PDA

View Full Version : Liberal media bias re: tax cuts



Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2003, 06:15 AM
<font color="blue">This is from www.mrc.org (http://www.mrc.org) an admittedly conservative media watchdog group. They chronicle liberal media bias....Wally</font color>
=================================================


A bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous,
quotes in the liberal media.

June 9, 2003
(Vol. Sixteen; No. 12)

Bush’s “Cruel” War on the Poor

“Bush promised a foreign policy of humility and a domestic policy of compassion. He has given us a foreign policy of arrogance and a domestic policy that is cynical, myopic and cruel.”
– Time’s Joe Klein in a June 9 column in the magazine.

“It took a billionaire, Warren Buffett, to point out that the Bush tax plan was ‘class warfare.’ Too many of the rest of us have acted as if the Bush administration’s severe tilt toward the rich was an opinion instead of a fact.”
– Jonathan Alter in “Whacking the Waitresses, and the other effects of George W. Bush’s war on the poor,” posted May 30 on Newsweek’s section of MSNBC.com.

Where’s Tax Cut for Non-payers?

“Millions of U.S. taxpayers won’t get the rebate they were expecting....It turns out the tax cut the President just signed will not help many who need help the most.”
– CBS Evening News fill-in anchor Jane Clayson, May 29.

Peter Jennings: “We’re going to begin here in Washington tonight because now that the President’s tax cut has become law and people thought the dust of debate had settled here, it turns out that a whole lot of people in the country who could use the money are not going to get it....”
Linda Douglass: “One group of taxpayers was cut out of this legislation at the last minute, and that was low-income working families with children.”
– ABC’s World News Tonight, May 29.

<font color="blue">'cause they don't pay income taxes Linda. Geez...Wally</font color>

Tom Brokaw: “What could be an embarrassing omission in his tax cut package: Families making between $10,000 and $26,000 a year come up short....”
Campbell Brown: “At the signing ceremony yesterday, the President lauded the tax cut bill for how much it will help families. An increase in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000, the President promising the check is in the mail.... But not for families making the minimum wage....Children’s advocate groups, who estimate about 11.5 million kids will be denied the benefit, today voiced outrage at the administration and Congress.”
– NBC Nightly News, May 29.


Clift Must Not Watch TV News

“How much can Bush get away with before the public and the media hold him accountable?”
– Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift in a May 30 Web-only column.

ABC’s Omission: Tax Cut’s “Big Winners” Most Hurt by Tax Code

“Big winners are rich people and families with children.... The top five percent of taxpayers would get more than half of the benefits from the tax cut. Those who make between $100,000 and $200,000 would get a tax cut of more than $2,500 on their income alone. Those between $500,000 and a million dollars would get an average income tax cut of $17,324.”
– ABC’s Linda Douglass on the May 22 World News Tonight. Douglass did not reveal that the top five percent of taxpayers account for 56 percent of all federal income taxes even though they earn only 35 percent of income.


Punishing Poor Little Children

“Something got screwed up in terms of your priorities if you think it’s more important to get rid of the dividend tax than it is to take care of 11 million kids.”
– Washington Post reporter and columnist David Broder on NBC’s Meet the Press, June 1.

“It’s the richest Americans – the top one percent – who get the lion’s share of the tax cuts, people like Secretary of the Treasury John Snow, [and] Vice President Dick Cheney ....Eleven million children in families with incomes roughly between $10,000 and $26,000 a year will not be getting the check that was supposed to be in the mail this summer. <font color="red">Eleven million children punished for being poor, even as the rich are rewarded for being rich.”</font color> <font color="blue">LOL This makes me laugh. Ha ha ! Bill Moyers is a pants-wetting, guilt-ridden dope...IMO /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif.....Wally</font color>
– Bill Moyers on his PBS newsmagazine Now, May 30.

“Is it fair to say that the White House...at the end of the day thought that to make progress, the benefit for these 11.9 million children should go in order to, in part, save the dividend benefit for investors?...I just want to make sure that you are saying that the White House agreed to make the choice to leave these children behind.”
– ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the May 29 briefing.


