does someone without a marketable skill attain one? What do you consider a marketable skill. And why do you feel that cashiers don't deserve to live?

:lol
Do you expect to be taken seriously with that kind of statement?

[ShotgunDMB]

I disagree. In America, everyone willing to work at all should get paid enough to pay for a roof over their head and decent food to eat.

That's an unrealistic economic disaster waiting to happen. Thankfully, that will never happen. Jobs like Wal-Mart aren't meant to be career options. They're good for young people, students, the disabled and the elderly. But if you're banking on that as being your job as far as providing for your family, you're just asking for a life of hardship. It requires no skill, therefore it is not worth a higher wage.

[MistreatedLewis]

:lol
Do you expect to be taken seriously with that kind of statement?

That's what your argument logically entails. Cashiers should either become something else or die.

[Lost Guitar]

The market will adjust. You free marketeers should love that line of thinking.

Exactly. They will adjust. Prices will go up to pay for the increased wages, in addition to the number of available jobs going down. Now people have a marginally increased wage, and everything they buy is more expensive. That is called "inflation."

[MistreatedLewis]

That's an unrealistic economic disaster waiting to happen. Thankfully, that will never happen. Jobs like Wal-Mart aren't meant to be career options. They're good for young people, students, the disabled and the elderly. But if you're banking on that as being your job as far as providing for your family, you're just asking for a life of hardship. It requires no skill, therefore it is not worth a higher wage.

I consider living with a shitty roof over your head and a little bit of decent food a life of hardship anyway. That's all I'm asking those jobs to help people afford. Not a middle class life.

[MistreatedLewis]

Exactly. They will adjust. Prices will go up to pay for the increased wages, in addition to the number of available jobs going down. Now people have a marginally increased wage, and everything they buy is more expensive. That is called "inflation."

Nah people will shop at stores with lower prices, and the shops with higher prices will close up or cater to a different market segment or fold.

[TrippingBrando]

I disagree. In America, everyone willing to work at all should get paid enough to pay for a roof over their head and decent food to eat.

Screw humanitarianism! Don't you know that, because I was lucky enough not to have to grow up in a household whose sole focus was on just surviving, I went to college. This means I deserve, oh, 5 or 6 times the rate of pay as those lazy assholes. ;) Yes, I am 5 or 6 times as hardworking and smart as single parents whose parents were not there for them.

[MistreatedLewis]

Screw humanitarianism! Don't you know that, because I was lucky enough not to have to grow up in a household whose sole focus was on just surviving, I went to college. This means I deserve, oh, 5 or 6 times the rate of pay as those lazy assholes. ;) Yes, I am 5 or 6 times as hardworking and smart as single parents whose parents were not there for them.

I do believe Marlon Brando deserved to make more money than pretty much any other American, for the record.

;)

[TrippingBrando]

That's an unrealistic economic disaster waiting to happen. Thankfully, that will never happen. Jobs like Wal-Mart aren't meant to be career options. They're good for young people, students, the disabled and the elderly. But if you're banking on that as being your job as far as providing for your family, you're just asking for a life of hardship. It requires no skill, therefore it is not worth a higher wage.

Why should a person with a low IQ, or with emotional problems, or with abusive pasts, etc. desere a "life of hardship?" I of course realize that some people take advantage of welfare, but I am not ok with people who go to work every day making $7 an hour. That is not a living wage.

[MistreatedLewis]

Why should a person with a low IQ, or with emotional problems, or with abusive pasts, etc. desere a "life of hardship?" I of course realize that some people take advantage of welfare, but I am not ok with people who go to work every day making $7 an hour. That is not a living wage.

:thumbsup Not in a country as economically strong as ours. In a country where a CEO can earn approximately $17,000 an hour to ruin Lehman Brothers, everyone can be paid a living wage.

[WolfmanDMB]

That's an unrealistic economic disaster waiting to happen. Thankfully, that will never happen. Jobs like Wal-Mart aren't meant to be career options. They're good for young people, students, the disabled and the elderly. But if you're banking on that as being your job as far as providing for your family, you're just asking for a life of hardship. It requires no skill, therefore it is not worth a higher wage.

walmart thinks otherwise.

http://walmartstores.com/Careers/

[TrippingBrando]

I see the divide in this issue as fairly simple: liberals choose to focus on those who are in dire financial situations through no fault (or almost no fault) of their own; conservatives choose to focus on the lazy ones expecting handouts. Now, I'm not certain what percentage of those on welfare are taking advantage of the system, but I don't want to inflict a horrendous life onto tens of thousands of Americans just because of the actions of some of their countrymen.

[Lost Guitar]

Nah people will shop at stores with lower prices, and the shops with higher prices will close up or cater to a different market segment or fold.

People already shop at the stores with the lower prices. Businesses are already competing for customers in a rough economy. How is it that you can raise operating costs without raising the price of the goods and services?

I'd also be interested to know if you have any concept of which people are on minimum wage, and how long they earn that wage before moving up? Do you think it is mostly teenagers and college students, or do you think it is mostly single parents?

Most of my friends from highschool didn't go to college. None of them are making less than three times the minimum wage, and they are only in their early twenties.

[Lost Guitar]

I see the divide in this issue as fairly simple: liberals choose to focus on those who are in dire financial situations through no fault (or almost no fault) of their own; conservatives choose to focus on the lazy ones expecting handouts. Now, I'm not certain what percentage of those on welfare are taking advantage of the system, but I don't want to inflict a horrendous life onto tens of thousands of Americans just because of the actions of some of their countrymen.

Neither do I. That is why I don't support an entitlement-based culture.

[jimibadfish]

That's an unrealistic economic disaster waiting to happen. Thankfully, that will never happen. Jobs like Wal-Mart aren't meant to be career options. They're good for young people, students, the disabled and the elderly. But if you're banking on that as being your job as far as providing for your family, you're just asking for a life of hardship. It requires no skill, therefore it is not worth a higher wage.

I really hate you. :thumbsdow

[TwoStep2888]

I really hate you. :thumbsdow

:thumbsup

[MistreatedLewis]

People already shop at the stores with the lower prices. Businesses are already competing for customers in a rough economy. How is it that you can raise operating costs without raising the price of the goods and services?

- You can lower your profit margin
- You can cut costs elsewhere

[ShotgunDMB]

I really hate you. :thumbsdow

I speaketh the truth. It doesn't make any sense to pay people good wages for low skilled work. It would unsustainable for our economy.

[MistreatedLewis]

I speaketh the truth. It doesn't make any sense to pay people good wages for low skilled work. It would unsustainable for our economy.

