Taxes, are we ready for these new ones?

[iNow]

To paraphrase Phi for All from another recent thread relating to Christians - "Republican Politics: the Truth that's important enough to Lie about."

[Moontanman]

Damn! And to think that we actually agree on something? Amazing!

 

We agree on far more than you think rigney, but you prefer to label me as a left wing nut, I of course label you as a right wing nut, these attitudes of us and them is what drives the lies and insanity... We, as intelligent people, need to stop labeling people because they disagree on some things, a true Centerist wouldn't lean in any direction that was supported by lies and would do their best weed out the bad from the good no matter where it comes from.

 

Accepting something with out question because it supports our world view is a completely human thing to do but it plays into the hands of those that want power at any cost, they have no honor, lies are their bread and butter...

 

To some extent the age old idea that lying is ok if it supports a good cause has been perverted to mean lying is ok if it support our agenda no matter what that agenda is.

 

Socialized medicine works, it's not communist, it doesn't destroy our country from within to allow some measure of social justice. WE, The USA, are a rich country, a global super power, maybe the only one left and yet we lack many basic services other less powerful countries take for granted. Providing education is never a bad thing and always pays off by making ours a better society. Providing roads, police, firefighters, and other forms of unecessary infrastructure is never a bad idea.

 

I have never been opposed to k-12 local government sponsered education.

 

How about higher education? Shouldn't anyone who can make the grades be allowed to rise to their own level of incompetence? Wouldn't society benefit from having more educated people? Even if university isn't your cup of tea vocational training is needed by some, various trades such as electrician and carpenter and many others would improve the lives of many who are economically poor with out giving them the money directly.

 

Education should be of low enough cost that young people can afford to pursue it with out being indebted the rest of their lives...

 

Working people mean more taxes paid and less need to raise taxes, education would mean less young men attracted to gangs because of the feeling of hopelessness in their situation.

 

I want what is best for our country and our world more than i want one side to win over the other...

 

The bottom line is that we must pay taxes to have these things, almost certainly more taxes than we currently pay. I posted a link to a study that showed how low taxes does not contribute to economic success for anyone but the already well off.

 

We have to stop listening to what we want to hear and see what is really going on...

[swansont]

I like pithy statements! Are you telling me that facts are an issue when it comes to politics? PLEASE!

 

Facts matter HERE.

 

And public transportation? i don't recall there ever being such unless you paid your fare.

 

You've never driven on a road or highway?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

To add an official note to swasont's post, rigney, facts do matter when you're posting here. Deliberately posting anything less becomes a matter of soap boxing, which happens to be against our rules.

[rigney]

Public transportation includes public roads and bridges. I'm trying to confirm - what do you think about public roads and bridges? Further, do you support public transportation in the form of government-sponsored buses/etc.?

 

Finally, there are some fare-free examples of public transportation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes

=Uncool-

Piss on a government sponsored anything. "We the people" are the government! Not the assholes we elect who constantly screw it up because we give them that unrstrained privilege.

[Phi for All]

Piss on a government sponsored anything. "We the people" are the government! Not the assholes we elect who constantly screw it up because we give them that unrstrained privilege.

This is why we need to take our government back from the ones pulling the assholes' strings. Restraint in government is called "regulation", and you're right, we need to tighten them up (again), and make sure we never let them get this lax again.

 

Our taxes represent a lot of power, but I personally think this power should be used for us all, and not for profit-based motives. This is money that should be used for the country as a whole, not to fund some trickle-down mess that mostly benefits those at the very top.

[iNow]

 

and also:

 

[uncool]

Piss on a government sponsored anything.

...Including k-12 education?

"We the people" are the government! Not the assholes we elect who constantly screw it up because we give them that unrstrained privilege.

So you're an anarchist then? Because if you don't want the government sponsoring anything, you don't want a government, period.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

...Including k-12 education?

 

So you're an anarchist then? Because if you don't want the government sponsoring anything, you don't want a government, period.

=Uncool-

In my vernacular, if I called you a "fuggin idjit"; would you be offended? As judge Judy would say, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Edited July 20, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

In my vernacular, if I called you a "fuggin idjit"; would you be offended? As judge Judy would say, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I honestly don't care what you call me; it reflects on you more than it reflects on me. However, the question is still there. You said "I have never been opposed to k-12 local government sponsered education." and yet "Piss on a government sponsored anything." Which is it? And further, if "Piss on a government sponsored anything.", how are you anything but an anarchist?