Big Government Is Starving

“The majority of the money goes to people who probably already have everything they need....Plus, it raises serious questions about social equity. I mean, who paves the streets that we drove here on? Who teaches the kids to read?...It’s <font color="red">starving the government of money that it could use to do a lot of things.”</font color> <font color="blue"> OMG I'm cracking up...Wally</font color>
– ABC’s Michel Martin on This Week, May 25.


Reporter Rues U.S. Imperialism...

“I want to speak to you today about war and empire.... We are embarking on an occupation that if history is any guide will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige and power and security....We have forfeited the goodwill, the empathy the world felt for us after 9/11, we have folded in on ourselves....We are far less secure today than we were before we bumbled into Iraq. We will pay for this, but what saddens me most is that those who will by and large pay the highest price are poor kids from Mississippi or Alabama or Texas who could not get a decent job or health insurance and joined the army because it was all we offered them.”
– New York Times reporter Chris Hedges in a May 17 commencement address at Rockford College in Illinois. The graduates booed Hedges off the stage

<font color="blue">Sounds like there's some smart kids out there in Chris Cass country /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif</font color>

Qtec
06-13-2003, 06:22 AM
Wally ,over here everybody pays tax . Why dont low income working people pay taxes ?

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2003, 07:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Wally ,over here everybody pays tax . Why dont low income working people pay taxes ?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Over the years politicians, both Dem. and Rep. have lessened the income tax burden on lower income folks, so they don't get lambasted by the New York Times and the liberal media for being "cruel"

Meanwhile they raise taxes on gasoline (probably at about 60 or 80 cents a gallon now) cigarettes (about $1.50 a pack, more in New York) and alchohol, which ends up being a regressive tax on the poor that's worse than any income tax could be. Plus the sales tax (6% or higher). Then they sell those stupid lottery tickets which takes what little remaining money the poor folks have left. Yeah politicians love the poor. They talk nice to their face and then stab them in the back.

Qtec
06-13-2003, 07:44 AM
Several people have indicated that some people pay no taxes. Is that true .
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2003, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Several people have indicated that some people pay no taxes. Is that true .
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Everybody pays some form of taxes. Some people pay no income taxes. Repeat... income taxes.

Qtec
06-13-2003, 08:07 AM
Thats what i meant . Income taxes . How is that possible ?

Q

eg8r
06-13-2003, 09:29 AM
Yes it is true. In all the past discussions here on tax it is implied that we are referring to Income Tax.

There is a large portion of Americans that do not pay Income tax.

eg8r

eg8r
06-13-2003, 09:31 AM
The tax burden is removed if you don't make enough money. If you are making minimum wage or a little more you are probably not paying in income taxes. What little income taxes that are removed from your paycheck are given back during tax time.

eg8r

Qtec
06-13-2003, 12:41 PM
AHA. Now we are getting somewhere. The minimum wage is kept artificialy low .

If they had to pay income tax , would that mean that employers would have to pay more. ??
If this is so, it doesnt mean the people dont want to pay income tax.
Exclusion from taxes wasnt to help low income earners. It was just another "quick fix' to help the employers.

Q

eg8r
06-13-2003, 01:07 PM
LOL, this last post cracks me up. I wonder sometimes if you are really wasting your time trying to think this stuff up. You tell me how a person flipping burgers is worth $6.15/hr. It is impossible.

I am not trying to put down burger flippers as I was one for about 2 years (I was making $3.50/hr). During that time, I was also a grocery bagger and a concession stand employee. I was working all 3 jobs to pay for my bills. I only had 3 jobs because it was tough getting hours at any 1 of them alone. Difference was that I was working my tail off to pay my own way. Not so that I could make enough to pay income taxes.

One thing you are correct, raising minimum wage is a burden on the employer. I am not sure what you mean by quick fix.