Who's talking about good wages? I'm talking about living wages.

[ShotgunDMB]

Who's talking about good wages? I'm talking about living wages.

What would you consider a "living wage" for someone doing a job at Wal-Mart?

[thatguymikey2]

Neither do I. That is why I don't support an entitlement-based culture.

actually, by bolding the part that you did, you do support it.

[MistreatedLewis]

What would you consider a "living wage" for someone doing a job at Wal-Mart?

Depends what it costs to afford a shitty apartment and enough food to eat in your area.

[ShotgunDMB]

Depends what it costs to afford a shitty apartment and enough food to eat in your area.

Give me a range.

Do people in other fields get an increase in salary..Do they deserve to be overcompensated for their work as well??

[MistreatedLewis]

Give me a range.

Let's say $12/hour - $20/hour.

edit* 20 is too much probably, even in NYC, so let's say $16

[MistreatedLewis]

Give me a range.

Do people in other fields get an increase in salary..Do they deserve to be overcompensated for their work as well??

Absolutely not. This is just about legal minimum. And I don't consider it overcompensation.

[ShotgunDMB]

Let's say $12/hour - $20/hour.

Ludicrous.

[MistreatedLewis]

Ludicrous.

In your opinion.

Would 10-15 be a more acceptable range to you? I would compromise to that.

[Lcsulla]

Depends what it costs to afford a shitty apartment and enough food to eat in your area.

and that bolded part is exactly why I think a federal minimum wage is a shortsighted, politically expedient idea. Costs of living vary from place to place, as such the minimum wage should reflect this. A minimum wage should certainly exist but it should be determined on a state level, not federal.

[ShotgunDMB]

In your opinion.

Would 10-15 be a more acceptable range to you? I would compromise to that.

$15 dollars an hour for working at Wal-Mart? No.

[MistreatedLewis]

and that bolded part is exactly why I think a federal minimum wage is a shortsighted, politically expedient idea. Costs of living vary from place to place, as such the minimum wage should reflect this. A minimum wage should certainly exist but it should be determined on a state level, not federal.

I disagree. There should be a national minimum, and then states and municipalities can increase it as the will IMO.

[MistreatedLewis]

$15 dollars an hour for working at Wal-Mart? No.

In Manhattan? Yes. If they don't like it, they can leave the city. NYC was just fine before Wal-Mart came along.

[TwoStep2888]

$15 dollars an hour for working at Wal-Mart? No.

What if that Wal-Mart employee has a family to raise?

[MistreatedLewis]

What if that Wal-Mart employee has a family to raise?

Bootstraps, baby, bootstraps!

[ShotgunDMB]

What if that Wal-Mart employee has a family to raise?

Oh well. :)

[TwoStep2888]

Bootstraps, baby, bootstraps!

:lol Fuck bootstraps.

Seriously, though, my stepmom works at Wal-Mart. Before she married my dad, she had three kids to raise by herself, on her Wal-Mart salary. The idea that because she's 'unskilled', she and her whole family should be fucked over is a very cruel idea, imo.

[TwoStep2888]

Oh well. :)

You're a despicable human being.

[MistreatedLewis]

:lol Fuck bootstraps.

Seriously, though, my stepmom works at Wal-Mart. Before she married my dad, she had three kids to raise by herself, on her Wal-Mart salary. The idea that because she's 'unskilled', she and her whole family should be fucked over is a very cruel idea, imo.

Agreed. Granted, I am not an economist, and I don't have the qualifications to say exactly how much a fair minimum wage could be without doing damage to the overall economy - but god knows there are enough liberal economists out there, brilliant ones, who believe it should be significantly higher than it is now.

[ShotgunDMB]

You're a despicable human being.

What you call despicable, I call realistic. Life is not a fairy tell where everyone gets the best end of stick. There are reprecussions for actions, and dealing out ridiculously high miniumum wage salaries to low skilled workers will never work.

[Lcsulla]

I disagree. There should be a national minimum, and then states and municipalities can increase it as the will IMO.

I think that would hamstring business owners in low income areas. A hardware owner in the poorest section of Alabama should not be expected to pay an employee the same base rate as Virgin Records in Times Square. A $7 an hour minimum would not impact a business in NYC that grosses millions nearly as much as it would impact a small business in Oklahoma that grosses $125,000. Setting the wage on a federal level will benefit workers in many districts, but in others it will cost them jobs because businesses will not be hiring if the wage is set high enough that it would make the business unprofitable. Worse, I think it will simply encourage small business owners to cheat the IRS and probably expand the market for illegal aliens.

[MistreatedLewis]

I think that would hamstring business owners in low income areas. A hardware owner in the poorest section of Alabama should not be expected to pay an employee the same base rate as Virgin Records in Times Square. A $7 an hour minimum would not impact a business in NYC that grosses millions nearly as much as it would impact a small business in Oklahoma that grosses $125,000. Setting the wage on a federal level will benefit workers in many district but in others it will cost them jobs because businesses will not be hiring if the wage is set high enough that it would make the business unprofitable. Worse, I think it will simply encourage small business owners to cheat the IRS and probably expand the market for illegal aliens.

That's the way it is set up now and I don't think it hamstrings anyway

[TwoStep2888]

What you call despicable, I call realistic. Life is not a fairy tell where everyone gets the best end of stick. There are reprecussions for actions, and dealing out ridiculously high miniumum wage salaries to low skilled workers will never work.

Regardless of what 'works' or what is 'realistic', why should children be punished because they're parents are 'unskilled'? I find your position on single individuals being paid less than a living wage to be disgusting enough, but why should innocent children have to suffer for something they have no control over?

[mdmarvich]

I see the divide in this issue as fairly simple: liberals choose to focus on those who are in dire financial situations through no fault (or almost no fault) of their own; conservatives choose to focus on the lazy ones expecting handouts. Now, I'm not certain what percentage of those on welfare are taking advantage of the system, but I don't want to inflict a horrendous life onto tens of thousands of Americans just because of the actions of some of their countrymen.

You've hit the nail on the head

Neither do I. That is why I don't support an entitlement-based culture.

Because increasing taxes on the top 5% of earners will cause their lives to be horrendous???

and that bolded part is exactly why I think a federal minimum wage is a shortsighted, politically expedient idea. Costs of living vary from place to place, as such the minimum wage should reflect this. A minimum wage should certainly exist but it should be determined on a state level, not federal.

Agreed:thumbsup

[TapNorris]

I really hate you. :thumbsdow

Why? Because Shotgun's right?