=Uncool-

[rigney]

I honestly don't care what you call me; it reflects on you more than it reflects on me. However, the question is still there. You said "I have never been opposed to k-12 local government sponsered education." and yet "Piss on a government sponsored anything." Which is it? And further, if "Piss on a government sponsored anything.", how are you anything but an anarchist?

=Uncool-

I stand by my statement. Local governments can be scrutenized to some degree, and rarely try passing a law that conflicts with the majority of its people. In many if not most instances, issues that effect the wellbeing of an entire city is taken directly to the people to be voted on. But even in very small cities, graft and corruption may still sneak in when greedy and unscrupulous consciences can be bought. I believe it was Jefferson who said, A government strong enough to give the poeple everything they want, is strong enough to take it all away. That may not be the exact wording, but the meaning is quite evident.

But even with the best of intentions, this latest fireball, the health care plan that was mandated and shoved down the throats of our country by a democratic congress, is not very digestable to most people. Come November we will know if it was the wise thing to do.

No! I am not an anarchist, but a loyal citizen who wants this nation to continue prospering. But there will always be bickering between political parties as there will always be the rich and elite, the lesser levels of wealth, on down to and including the lowest poverty level. Have we done enough to relieve poverty? I've paid my dues and taxes over an entire working career spanning 50 years or more. One of my grandsons, who is hearing impaired; works 70 hrs. a week at two jobs and pays taxes at both. He will likely never become rich or famous, but depends on his own accountability to be independent. And I should worry about some slob sitting on their worthless ass doing nothing and waiting for government handouts? Forget it! Poverty is a situation, not a conditition. The physically and mentally impaired should be taken care of, irregardless. The rest of the sorry hanger on crowd, take a bath and go to McDonalds, either for a $1.oo burger or a job.

Edited July 21, 2012 by rigney

[Joatmon]

I don't know if it is different in the USA to the UK but we are going through a period where very rich people are found to be using various scams to avoid paying much of the taxes due from them. If the very rich paid their dues the country would be in a better financial state.

 

"In an effort to get back on the political front foot over the budget, including its plans to impose a cap on tax reliefs, the Treasury also revealed that of the 200 taxpayers earning more than £10m a year, 12 are paying less than 10% in tax"

.http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/15/treasury-reveals-super-rich-tax-rates

[rigney]

I don't know if it is different in the USA to the UK but we are going through a period where very rich people are found to be using various scams to avoid paying much of the taxes due from them. If the very rich paid their dues the country would be in a better financial state.

 

"In an effort to get back on the political front foot over the budget, including its plans to impose a cap on tax reliefs, the Treasury also revealed that of the 200 taxpayers earning more than £10m a year, 12 are paying less than 10% in tax"

.http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/15/treasury-reveals-super-rich-tax-rates

This is not a blight on any one society or country Joatmon, but on all of us. The penalty for such perpetrators should be no different than that of a kid on the corner pushing crack. Both are criminals with one exception, the kid may get 5 to 10 years in stir. The Big Spender probably gets fined a few million and a slap on the wrist. So, who the hell is the winner? I really don't mind setting a tax level for an enterprise making a bundle at a flat 5%. But when any of them, top to bottom break that trust, send their asses to prison. We don't need a bigger government to alleviate our ailments, but we do need more efficient government control. How many of these bureaucratic stalwarts we elected to protect us are pandering to someone at this very moment? Edited July 21, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

I stand by my statement. Local governments can be scrutenized to some degree, and rarely try passing a law that conflicts with the majority of its people. In many if not most instances, issues that effect the wellbeing of an entire city is taken directly to the people to be voted on. But even in very small cities, graft and corruption may still sneak in when greedy and unscrupulous consciences can be bought.

First, do you really think this doesn't happen in small towns, too? Graft and corruption are everywhere. Period.

I believe it was Jefferson who said, A government strong enough to give the poeple everything they want, is strong enough to take it all away. That may not be the exact wording, but the meaning is quite evident.[/QUOTe]

As it happens, it was Gerald Ford - it's a common misattribution.

But even with the best of intentions, this latest fireball, the health care plan that was mandated and shoved down the throats of our country by a democratic congress, is not very digestable to most people.

Yes, but for very different reasons. Some say that the mandate is a bad thing. Some say that it doesn't go far enough, and would prefer single-payer. That's what compromise looks like. Just saying that most people disagree with it is a bad metric.

Come November we will know if it was the wise thing to do.