[ QUOTE ]
If they had to pay income tax , would that mean that employers would have to pay more. ??
If this is so, it doesnt mean the people dont want to pay income tax. <hr /></blockquote> What is this supposed to mean. Are you trying to tell me that the people in your country DO want to pay taxes. Wrong, and a pitiful argument. No, they still do not want to pay taxes. A persons intent to get a better paying job is not so that the person will then be paying taxes, it is to make more money. Get off the cigs they are doing something to you logic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
06-13-2003, 01:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> AHA. Now we are getting somewhere. The minimum wage is kept artificialy low .

If they had to pay income tax , would that mean that employers would have to pay more. ??
If this is so, it doesnt mean the people dont want to pay income tax.
Exclusion from taxes wasnt to help low income earners. It was just another "quick fix' to help the employers.

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

Dude you come up with the most twisted logic /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Ross
06-13-2003, 03:31 PM
Point 1:

Liberal bias or not, the trends in income and wealth in the US are pretty clear:

Percent of US wealth held by quintile (richest 20%, next richest 20%, ... bottom 20%) over the years. Negative number indicates net debt.

Wealth 1962* 1983* 1989* 1995* 1997
Top___ 81.0* 81.3* 83.5 83.7* 84.3*
Fourth 13.4* 12.6* 12.3* 11.5* 10.8*
Third_ 05.4* 05.2* 04.8* 04.5* 04.4*
Second 00.9* 01.2* 00.8* 00.9* 01.0*
Bottom_ -0.7* -0.3* -1.5* -0.7* -0.5*

Percent of Total US income by quintiles over the years:

Income 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997
Top___ 43.0 40.4 41.4 41.5 43.8 47.2
Fourth 23.1 23.8 23.5 24.2 24.0 23.0
Third_ 17.0 18.1 17.5 17.5 16.8 15.7
Second 11.9 12.7 12.2 11.6 10.7 09.9
Bottom 05.0 05.1 05.4 05.2 04.6 04.2

Point 2:
true: most people who don't work and waste their money are poor. welfare is not the solution for this group.

not true: most poor people don't work and waste their money.

Some of the posts imply the second statement, which is not correct. Most poor are working mothers.

Point 3:
not true: most of the rich are rich because they worked harder and smarter than others
true: most of the rich are rich because they chose a business career instead of say, teaching, nursing, farming, carpentry, policeman, etc...

Point 4:
6.15/hr = $12,300/year income before taxes or $900 or so/month take home after SS, disability, etc.

average rent in southwest US for 1 bedroom apt in 2001 = $648
2 bedroom = $800
average cost of groceries for 1 person = $180 /month
with 1 child = $300/month
cost of gasoline (12k/yr, 1.50/gal, 20 mi. gallon) = $75/month
health insurance if self-employed or not covered by employer = $350+ /month
of course there will also be some combination of auto repair costs, nonncovered medical expenses, possibly educational costs (say night school), entertainment

Questions:

After doing the math, can you tell me with a straight face: $6.25/hr is a living wage for an adult, and in fact, this person should pay income taxes.

Do you think the increasing disparity in wealth and income between the poorest and the richest is a good thing?

Is it possible that one benefit of a reasonable (not-incentive killing) progressive tax system is that it corrects some of the more extreme income and wealth disparities that are naturally arise in a free market system? That it actually restores more fairness to the system?

eg8r
06-13-2003, 04:40 PM
What is the point of point 1. It is widely known that the top few percent make the most, I don't think anyone is questioning this.

Point 2...Yes they do waste money. Don't be fooled into believing they are all responsible and pay all bills. They are still purchasing their cigs and beer.

I agree with point 3 however there is more to it than stated. Not only did they choose careers with a chance to earn a lot of money, they actually had to work to get their paycheck. Work hard to get into management. Just because a person chooses a career does not mean they are successful in that endeavor.