[ShotgunDMB]

Regardless of what 'works' or what is 'realistic', why should children be punished because they're parents are 'unskilled'? I find your position on single individuals being paid less than a living wage to be disgusting enough, but why should innocent children have to suffer for something they have no control over?

Last time I checked we have things like foodstamps and low income housing, no?
You don't do anyone any favors by inflating them with wages they didn't earn.

[MistreatedLewis]

Last time I checked we have things like foodstamps and low income housing, no?

Last time I checked you were against those policies.

[TwoStep2888]

Last time I checked we have things like foodstamps and low income housing, no?
You don't do anyone any favors by inflating them with wages they didn't earn.

This:

Last time I checked you were against those policies.

[Lcsulla]

That's the way it is set up now and I don't think it hamstrings anyway

That cannot be quantified. There is simply no way of knowing how many jobs did not open up because of overhead increases, which would obviously include wage increases.

[ShotgunDMB]

Last time I checked you were against those policies.

Not for children. For lazy bum parents, yes. Doesn't matter anyway, because the lazy bums far outway people like me. So those programs won't be going anywhere.

[mr.MikeD]

Bootstraps, baby, bootstraps!

i've owned a lot of boots in my life, and other than my ski boots, I don't think any of them had ever had straps.

asking people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, in a bootstrapless society, is especially cruel.

[Lost Guitar]

You've hit the nail on the head



Because increasing taxes on the top 5% of earners will cause their lives to be horrendous???



Agreed:thumbsup

Because nurturing the entitlement culture leads only to more entitlements.


I have no problem helping people. If you are down on your luck, there should be a program that helps you so long as you work 40 hours per week minimum. I don't care if you are licking government envelopes or picking up cigarette butts. No able bodied person in this country should recieve a check for doing nothing.

[TwoStep2888]

Not for children. For lazy bum parents, yes. Doesn't matter anyway, because the lazy bums far outway people like me. So those programs won't be going anywhere.

We're talking about principle. How do you differentiate between giving money to the children, rather than the parents? Do you give the children the assistance checks? Make the parents sit outside the low income housing? Monitor spending of assistance money with a Big Brother-esque system, to make sure the 'lazy bum' parents don't benefit from government assistance?

i've owned a lot of boots in my life, and other than my ski boots, I don't think any of them had ever had straps.

asking people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, in a bootstrapless society, is especially cruel.

:lol

No able bodied person in this country should recieve a check for doing nothing.

Just out of curiosity, what about those with mental illnesses?

[ShotgunDMB]

We're talking about principle. How do you differentiate between giving money to the children, rather than the parents? Do you give the children the assistance checks? Make the parents sit outside the low income housing? Monitor spending of assistance money with a Big Brother-esque system, to make sure the 'lazy bum' parents don't benefit from government assistance?


The difference is clear here. I look at things from a realistic perspective, you look at things from an emotional perspective. Different strokes.

I wish. But that's not going to happen. So luckily the American people will continue to see their tax dollars flushed down the toilet and given to people who don't deserve it.

[TapNorris]

No able bodied person in this country should recieve a check for doing nothing.




Just out of curiosity, what about those with mental illnesses?

I think he answered that already.

[ShotgunDMB]

I think he answered that already.

:thumbsup The whole "able bodied" deal.

[TwoStep2888]

I think he answered that already.

Able-bodied implies a lack of physical defect. I'm curious to see if he'd explicitly exclude or include those with mental deficiencies rather than physical ones.

[mdmarvich]

Because nurturing the entitlement culture leads only to more entitlements.


I have no problem helping people. If you are down on your luck, there should be a program that helps you so long as you work 40 hours per week minimum. I don't care if you are licking government envelopes or picking up cigarette butts. No able bodied person in this country should recieve a check for doing nothing.


I gotcha. And I agree to an extent, as long as a job is available for them to do.

[jimibadfish]

Not for children. For lazy bum parents, yes. Doesn't matter anyway, because the lazy bums far outway people like me. So those programs won't be going anywhere.

We are talking about people who work getting a more proportionate slice of the pie. Who the fuck said anything about bums?

[jimibadfish]

Why? Because Shotgun's right?

No, because he takes for granted all the "unskilled" workers that make his life so comfortable and convenient.

[ShotgunDMB]

We are talking about people who work getting a more proportionate slice of the pie. Who the fuck said anything about bums?

Sorry, kiddo. I don't believe in the whole "fairness" deal. You can't inflate what a skill is worth, period. This is real life, not a fairy tale.

[TwoStep2888]

No, because he takes for granted all the "unskilled" workers that make his life so comfortable and convenient.

You're making an excellent point. We aren't talking about perpetually unemployed bums, asking for a handout. We're talking about American workers, trying very hard to get by, who need some extra help. :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

[jimibadfish]

Should able bodied people be allowed to receive inheritance? It takes no skill to receive an inheritance. You don't even have to work for it.

You know, since no able bodied person should receive a check for doing nothing and all.

[jimibadfish]

You're making an excellent point. We aren't talking about perpetually unemployed bums, asking for a handout. We're talking about American workers, trying very hard to get by, who need some extra help. :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Thank you sir. For large corporations, there should be a proportional ceiling on profit where the overflow goes back to the employees instead of into the pockets of the wealthiest to fund things like gold shark tanks for the new 5000 sq foot teak gazebo at the summer home.

[TapNorris]

Should able bodied people be allowed to receive inheritance? It takes no skill to receive an inheritance. You don't even have to work for it.

You know, since no able bodied person should receive a check for doing nothing and all.

The government doesn't believe anyone should receive an inheritance....so what's it matter if their able bodied or not?

[Lcsulla]

What I would really consider patriotic about taxation is if we could get a congress in there to exercise some fiscal restraint when spending said taxes.

[Lcsulla]

The entire concept of an inheritance tax sickens me. All of that money has most likely already been taxed at least once anyhow. Were I rich any money I wanted to pass along to my beneficiary would be in the form of an offshore legacy account.

[neumdogg]

Its patriotic for American citizens NOT to abuse government programs that my taxes pay for.

[opshannon]

I think it's patriotic to go shopping.

[Heavy As Stone]

Thank you sir. For large corporations, there should be a proportional ceiling on profit where the overflow goes back to the employees instead of into the pockets of the wealthiest to fund things like gold shark tanks for the new 5000 sq foot teak gazebo at the summer home.

False.

[jimibadfish]

The government doesn't believe anyone should receive an inheritance....so what's it matter if their able bodied or not?