No! I am not an anarchist, but a loyal citizen who wants this nation to continue prospering. But there will always be bickering between political parties as there will always be the rich and elite, the lesser levels of wealth, on down to and including the lowest poverty level. Have we done enough to relieve poverty? I've paid my dues and taxes over an entire working career spanning 50 years or more. One of my grandsons, who is hearing impaired; works 70 hrs. a week at two jobs and pays taxes at both. He will likely never become rich or famous, but depends on his own accountability to be independent. And I should worry about some slob sitting on their worthless ass doing nothing and waiting for government handouts? Forget it! Poverty is a situation, not a conditition. The physically and mentally impaired should be taken care of, irregardless. The rest of the sorry hanger on crowd, take a bath and go to McDonalds, either for a $1.oo burger or a job.

And yet there are also those who have gone to McDonalds and have found that there are no jobs available. There are those who have searched for jobs and found that there are none. You are taking a single stereotype of poverty and assuming that it applies to all, and by doing so trivializing the problem of the poor in this country. You have latched onto one of the "pithy phrases". There are people who are poor who have no other choice than to be poor. So no, in my opinion, we have not done enough to relieve poverty.

=Uncool-

Edited July 21, 2012 by uncool

[rigney]

First, do you really think this doesn't happen in small towns, too? Graft and corruption are everywhere. Period.

 

As it happens, it was Gerald Ford - it's a common misattribution.

 

Yes, but for very different reasons. Some say that the mandate is a bad thing. Some say that it doesn't go far enough, and would prefer single-payer. That's what compromise looks like. Just saying that most people disagree with it is a bad metric.

 

And yet there are also those who have gone to McDonalds and have found that there are no jobs available. There are those who have searched for jobs and found that there are none. You are taking a single stereotype of poverty and assuming that it applies to all, and by doing so trivializing the problem of the poor in this country. You have latched onto one of the "pithy phrases". There are people who are poor who have no other choice than to be poor. So no, in my opinion, we have not done enough to relieve poverty.

=Uncool-

Christ! i'm not trying to perpetuate an argument, but an understanding of some sort. As i stated, my grandson spent the past 3 years in Denver doing odd jobs, but came back to Cleveland, Oh. a few months ago looking for something better. Hearing impaired, we all chipped in to get him some "cookie bite" correcting hearing aids. I don't know how, but he manages two jobs and classes through Phoenix. He is not an Arnold Swazanager or a Tom Hanks and most likely never to be an Einstein, but the kid has "balls. i'll not argue semantics over whether McDonalds have jobs or not, but was this grandson of mine just lucky enough to find 2 "descent" paying jobs almost simultaneously? Edited July 21, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

Christ! i'm not trying to perpetuate an argument, but an understanding of some sort. As i stated, my grandson spent the past 3 years in Denver doing odd jobs, but came back to Cleveland, Oh. a few months ago looking for something better. Hearing impaired, we all chipped in to get him some "cookie bite" correcting hearing aids. I don't know how, but he manages two jobs and classes through Phoenix. He is not an Arnold Swazanager or a Tom Hanks and most likely never to be an Einstein, but the kid has "balls. i'll not argue semantics over whether McDonalds have jobs or not, but was this grandson of mine just lucky enough to find 2 "descent" jobs almost simotaneously?

Given that you're posting on this forum, you're more connected than most. He had an advantage to start with - which came from you. So yes, to a certain extent, he was lucky that he was born into a family that could support him the way you do. Many people aren't.

 

The point I'm trying to get across is that your description of what government does - helping the lazy - is a much smaller part of what government does than you think. The government is what made it possible your grandson to move from Denver to Cleveland within a few hours - because it supplied the roads, bridges, trains, and the repairs on same, and what supported research into aviation. Not just that, but it was the federal government which did that - local governments wouldn't have enough influence, and wouldn't be able to bring the roads together in the way the federal government did.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

Given that you're posting on this forum, you're more connected than most. He had an advantage to start with - which came from you. So yes, to a certain extent, he was lucky that he was born into a family that could support him the way you do. Many people aren't.

 

The point I'm trying to get across is that your description of what government does - helping the lazy - is a much smaller part of what government does than you think. The government is what made it possible your grandson to move from Denver to Cleveland within a few hours - because it supplied the roads, bridges, trains, and the repairs on same, and what supported research into aviation. Not just that, but it was the federal government which did that - local governments wouldn't have enough influence, and wouldn't be able to bring the roads together in the way the federal government did.

=Uncool-

I cannot disagree more. If you look into our constitution even a bit you will find: Of the people by the people and for the people. Government is only brought about through taxation. A Government on any level can be a powerful and proud thing if done correctly. But a pariah if done improperly. Government is set up by the people to encompass an entire nation, not to placate pork barrel cry babies with cash in their pockets that influence the powers that be. It's not a new game, but it could become an end game unless we are very careful.