Point 4. I do not see any mention of the welfare checks that are paying for groceries. You mention health insurance, however lets be realistic are these people paying for health insurance or getting free medicare (by either just walking into the hospital or going to community care centers). You listed entertainment at the very end. I would suspect if you are in this dire need, then you are not wise if spending money on entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]
After doing the math, can you tell me with a straight face: $6.25/hr is a living wage for an adult, and in fact, this person should pay income taxes. <font color="blue"> No, I don't think it is a good living wage, that is why there are more opportunities to work more jobs. </font color>

Do you think the increasing disparity in wealth and income between the poorest and the richest is a good thing?
<font color="blue"> Nope. Now how do you solve the problem with out stealing my money and giving it to the poor. I think everyone is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If I make a sound decision to get an education and work my butt off and save money and enjoy the finer things in life, I do not think it is right to give that money to some single mother on welfare, who for a year sat around and got pregnant because it is "HER RIGHT" to have sex. Are there other situations, sure, but there are plenty of the one I described. </font color>
Is it possible that one benefit of a reasonable (not-incentive killing) progressive tax system is that it corrects some of the more extreme income and wealth disparities that are naturally arise in a free market system? That it actually restores more fairness to the system? <font color="blue"> You use the word "corrects" I like to use the word steal. We are not correcting anything becuase when it is all said and done, and that individual spent my tax dollars what is changed. They still decide to not go out and get a second job instead they rather sit around and have more kids. Hey, more kids means more welfare tax subsidies. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

I will ask again, Why should a person that does not pay in taxes, receive a tax break?

You cannot answer it. What about if you walk into Best Buy and they are offering $400 cash back if you purchase a computer and go with the online service offered. Do you think it would be prudent for you to walk up to the counter and ask for you $400 and "Oh-by the way" you will not be buying a computer. You feel you need to even the score with the rest of the shoppers. If they get it you get. I don't think so. This type of crap does not happen in the real world, only in Washington.

eg8r

cheesemouse
06-13-2003, 06:09 PM
Good one..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
06-13-2003, 07:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Dude you come up with the most twisted logic

Walnutty in hillbillyland <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Wally /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Qtec
06-13-2003, 08:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One thing you are correct, raising minimum wage is a burden on the employer. I am not sure what you mean by quick fix.

<hr /></blockquote>
Instead of paying a decent minimum wage and letting people pay more tax [ more money = more tax paid ] ,the Govt hands back tax to the low earner .
The tax payer is susidising the employer .
When there is a tax rebate ,the low earner will get little or nothing back. With this method the low earner will always be underpaid. This is why you can use that "you cant get tax back that you didnt pay in " phrase that you love to say.

The only person that benefits is the employer.

You are always telling us that you want more control over your own money , but you love to tell 'poor people' how they should be spending theirs. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Q

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 08:42 PM
I vote for Ross for president! Great post. You nailed it dude. Minimum wage sucks, it is nothing, and these welfare people are the ones that would be working these minimum wage jobs, and then having to pay for child care on top of all of the other expenses they have.

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 10:27 PM
I don't think that stereotyping is a valid base to argue from. Sure, some of these welfare recipients are going to squander the money. That is easy to anticipate, it's almost human nature. But the fact is, not all people on welfare squander the money.

eg8r
06-14-2003, 06:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of paying a decent minimum wage and letting people pay more tax [ more money = more tax paid ] ,the Govt hands back tax to the low earner .
The tax payer is susidising the employer .
When there is a tax rebate ,the low earner will get little or nothing back. With this method the low earner will always be underpaid. This is why you can use that "you cant get tax back that you didnt pay in " phrase that you love to say.

The only person that benefits is the employer.
<hr /></blockquote> I guess if my motive was to blame GW for everything wrong in the land today I would be able to cloud my mind like you have done. This is the funniest logic in the world. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous. I guess we should raise minimum wage to $10 an hour. Quite foolish and would really have a good chance of ruining a lot of companies. If this was to happen to minimum wage, then what happens to the wages for those making more than minimum wage? Do they go up as astronomically high as you would like for minimum wage? The idea is foolish. Another problem, is that minimum wage is usually paid to part time jobs and my guess is those are for students. It makes no sense to pay a burger flipper more than minimum wage. They have no skills (contrary to some critism it takes no skills to flip burgers) why should they get paid like they do have skills.