The entire concept of an inheritance tax sickens me. All of that money has most likely already been taxed at least once anyhow. Were I rich any money I wanted to pass along to my beneficiary would be in the form of an offshore legacy account.

I was using the inheritance example as a situation where someone gets money they did nothing to earn. They get that money because of luck of relation. I'm not saying inheritance should be banned. It should most certainly be taxed heavily. This is coming from a person who will one day get a sizable inheritance.

The lower paying jobs should be rewarded with company success. It would help ease the burdens on people who have burdens.

[jimibadfish]

False.

Subjective opinions can't be false.

[Heavy As Stone]

Subjective opinions can't be false.

You're right. And there are probably people alive who think that the Holocaust was a good idea, but they too would be wrong.

[Lcsulla]

Regarding inheritance taxes, this is roughly the equivalent of taxing a childs allowance.

[jimibadfish]

Regarding inheritance taxes, this is roughly the equivalent of taxing a childs allowance.

I see nothing wrong with that either. Children don't need money.

[Lcsulla]

I see nothing wrong with that either. Children don't need money.

Excluding sales tax, you don't have any complaints about the same dollar being taxed multiple times?

[jimibadfish]

Excluding sales tax, you don't have any complaints about the same dollar being taxed multiple times?

Well it depends on the situation. Not in the case of inheritance. None at all. It's like lottery money. It's a prize that only a few get after losing a loved one. The did nothing to earn it. So why should they care if it's taxed.

Shouldn't the people receiving inheritances be out there working their asses off so they don't need anyone's money? Just like everyone else.

The problem comes back to those who work just as hard as you and I (well harder than me most likely) but are not in a position that pays enough to provide them a high quality of life.

[Heavy As Stone]

Well it depends on the situation. Not in the case of inheritance. None at all. It's like lottery money. It's a prize that only a few get after losing a loved one. The did nothing to earn it. So why should they care if it's taxed.

Shouldn't the people receiving inheritances be out there working their asses off so they don't need anyone's money? Just like everyone else.

The problem comes back to those who work just as hard as you and I (well harder than me most likely) but are not in a position that pays enough to provide them a high quality of life.


If they are unhappy with it, then why not find another position?

[jimibadfish]

If they are unhappy with it, then why not find another position?

Maybe they are incapable of finding a higher paying position. That's why the positions need to pay more. Duh

[Heavy As Stone]

Maybe they are incapable of finding a higher paying position. That's why the positions need to pay more. Duh

How could they possibly be incapable?

[TapNorris]

It should most certainly be taxed heavily. This is coming from a person who will one day get a sizable inheritance.

Regarding inheritance taxes, this is roughly the equivalent of taxing a childs allowance.

I see nothing wrong with that either. Children don't need money.

You're nutty.

[jimibadfish]

How could they possibly be incapable?

Honestly? Intelligence for starters.

[jimibadfish]

You're nutty.

Please explain to me why a)a child whose parent is taking proper care of them needs their own money and b) why a grown able bodied person needs an inheritance that they didn't earn in any way?

[Heavy As Stone]

Honestly? Intelligence for starters.

I don't buy that. If someone truly wants to go and be something else, then they have only to go and make it happen. And I'm not talking about mentally disabled people. I mean your average joe guy.

[jimibadfish]

I don't buy that. If someone truly wants to go and be something else, then they have only to go and make it happen. And I'm not talking about mentally disabled people. I mean your average joe guy.

Well, then you are wrong and this is not an opinion.

[Heavy As Stone]

Please explain to me why a)a child whose parent is taking proper care of them needs their own money and b) why a grown able bodied person needs an inheritance that they didn't earn in any way?

A) To help them learn to manage money? To give them an incentive to help out around the house?

B) Not everything is a matter of need. Needing/not needing something has nothing to do with whether or not our greedy government has any right to it.

[Heavy As Stone]

Well, then you are wrong and this is not an opinion.

Yep, you're right. Better to live in a Robin Hood society. Better to encourage people to give up and base their living on handouts rather than inspiring them to strive for something better.

[TapNorris]

Please explain to me why a)a child whose parent is taking proper care of them needs their own money and b) why a grown able bodied person needs an inheritance that they didn't earn in any way?

a) a child earning an allowance learns responsibility and how to save and manage money.

b) the money has been taxed once, it's money earned by someone who's worked hard or invested wisely and that person should be able to decided what to do with it or who to give it to without the government stepping in and taking more of it.

[MistreatedLewis]

The government doesn't believe anyone should receive an inheritance....so what's it matter if their able bodied or not?

What an idiotic comment.

[TapNorris]

What an idiotic comment.

:thumbsup Thanks. You're a swell guy too.

[jimibadfish]

A) To help them learn to manage money? To give them an incentive to help out around the house?

B) Not everything is a matter of need. Needing/not needing something has nothing to do with whether or not our greedy government has any right to it.

Yep, you're right. Better to live in a Robin Hood society. Better to encourage people to give up and base their living on handouts rather than inspiring them to strive for something better.

a) a child earning an allowance learns responsibility and how to save and manage money.

b) the money has been taxed once, it's money earned by someone who's worked hard or invested wisely and that person should be able to decided what to do with it or who to give it to without the government stepping in and taking more of it.

Giving a child an allowance that they are free to spend however they wish doesn't teach them shit about managing money. It's like giving taxpayers $600 dollars, encouraging them to spend it at the mall and expecting some sort of economic surge because now everyone has $600 bucks to blow after many of them didn't have the money to pay their fucking mortgage on time.

This is not a society based strictly on need. That's true.

Tap Norris, you didn't even come close to answering question b).

The person who earned the money should be able to decide where to spend all of their money after taxes, but once it changes hands again, there should be additional taxes taken from it. Like the lottery. The person did nothing to earn the money.

[MistreatedLewis]

You're right. And there are probably people alive who think that the Holocaust was a good idea, but they too would be wrong.

Actually, that's a subjective opinion too so you can't be right or wrong about that. I even got Jamie to admit to that last week. :)

And I'm a Jew here.

[MistreatedLewis]

I don't buy that. If someone truly wants to go and be something else, then they have only to go and make it happen. And I'm not talking about mentally disabled people. I mean your average joe guy.

Ok. Take average joe guy. Average joe guy or gal has zero dollars in savings and works at wal-mart for minimum wage. How are they getting a better job?

[TapNorris]

Giving a child an allowance that they are free to spend however they wish doesn't teach them shit about managing money.

That's your opinion. I think you're wrong.

[MistreatedLewis]

:thumbsup Thanks. You're a swell guy too.