[uncool]

I cannot disagree more.

With what, specifically, are you disagreeing? Are you saying that the government isn't what made it possible for those roads and bridges to be constructed? Are you saying that most of what the federal government is doing is helping lazy people?

If you look into our constitution even a bit you will find: Of the people by the people and for the people.

Actually, that's from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution. The Constitution has "We the people of the Unites States, in order to ..."

Government is only brought about through taxation.

And your point is?

A Government on any level can be a powerful and proud thing if done correctly. But a pariah if done improperly. Government is set up by the people to encompass an entire nation, not to placate pork barrel cry babies with cash in their pockets that influence the powers that be. It's not a new game, but it could become an end game unless we are very careful.

What, precisely, does the above have to do with what I posted? It seems that the only way it could be connected to my post is if it is claiming that most of what the government does is line the pockets of "lazy people" - which you term "pork barrel cry babies". And that is by far one of the smaller things that the government does.

=Uncool-

Edited July 21, 2012 by uncool

[swansont]

In my vernacular, if I called you a "fuggin idjit"; would you be offended? As judge Judy would say, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

I think it's pretty clear who's being the "fuggin idjit" here, and who is doing the pissing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Let's keep the comments less insulting, please. That goes for everyone.

[rigney]

I think it's pretty clear who's being the "fuggin idjit" here, and who is doing the pissing.

It's quite alright for him to accuse me of being an anarchist, but for me to question how he would feel if I pictured him in a deregotory manner, you jump to defend like a momma bear and quickly throw a bomb in the ring. Shame on you Mr.Inturlocator. Edited July 22, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

It's quite alright for him to accuse me of being an anarchist

 

It's not much of an accusation if you apply the definition of the word used to yourself before the word is used.

[uncool]

It's quite alright for him to accuse me of being an anarchist,

First, it wasn't an accusation; it was asking you how what you said was anything someone who wasn't an anarchist would say. Second, it wasn't an accusation because being an anarchist is not bad. It just did not fit with how you've described yourself before. Anarchists (or at least, a large section of anarchists) believe that a government as a monopoly on force is inherently evil, which corresponds greatly with what you've said. There is a great deal of anarchist theory. I am not an anarchist, but I do respect them, and your statement is exactly the statement an anarchist would make.

but for me to question how he would feel if I pictured him in a deregotory manner[/QUOTe]

It was not equivalent because 1) I demonstrated the exact basis of my question - if you don't like anything the government does, that seems to me to make you an anarchist, and 2) what I asked was not an insult, but a question that highlighted what appeared to me to be an incongruity.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

First, it wasn't an accusation; it was asking you how what you said was anything someone who wasn't an anarchist would say. Second, it wasn't an accusation because being an anarchist is not bad. It just did not fit with how you've described yourself before. Anarchists (or at least, a large section of anarchists) believe that a government as a monopoly on force is inherently evil, which corresponds greatly with what you've said. There is a great deal of anarchist theory. I am not an anarchist, but I do respect them, and your statement is exactly the statement an anarchist would make.

 

It was not equivalent because 1) I demonstrated the exact basis of my question - if you don't like anything the government does, that seems to me to make you an anarchist, and 2) what I asked was not an insult, but a question that highlighted what appeared to me to be an incongruity.

=Uncool-

Unfortunately I am likely to stand being corrected on many of my statements. The one about no government was meant to apply to our present regime. To me, they have done nothing but devide this country to its limit. To ram the latest health care bill through congress, I believe was an insult to most people. Especially the way former house leader Pelosi approached it. Well, if you want to understand it, you'll have to read it, and that with a big smile; if you recall. Very endearing. The jefferson thing? I took it from selectable quotes he supposedly made. The, of people, for people and by people, I totally screwed it up. And I didn't call you that unmentionable, I merely asked what if I had? Swans on T summarily straightened me out on that one. And the poverty issue, this is the type I was and am referring to. This video was done by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy's daughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2kGPdxkofo

Edited July 22, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

It's quite alright for him to accuse me of being an anarchist, but for me to question how he would feel if I pictured him in a deregotory manner, you jump to defend like a momma bear and quickly throw a bomb in the ring. Shame on you Mr.Inturlocator.

 

If you refuse to explain the whys and wherefores of your position, you risk others having to guess. Then when they do, you get upset. No, shame on you. How about actually answering some questions, instead of tap-dancing? What, exactly, is your beef in all of this? Thus far, hints you've made have turned out to be based on falsehoods.