You logic that government is out to get the worker and beef up the employer is crazy. I cannot wait to see what your fuzzy logic does when a president is elected that you like. I bet then the government will not be trying to help the employers, while nothing will have changed. Your dislike for the current administration is really clouding your head.

As for the line I like to use...Answer it.

[ QUOTE ]
You are always telling us that you want more control over your own money , but you love to tell 'poor people' how they should be spending theirs <hr /></blockquote> I know you meant well with this quote but once again your clouded head has gotten in the way of thinking. I have only stated that I wanted more control over my money when referring to income taxes that I have paid in (and SS) not more control of money that I have available to spend. This would be the money that I don't get that goes to welfare people. For some reason you have just tried to compare my tax dollars paid to someone else that is spending their regular income (not tax). Kind of hard to make that correlation.

eg8r

eg8r
06-14-2003, 07:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You nailed it dude. Minimum wage sucks, it is nothing, and these welfare people are the ones that would be working these minimum wage jobs, and then having to pay for child care on top of all of the other expenses they have. <hr /></blockquote> He nailed what? Minimum wage is not a set amount to support a family. What are you thinking? When deciding to raise minimum wage, a family with a child is not the deciding factor. You are right you cannot support a family on minimum wage. My question to you, why are starting a family if a minimum wage job is the best you can do for yourself. You are only setting your child up to deal with lifes hardships because you made poor decisions in your life. You are punishing your children by these same positions.

If you are working a minimum wage job as an adult (not including people that have been laid off due to lay-offs and the such) then you have failed yourself. Go get an education/trade and help yourself. There is plenty of financial aid to cover the school and books, so go learn plumbing. I know plenty of people without college educations that have done absolutely wonderful for themselves as laborers (construction, lawns services, etc). They did not spend the money on education instead they decided to go work. A lot of the adults you see working at McDs tend to have a chip on their shoulder. They somehow beleive they "deserve" better. Sorry contrary to what they learned in government middle school, in real life there are no freebies.

eg8r

eg8r
06-14-2003, 07:10 AM
I believe stereotyping fits pretty well. Where will you find the majority of people on welfare? Go there and take a look at the place. Is there graffiti all over the walls? Are there cig butts laying all over the place? Are there beer bottles everywhere?

I think stereotyping captures a large enough sample to make a decent conclusion as to what the majority are doing. You are right, there are some that are gems and will get themselves and their families off welfare but there are just too many that are happy with status quo.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-14-2003, 08:16 AM
Ok, fine just discontinue saying that ALL of them act that way. Change it to "most of them", as that is a better fit.

About the wage/employment issue, alright then how come I don't see you out there giving free seminars to these people about how to do better for themselves? Are you actually doing anything to change the situation? Or are you simply sitting around and being cynical about it? If you aren't willing to make an effort then I don't see the point in obsessing over the problem.

eg8r
06-14-2003, 09:44 AM
Nope you don't see me out doing seminars. When I am here, I am relaxing from a tiring day at work. I spend my time working and bettering my personal life. I don't have a calling for helping those that do not help themselves.

The ones that get out of welfare never needed a seminar, they went to work. The ones that stay on welfare probably do not want a change they are fine with status quo, or they are unmotivated, or...maybe everyone else out there is just lucky. You tell me.

eg8r

Qtec
06-14-2003, 10:03 AM
Again, you dont answer the questions i ask. Why?

GW is the President. The buck stops here.. Remember that ?

You seem to think that questioning GW is BLASPHEMY. Why?

You think EVERYBODY is like you or should be. The FACTS are that we are all different. We are not all born with the same advantages. In AMERICA all people are NOT born equal .eg,GW, JW and daddy BUSH. Not everybody can become President. Intelligence seems to be a limiting factor. [ certaimly on the Rebuplican side] .