I didn't say anything about you. just your statement.

[Spicy McHaggis]

I'm not convinced that it would in the longterm. I also don't know how much it would in the longterm. I do know that employed people would be able to live on what they were making. I also would be in favor of increasing government aid to those out of work to make up for the increase in unemployment.

You don't see the inherent escalation in that line of thinking? You increase the minimum wage which increases unemployment. In response, you raise taxes to increase government aid to the unemployed. The rich people/companies being taxed raise their prices. Inflation results. The minimum wage then becomes insufficient to maintain the standard of living. So you increase the minimum wage and more people become unemployed & taxes go up, more inflation. Pretty soon you get to the point where you have your wealth redistribution except that nobody has any incentive to work.

This big ass country in Eastern Europe tried that. Didn't work out too well.

[TwoStep2888]

Ok. Take average joe guy. Average joe guy or gal has zero dollars in savings and works at wal-mart for minimum wage. How are they getting a better job?

Bitch, please.
Obviously, it would be tough, but
Obstacles like 'not having a chance in
The world to advance' are no excuse.
Statistically, yes, most people cannot advance past
The level at which they currently
Reside, but the
American people are
Pretty resourceful, and shouldn't be held back by something as
Silly as 'impossiblity', or a 'broken system'. They should just pull themselves up by... something. :shrug

[MistreatedLewis]

You don't see the inherent escalation in that line of thinking? You increase the minimum wage which increases unemployment. In response, you raise taxes to increase government aid to the unemployed. The rich people/companies being taxed raise their prices. Inflation results. The minimum wage then becomes insufficient to maintain the standard of living. So you increase the minimum wage and more people become unemployed & taxes go up, more inflation. Pretty soon you get to the point where you have your wealth redistribution except that nobody has any incentive to work.

This big ass country in Eastern Europe tried that. Didn't work out too well.

You know, this argument has been used every time before an increase in the minimum wage, and so far the country has been fine. :lol

Well, fine other than the effect of $17,000/hr employees driving 150 year old billion dollars businesses into little piles of bankrupt nothingness :lol:lol:lol

[Heavy As Stone]

Actually, that's a subjective opinion too so you can't be right or wrong about that. I even got Jamie to admit to that last week. :)

And I'm a Jew here.

I know it was. That was the point.

[jimibadfish]

I know it was. That was the point.

Then there is no possibility of right or wrong. Only agree, disagree and withhold opinion. ;)

[VanHorneDog]

no its not patriotic to pay higher taxes. that is stupid.

[Heavy As Stone]

Ok. Take average joe guy. Average joe guy or gal has zero dollars in savings and works at wal-mart for minimum wage. How are they getting a better job?

Lots of ways. They can work hard and get promoted to manager (or some other position). They can learn a special skill and work specifically in that area. I don't know if Wal-Mart has this type of program, but lots of other companies do. Either that, or look for another company somewhere hiring for a position that he thinks he can do. Or take on a second job and save up some money. Or see if he/she can get financial aid and take night classes at a local college. There are lots of ways.

[MistreatedLewis]

Lots of ways. They can work hard and get promoted to manager (or some other position).
This doesn't always happen for hard workers, especially if they are stupid hard workers.


They can learn a special skill and work specifically in that area. I don't know if Wal-Mart has this type of program, but lots of other companies do. Either that, or look for another company somewhere hiring for a position that he thinks he can do. Or take on a second job and save up some money. Or see if he/she can get financial aid and take night classes at a local college. There are lots of ways.

If he's having trouble eating with one minimum wage job, I doubt he's gonna be all that much better off with two. He certainly isn't going to save enough to get a meaningful education.

[Heavy As Stone]

This doesn't always happen for hard workers, especially if they are stupid hard workers.




If he's having trouble eating with one minimum wage job, I doubt he's gonna be all that much better off with two. He certainly isn't going to save enough to get a meaningful education.

The point is, go out and make yourself better. You can sit back, work your minimum wage job, expect your government handouts, and live life through until you die OR make the choice to be something more. Its as simple as that. The rest is all logistics.

[MistreatedLewis]

The point is, go out and make yourself better. You can sit back, work your minimum wage job, expect your government handouts, and live life through until you die OR make the choice to be something more. Its as simple as that. The rest is all logistics.

No, I disagree with you fundamentally. Some people really CANNOT make themselves better. Some people are not going to get past minimum wage cashier, no matter what, be it due to skill, circumstance, or a combination. And I don't believe such people should be left to die.

[Lcsulla]

Once again, I will ask. Why can't the government do what their constituency does? If I am in a financial bind I prioritize. So do most Americans. Yet the government NEVER prioritizes. Perhaps a spending cap should be instituted. Lets face it, Congress pisses away money like no other on utterly useless projects and programs. to paraphrase Reagan, it would be accurate to say they waste money like a drunken sailor but it is an insult to sailors!

Would some degree of fiscal responsibility be a bad thing? Is it so much to ask? I am sick of members of Congress buying their re-election with our tax dollars.

[ShotgunDMB]

Ants got this one right. :thumbsup
Good conservative stance overall. Well done.:)

[Heavy As Stone]

No, I disagree with you fundamentally. Some people really CANNOT make themselves better. Some people are not going to get past minimum wage cashier, no matter what, be it due to skill, circumstance, or a combination. And I don't believe such people should be left to die.

Nobody does. But I think that, if we were to estimate the number of people who REALLY fall into this category, your number would be significantly higher than mine.

[2Step1225]

Even from an Obama supporter, dumb comment by Biden.

Taxes are more of a civic responsibility, so I guess that is sort of patriotic, but if you follow Biden's own logic and the Dems tax plan, he's basically saying he and Obama will make 95% of workers less patriotic. (I'm all for corporations being more "patriotic," though)

On another note, raising the mimimum wage would stimulate comsumption by giving more money to people who will spend their entire paycheck, not put a portion of it in a corporate trust fund or something like that. That could potentially create new jobs.
Plus, I doubt a higher minimum wage would raise unemployment that much. If you think about it, no business keeps jobs that aren't in some way vital to their operations, so a business can't just lay off a bunch of employees without hurting their own productivity (even if they have to pay them higher wages)
This brings me to the increased costs of goods to the public argument. This is true (though exaggerated by many on this board), but might be compensated for in other ways. Higher wages means less people need to use social programs (especially considering the benefit of a higher minimum wage would go to low economic workers, while the cost of higher goods would be shared by all consumers). If we rode it out for a while, we might well end up with lower taxes (due to a decreased need to fund social programs), better quality of life for all workers, and more incentive for people to actually work and not leech of society (which is what all you conservatives get upset about). You guys complain at creating a system where the incentive to work is killed, but tell me, why would anybody work their ass off at a minimum wage job for a paycheck that can't even put a roof over your head and descent food on the table (assuming you can buy one)?

Other than that, I don't know, let's just start killing all the boomers who are about to go on social security. :violent That would save some coin.

[Lcsulla]

No, I disagree with you fundamentally. Some people really CANNOT make themselves better. Some people are not going to get past minimum wage cashier, no matter what, be it due to skill, circumstance, or a combination. And I don't believe such people should be left to die.

I agree to an extent. I say cut off foreign aid and let the government pass along some of that money to these people and they'll still be able to cut my taxes. It is bad enough I lose nearly a third of my salary to taxes but it pisses me off even more knowing that a large chunk of that is doing absolutely nothing for America.

[MistreatedLewis]

Once again, I will ask. Why can't the government do what their constituency does? If I am in a financial bind I prioritize. So do most Americans. Yet the government NEVER prioritizes. Perhaps a spending cap should be instituted. Lets face it, Congress pisses away money like no other on utterly useless projects and programs. to paraphrase Reagan, it would be accurate to say they waste money like a drunken sailor but it is an insult to sailors!

Would some degree of fiscal responsibility be a bad thing? Is it so much to ask? I am sick of members of Congress buying their re-election with our tax dollars.

Not at all - but I don't consider cutting programs like welfare, social security, or public schools to be the answer.

[ShotgunDMB]

(I'm all for corporations being more "patriotic," though)


We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. 2nd to only Japan. Our corporations are very "patriotic" if we're using the Joe Biden definition.

[Lcsulla]

Not at all - but I don't consider cutting programs like welfare, social security, or public schools to be the answer.

Do we need a woodstock museum? A 747 for the speaker of the house? DHS? A Robert Byrd Memorial statue? Do we need to pay farmers NOT to produce certain things? Do we need to pay 8bb annually to Egypt to not attack Israel? Do we need to fund half the shit they make us pay for? I have no problem with welfare in principle (admittedly I would like more restrictions) nor do I mind funding education, public safety, national security, etc, etc. NECESSITIES! Quit paying for shit we do not need and quit dumping money into sinkholes year after year. If we just exercised some restraint there would be far more money available to help people like those you describe and we'd still be able to lower taxes.

[2Step1225]

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. 2nd to only Japan. Our corporations are very "patriotic" if we're using the Joe Biden definition.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't close corporate loopholes and change their tax rate back to where it was in the Clinton era (A time when our economy was doing just fine, by the way.)

[ShotgunDMB]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't close corporate loopholes and change their tax rate back to where it was in the Clinton era (A time when our economy was doing just fine, by the way.)

Nope. We need to lower our corporate tax rates to compete with the rest of the world. It's not the 90's anymore, Bubba. Trying to rewind the clock back doesn't work. We have to move forward with policies that make sense in 2008 and the future, not 1993.

[2Step1225]

Do we need a woodstock museum? A 747 for the speaker of the house? DHS? A Robert Byrd Memorial statue? Do we need to pay farmers NOT to produce certain things? Do we need to pay 8bb annually to Egypt to not attack Israel? Do we need to fund half the shit they make us pay for? I have no problem with welfare in principle (admittedly I would like more restrictions) nor do I mind funding education, public safety, national security, etc, etc. NECESSITIES! Quit paying for shit we do not need and quit dumping money into sinkholes year after year. If we just exercised some restraint there would be far more money available to help people like those you describe and we'd still be able to lower taxes.

I agree, and I'd start by ending the war in Iraq and the war on drugs, both bottomless pits for us to waste money on. But I agree on your main point, the pork has to stop. Unfortunately, it will only happen when the voting public wises up and starts holding politicians more accountable, and I'm not holding my breathe for that any time soon.

[MistreatedLewis]

Do we need a woodstock museum? A 747 for the speaker of the house? DHS? A Robert Byrd Memorial statue? Do we need to pay farmers NOT to produce certain things? Do we need to pay 8bb annually to Egypt to not attack Israel? Do we need to fund half the shit they make us pay for? I have no problem with welfare in principle (admittedly I would like more restrictions) nor do I mind funding education, public safety, national security, etc, etc. NECESSITIES! Quit paying for shit we do not need and quit dumping money into sinkholes year after year. If we just exercised some restraint there would be far more money available to help people like those you describe and we'd still be able to lower taxes.

Hey I don't disagree with most of that.

[2Step1225]

Nope. We need to lower our corporate tax rates to compete with the rest of the world. It's not the 90's anymore, Bubba. Trying to rewind the clock back doesn't work. We have to move forward with policies that make sense in 2008 and the future, not 1993.

As opposed to rewinding the clock forward?
Seriously though, you prove to me that lowering corporate tax rates does anything but put more money in the hands of the rich, and I might agree with your point. Bush did exactly what you're suggesting, and look at where our economy is at now. We have a widening gap between rich and poor and his lowering of corporate taxes has hardly made us competative on the world market. It hasn't lowered unemployment or curbed inflation, either. What part of this imperical evidence don't you get?

[WolfmanDMB]

Then there is no possibility of right or wrong. Only agree, disagree and withhold opinion. ;)

i think you mean "present." :rolleyes;)

[ShotgunDMB]

As opposed to rewinding the clock forward?
Seriously though, you prove to me that lowering corporate tax rates does anything but put more money in the hands of the rich, and I might agree with your point. Bush did exactly what you're suggesting, and look at where our economy is at now. We have a widening gap between rich and poor and his lowering of corporate taxes has hardly made us competative on the world market.

No, we don't. Income equality is unchanged from Clinton to Bush. That's a fabrication. Middle class folks may have less $$ because of energy and food costs, but income inequality is not rising.

We live in a global economy now. We have to compete with the rest of the world. You don't do that by punishing corporations, and even small business owners with heavy taxes.

What worked in the 90's will not work today. IMO.

Which is why we need McCain/Palin to lower the corporate taxes. :)

[VanHorneDog]

Ants got this one right. :thumbsup
Good conservative stance overall. Well done.:)

most americans are much more conservative than the rest of the world. but conservative americans are rediculous. :lol

[2Step1225]

No, we don't. Income equality is unchanged from Clinton to Bush. That's a fabrication. Middle class folks may have less $$ because of energy and food costs, but income inequality is not rising.