First you complain that people are not working . Then they have to work 2 jobs because they cant earn enough because they are too stupid . Do you hear yourself ?

You say "go to where the poor people live and you will see bottles and garbage and people smoking .

WELL HELLO. WECOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

Do you think a black kid with average intelligent, with all this crap outside his door has an equal chance?
He has more chance of a bullet through the head than he has of going to college. THATS A FACT.
Correct me if i am wrong , but i read that the biggest cause of death for blacks under 25 yrs, in these area,s , is the bullet .

We are not all the same . Thank God.!

If you cant see the world through anybody,s eyes other than your own , you are blind.

Do you call yourself a Christian ?


Q

Qtec
06-14-2003, 10:49 AM
In a civilised society it is accepted that people will earn more or less depending on there skills.
What matters is that everyone makes a contribution for the COMMON good. In your 40 hours you will earn more or less than somebody else. Why should less fortunate people be forced to work 80 hours just to survive .
The money is there.
It is just a matter of priorities and greed.

Q.

Ross
06-14-2003, 11:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> What is the point of point 1. It is widely known that the top few percent make the most, I don't think anyone is questioning this.

<font color="blue"> Anything else you notice in the numbers? Take a moment to look at them. </font color>

Point 2... They do waste money. Don't be fooled into believing they are all responsible and pay all bills. They are still purchasing their cigs and beer.

<font color="blue"> Eg8r, eg8r, eg8r... why can't you allow yourself to take in the fact that being poor is not synonymous with being "a lazy, beer-guzzling, chain-smoking, baby-making welfare leech on society."

Many of the poor are not on welfare and never have been. Many of them work full time jobs. Some are farmers. Many don't smoke or drink. Most don't have college educations, but not everyone is cut out intellectually for college. Some are people who are going through temporary hard times due to layoffs, divorce, health problems, etc.

Also, again, all single mothers are not irresponsible women who did not think before getting pregnant. Over half of ALL US marriages end in divorce. If there are any children in the family when divorce occurs, it is almost always the mother who is left with child-rearing responsibilities as well as the responsibility for earning a living. Greater enforcement of child-support has helped this situation. But some dads don't make that much themselves, and some others still manage to avoid their responsibilities altogether. Meanwhile day care costs are often unaffordable on the salaries available to a woman without a college education. </font color>

I agree with point 3 however there is more to it than stated. Not only did they choose careers with a chance to earn a lot of money, they actually had to work to get their paycheck. Work hard to get into management.
<font color="blue">What?! This is such an unfair statement. You don't think people in the non-business sector work hard? My grandfather, who was a farmer, worked as hard or harder than any business owner or CEO anywhere. When I had a brief hospitilization last year, I talked to a nurse who worked two nursing jobs and averaged over 80 hours per week. She often worked 16 hour days 10 or more days in a row, and she had two teenagers she was raising. When I was a youth soccer coach and we used to travel to play in other states, it wasn't typically the business owner parents who couldn't make it or had to bring work with them. It was the teachers, who would almost always have grading they had to do over the weekend. </font color>

Just because a person chooses a career does not mean they are successful in that endeavor.
<font color="blue">That comment is a non-sequitor. No one was talking about unsuccessful policemen, teachers, etc. You still haven't disputed my point that whether or not you are rich is largely determined by whether or not you decide to go into a business field, not whether you work hard or smart.
More directly stated:
work hard and smart and fortunate timing in the business world = multimillionaire
work hard and smart and fortunate timing as a nurse, teacher, policeman, factory worker, mailman, carpenter, plumber, ... = promotions, but not rich </font color>

Point 4. I do not see any mention of the welfare checks that are paying for groceries.


<font color="blue">Yes, because most full-time minimum wage workers are not on food stamps. </font color>

You mention health insurance, however lets be realistic are these people paying for health insurance or getting free medicare (by either just walking into the hospital or going to community care centers).