We live in a global economy now. We have to compete with the rest of the world. You don't do that by punishing corporations, and even small business owners with heavy taxes.

What worked in the 90's will not work today. IMO.

Which is why we need McCain/Palin to lower the corporate taxes. :)

Wow, a statement that shotty admits is an opinion and not the gospel, I'm impressed.

I agree we're in a global economy, but we need a strong middle class to keep our economy sound, and I contest your claim that inequality hasn't risen sine the Bush era. The US is one of the most unequal countries in the world.
If we really wanted to be serious about regaining/ maintaining our superpower status in terms of world economics, we should follow Thomas Friedman's advice in his new book. Create a new "bubble" around environmentally friendly sources of energy that we could use ourselves and sell to countries like China, who is rising fast but is ultimately using dirty energy sources that are unsustainable in the long run.

Wait, let me guess the response... DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!!

[ShotgunDMB]

most americans are much more conservative than the rest of the world. but conservative americans are rediculous. :lol

Which is why we're the best country in the world. :)
Who you calling redic?:D

[Spicy McHaggis]

The US is one of the most unequal countries in the world.

Are you serious? What about Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe? Who are you comparing us to?

[seekupchuck]

this isn't the thread to discuss this, but LBJ's Great Society (welfare) has done more to keep minorities down than anything in history since slavery. Blacks on average had higher standard of livings prior to Welfare than after (look it up).


You need to ask yourself: Are you giving money people to 'help' them, or b/c it makes you feel good to 'help them'? Because only one of those statements are true.



... carry on to people willing to pay more tax. I'll be emailing you all next year to pick up a portion of my tax burden.


do you have any info on this? or a link to point me in the right direction.

[Tomato42]

this isn't the thread to discuss this, but LBJ's Great Society (welfare) has done more to keep minorities down than anything in history since slavery. Blacks on average had higher standard of livings prior to Welfare than after (look it up).


You need to ask yourself: Are you giving money people to 'help' them, or b/c it makes you feel good to 'help them'? Because only one of those statements are true.

:thumbsup

its like what do you want to do, work hard, make too much money and get your welfare taken away, or be a lazy bum and get paid for it.. what would you do?

[MistreatedLewis]

:thumbsup

its like what do you want to do, work hard, make too much money and get your welfare taken away, or be a lazy bum and get paid for it.. what would you do?

a) Um, I would do the first one and make more money for $200, Alex.

[Tomato42]

a) Um, I would do the first one and make more money for $200, Alex.

well thats because your a contributing member of society in the first place. before newt gingrich's welfare reform, it was more profitable to do the latter, and many inner-city people did just that.

[Elliott Evans]

Taxes should be proportional as to how much money you make.

It's necessity, not patriotism.

[Tomato42]

Taxes should be proportional as to how much money you make.

It's necessity, not patriotism.

i wonder how america existed before we had income tax

"The income tax is a 20th-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise and tariff taxes were allowed. We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty. The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government—the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere ‘reform’ of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.”
— Alan Keyes

[MistreatedLewis]

i wonder how america existed before we had income tax

"The income tax is a 20th-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise and tariff taxes were allowed. We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty. The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government—the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere ‘reform’ of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.”
— Alan Keyes

Er, uh, how has it failed, exactly?

[Tomato42]

/\ look at what it has done to our economy

[MistreatedLewis]

/\ look at what it has done to our economy

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[mdmarvich]

/\ look at what it has done to our economy


You mean the largest economy in the world? Yes, what has it done?

[Tomato42]

You mean the largest economy in the world? Yes, what has it done?

not anymore

http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/02/12/us-no-longer-worlds-largest-economy.htm

[Tomato42]

we have passed our pinnacle, its all down hill from here :(

[MistreatedLewis]

we have passed our pinnacle, its all down hill from here :(

er, Europe has higher income taxes than we do... so, your point?

[mdmarvich]

not anymore

http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/02/12/us-no-longer-worlds-largest-economy.htm


Yes we are still the largest. You can't lump the whole EU together and call that 1 economy.

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348

[MistreatedLewis]

Yes we are still the largest. You can't lump the whole EU together and call that 1 economy.

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348

But even if it were, his whole argument is that the income tax ruined our economy, and then he points to what he claims is a bigger economy, and they have much higher income tax rates.

:lol

[mdmarvich]

But even if it were, his whole argument is that the income tax ruined our economy, and then he points to what he claims is a bigger economy, and they have much higher income tax rates.

:lol


Yeah, he's f'ed either way :lol

[Crazy#41]

How does one fix an economy by lower taxes as both candidates swear to do?

[mdmarvich]

The theory says if you lower taxes, people keep more of their income and spend more.

But it ignores the effects of national deficit on the economy and the dollar, as well as the effects of (potentially) fewer investments by the government (fewer roads, bridges, etc. being built = fewer jobs).

Usually in bad times, taxes are lowered to increase consumer confidence and spending, and in good times taxes are increased to pay down the debt incurred during the previous period.

[jimibadfish]

i wonder how america existed before we had income tax

The US economy was driven by slaves for about a century. You want to go back to slavery and do away with taxes?

[MistreatedLewis]

The US economy was driven by slaves for about a century. You want to go back to slavery and do away with taxes?

I think deep down in their hearts some people in polisci forum would prefer this. I won't name names.

[jimibadfish]

I think deep down in their hearts some people in polisci forum would prefer this.

Sadly true.

[MistreatedLewis]

Sadly true.

I would bet my life, seriously, on the unprovable belief that had at least a few of the conservatives that post regularly on this site been born in ante-bellum America, they would have supported the continuation of slavery on the basis that outlawing it would kill the American economy, if not for other reasons as well (i.e. fuck the slaves)

[Lcsulla]

I think deep down in their hearts some people in polisci forum would prefer this. I won't name names.

We're just pro-choice on this issue. ;)

[MistreatedLewis]

We're just pro-choice on this issue. ;)

haha, Jamie, I doubt you'd ever be able to convince me that you were pro-anything on slavery, other than pro-abolition

[Lcsulla]

Course not, couldn't resist the crack after our discussion the other day. :)

[Tomato42]

Yes we are still the largest. You can't lump the whole EU together and call that 1 economy.

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348

why not, it is one economy using the same currency

[MistreatedLewis]

why not, it is one economy using the same currency

And they have higher income taxes than we do, chief.

[Tomato42]

er, Europe has higher income taxes than we do... so, your point?

my point is that america was supposed to be different than the rest of the world, and we were at one point, but were fallin off now

[Tomato42]

And they have higher income taxes than we do, chief.

really?

[MistreatedLewis]

my point is that america was supposed to be different than the rest of the world, and we were at one point, but were fallin off now

And this is related to the income tax how because your initial point was about the income tax, not about how America used to be different.

[Tomato42]

The US economy was driven by slaves for about a century. You want to go back to slavery and do away with taxes?

yes, thats what i want to do. how did you know?

[Tomato42]

And this is related to the income tax how because your initial point was about the income tax, not about how America used to be different.

the only reason i brought europe into the discussion was because someone claimed we had the largest economy in the world, but we dont, they do, so i provided a link to disprove his statement. i wasnt saying lets be more like europe

[Tomato42]

How does one fix an economy by lower taxes as both candidates swear to do?

obama swears he will lower taxes :lol

he wants to raise taxes for everyone accept the dirt poor

[MistreatedLewis]

the only reason i brought europe into the discussion was because someone claimed we had the largest economy in the world, but we dont, they do, so i provided a link to disprove his statement. i wasnt saying lets be more like europe

But you were saying that the American economy was ruined / hindered by the income tax. And when someone said no it wasn't because we were the biggest economy, you said it's been hampered because someone has a bigger economy. Except they have higher taxes.

[MistreatedLewis]

obama swears he will lower taxes :lol

he wants to raise taxes for everyone accept the dirt poor

Proof?

[Tomato42]

I think deep down in their hearts some people in polisci forum would prefer this [slavery>high taxes]. I won't name names.

lets get some names poppin!!

[Tomato42]

But you were saying that the American economy was ruined / hindered by the income tax. And when someone said no it wasn't because we were the biggest economy, you said it's been hampered because someone has a bigger economy. Except they have higher taxes.

no i didnt all i said was that his statment was false that we have the worlds largest economy

[Tomato42]

You mean the largest economy in the world? Yes, what has it done?

not anymore

http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/02/12/us-no-longer-worlds-largest-economy.htm

see, all i was saying was that we dont have the worlds largest economy anymore, not offering a reason as to why.

[il bacio dolce]

A good citizen pays his/her taxes. Someone who doesn't may have less respect for government, less of a feeling of obligation to his country. I guess that would make you unpatriotic.

But paying higher taxes, relative to what the average person pays, or relative to what you used to have to pay, that doesn't make you patriotic, that makes you broke. And that probably kills patriotism a little, since people who believe they are giving too much of their money to the government begin to resent their government.


I don't agree with any of the poll options.

[jimibadfish]

yes, thats what i want to do. how did you know?

It was a rhetorical question. The economy was kept afloat during the period when there were no taxes by slaves. So you saying that we made it without taxes for so long is a moot point. ;)

[jimibadfish]

obama swears he will lower taxes :lol

he wants to raise taxes for everyone accept the dirt poor

He actually wants to cut taxes for 95% of the country. And tax the hell out of the rest. GOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

[Tomato42]

It was a rhetorical question. The economy was kept afloat during the period when there were no taxes by slaves. So you saying that we made it without taxes for so long is a moot point. ;)

we obviously cant run our country without any form of taxes.. but we can do away with income tax. im a fan of the flat tax

[Tomato42]

He actually wants to cut taxes for 95% of the country. And tax the hell out of the rest. GOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

thats reall american and good for the economy:BANG

[ShotgunDMB]

He actually wants to cut taxes for 95% of the country. And tax the hell out of the rest. GOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

And yet he's never voted for a tax cut in his life. :lol
But now that he's running for president, he wants to.
And 40% of those in the 95% dont pay any taxes..:freak
Then of course there's the capital gains and death taxes. But yeah, other than that it's all gravy.

[jimibadfish]

we obviously cant run our country without any form of taxes.. but we can do away with income tax. im a fan of the flat tax

That's disgusting.

thats reall american and good for the economy:BANG

I agree.

[jimibadfish]

And yet he's never voted for a tax cut in his life. :lol
But now that he's running for president, he wants to.
And 40% of those in the 95% dont pay any taxes..:freak
Then of course there's the capital gains and death taxes. But yeah, other than that it's all gravy.

The closer we can get to the middle ground between Marx and Smith, the better. Right now, we are about mid way between Smith and the middle.

[TwoStep2888]

He actually wants to cut taxes for 95% of the country. And tax the hell out of the rest. GOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Whenever anyone questions this, show them this chart (http://i33.tinypic.com/10sgn4w.gif).

[ShotgunDMB]

The closer we can get to the middle ground between Marx and Smith, the better. Right now, we are about mid way between Smith and the middle.

Creepy. I think it's funny that the poor people on this board just want a handout, and vote for the person who gives the most to people who barely pay taxes, or don't at all. You self absorbed ninnyhammers.

[TwoStep2888]

Creepy. I think it's funny that the poor people on this board just want a handout, and vote for the person who gives the most to people who barely pay taxes, or don't at all. You self absorbed ninnyhammers.

Really, it's because I cannot bring myself to sympathize with rich people for any reason at all. I've tried, but I just do not care about their problems, or lack thereof.

[Pengin4192]

A good citizen pays his/her taxes. Someone who doesn't may have less respect for government, less of a feeling of obligation to his country. I guess that would make you unpatriotic.

But paying higher taxes, relative to what the average person pays, or relative to what you used to have to pay, that doesn't make you patriotic, that makes you broke. And that probably kills patriotism a little, since people who believe they are giving too much of their money to the government begin to resent their government.


I don't agree with any of the poll options.
People are forced to pay taxes. It doesn't make you a good citizen to do it.

[Pengin4192]

Whenever anyone questions this, show them this chart (http://i33.tinypic.com/10sgn4w.gif).
I don't question his income tax plan. I question his plan for taxes across the board.

[TwoStep2888]

People are forced to pay taxes. It doesn't make you a good citizen to do it.

For a while, people were forced to join the military, and we honor the fuck out of them.

[ShotgunDMB]

Really, it's because I cannot bring myself to sympathize with rich people for any reason at all. I've tried, but I just do not care about their problems, or lack thereof.

Now you know how I feel about poor people.:)

[TwoStep2888]

Now you know how I feel about poor people.:)

Well, there is a difference (poor people actually have problems to deal with, rich people don't have a fucking care in the world by comparison), but ok. You keep supporting your plutocracy. :rolleyes

[ShotgunDMB]

Well, there is a difference (poor people actually have problems to deal with, rich people don't have a fucking care in the world by comparison), but ok. You keep supporting your plutocracy. :rolleyes

Oh, I will.:thumbsup:)