<font color="blue">You are the one that isn't living in the real world. I've known many uninsured who have had health problems that haven't gone to the doctor because they can't afford it. It is true that no one is turned away at public hospitals, but you are still billed for those services no matter how poor you are (most areas do not have "free clinics" for general health problems). They will work out a plan where you can send in so much per month from your meager paycheck.
</font color>

You listed entertainment at the very end. I would suspect if you are in this dire need, then you are not wise if spending money on entertainment.

<font color="blue">If you are a single mom, you don't think you might want to pay for your kid to go to a movie sometime? </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
After doing the math, can you tell me with a straight face: $6.25/hr is a living wage for an adult, and in fact, this person should pay income taxes. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>No, I don't think it is a good living wage, that is why there are more opportunities to work more jobs. <hr /></blockquote>

Do you think the increasing disparity in wealth and income between the poorest and the richest is a good thing?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Nope. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">Well at least we agree one thing! </font color>
Now how do you solve the problem with out stealing my money and giving it to the poor.
<font color="blue">Steal it from the rich and give it to you and the poor? /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif </font color>
I think everyone is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If I make a sound decision to get an education and work my butt off and save money and enjoy the finer things in life, I do not think it is right to give that money to some single mother on welfare, who for a year sat around and got pregnant because it is "HER RIGHT" to have sex. Are there other situations, sure, but there are plenty of the one I described. </font color>

<font color="blue"> You finally acknowledge that there are other situations. These situations are people, and there are literally millions of them in the US. </font color>
Is it possible that one benefit of a reasonable (not-incentive killing) progressive tax system is that it corrects some of the more extreme income and wealth disparities that are naturally arise in a free market system? That it actually restores more fairness to the system? <font color="blue"> You use the word "corrects" I like to use the word steal. We are not correcting anything becuase when it is all said and done, and that individual spent my tax dollars what is changed. They still decide to not go out and get a second job instead they rather sit around and have more kids. Hey, more kids means more welfare tax subsidies. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

I will ask again, Why should a person that does not pay in taxes, receive a tax break?

<font color="blue">Ask George Bush. Last I heard he supported extending the break to the lower income families. By the way some of the way, some of these families do pay some taxes, I believe. </font color>

You cannot answer it. What about if you walk into Best Buy and they are offering $400 cash back if you purchase a computer and go with the online service offered. Do you think it would be prudent for you to walk up to the counter and ask for you $400 and "Oh-by the way" you will not be buying a computer. You feel you need to even the score with the rest of the shoppers. If they get it you get. I don't think so. This type of crap does not happen in the real world, only in Washington.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Yeah, it would be as stupid as paying gigantic agribusinesses money not to grow crops. Oh, wait, we do that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>

eg8r
06-14-2003, 12:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, eg8r, eg8r... why can't you allow yourself to take in the fact that being poor is not synonymous with being "a lazy, beer-guzzling, chain-smoking, baby-making welfare leech on society." <hr /></blockquote> While not too clear, I am referring to the majority of the people on welfare, not poor. While some of the poor are included in the welfare, I most of the time am not referring to them. I am referring to the leeches of welfare most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the poor are not on welfare and never have been. Many of them work full time jobs. Some are farmers. Many don't smoke or drink. Most don't have college educations, but not everyone is cut out intellectually for college. Some are people who are going through temporary hard times due to layoffs, divorce, health problems, etc. <hr /></blockquote> I do not consider a person poor because they have little to no money due to a temporary hard times because of a layoff. I also have stated before I do not have any issues with them. Many don't smoke or drink...ha, many DO smoke and drink.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, again, all single mothers are not irresponsible women who did not think before getting pregnant. Over half of ALL US marriages end in divorce. If there are any children in the family when divorce occurs, it is almost always the mother who is left with child-rearing responsibilities as well as the responsibility for earning a living. Greater enforcement of child-support has helped this situation. But some dads don't make that much themselves, and some others still manage to avoid their responsibilities altogether. Meanwhile day care costs are often unaffordable on the salaries available to a woman without a college education. <hr /></blockquote> I never said all mothers. Quit putting words in my mouth. I am referring to the single mothers that have been on welfare and continue to have babies because it is their "right" to have sex. I wonder how many mothers appreciate your blanket statement that all mothers that went through divorce are "left" with the child rearing responsibilities. Real nice statement yourself. A lot of those mothers fight for the opportunity to continue raising those children. When my argument comes into play is when that mother accepts welfare and then gets pregnant again while accepting welfare.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I agree with point 3 however there is more to it than stated. Not only did they choose careers with a chance to earn a lot of money, they actually had to work to get their paycheck. Work hard to get into management.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> What?! This is such an unfair statement. You don't think people in the non-business sector work hard? My grandfather, who was a farmer...<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> You are trying to read into what I posted and got offended because you have a grandfather that worked hard. Get past it and think about what I was saying...Your original post said... [ QUOTE ]
true: most of the rich are rich because they chose a business career instead of say, teaching, nursing, farming, carpentry, policeman, etc... <hr /></blockquote> You stated that they chose a business career instead of the others listed. I simply stated by choosing a career in business does not make you wealthy. Get real. Like I said before, you still have to work hard to make the money. I am not downing the other industries, you chose to exclude them not me. I know plenty of professor making great money, you chose to ignore them.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one that isn't living in the real world. I've known many uninsured who have had health problems that haven't gone to the doctor because they can't afford it. It is true that no one is turned away at public hospitals, but you are still billed for those services no matter how poor you are (most areas do not have "free clinics" for general health problems). They will work out a plan where you can send in so much per month from your meager paycheck. <hr /></blockquote> They are getting the medical attention they need. I believe them being healthy is more important than sitting around sick. At least with a bill they are healthy enough to keep working and living the rest of your life. These instances are sad, but in the poorest of areas, these services are free to the patients.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a single mom, you don't think you might want to pay for your kid to go to a movie sometime?
<hr /></blockquote> Are we talking about "wants" or NEEDS. Yes, it would be nice, however so is electricity.

[ QUOTE ]
Ask George Bush. Last I heard he supported extending the break to the lower income families. By the way some of the way, some of these families do pay some taxes, I believe. <hr /></blockquote> I ask you. I have stated already that the Reps (which will include the President since he is Republican) were weak and are offering another welfare program.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it would be as stupid as paying gigantic agribusinesses money not to grow crops. Oh, wait, we do that! <hr /></blockquote> What is the stated reason for doing this (not asking your interpretation)?

eg8r

eg8r
06-14-2003, 12:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In a civilised society it is accepted that people will earn more or less depending on there skills.
What matters is that everyone makes a contribution for the COMMON good. In your 40 hours you will earn more or less than somebody else. Why should less fortunate people be forced to work 80 hours just to survive . <hr /></blockquote> I believe you answered your own question. If a person does not have the skills of his counterpart why should he get paid the same.

Also, who says one is less fortunate than the next. We all came into the world the same way. Some chose to get an education or learn a trade, other chose not to. I do not think it is right for the non-skilled person to get paid the equal amount as the guy that hired the non-skilled person. If you are non-skilled you better not be lazy, or you will be poor.

eg8r

eg8r
06-14-2003, 12:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote qtec:</font><hr> Instead of paying a decent minimum wage and letting people pay more tax [ more money = more tax paid ] ,the Govt hands back tax to the low earner .
The tax payer is susidising the employer .
When there is a tax rebate ,the low earner will get little or nothing back. With this method the low earner will always be underpaid. This is why you can use that "you cant get tax back that you didnt pay in " phrase that you love to say.

The only person that benefits is the employer.

You are always telling us that you want more control over your own money , but you love to tell 'poor people' how they should be spending theirs. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote qtec:</font><hr> Again, you dont answer the questions i ask. Why? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> What question are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
You think EVERYBODY is like you or should be. The FACTS are that we are all different. We are not all born with the same advantages. <hr /></blockquote> What is different. Every single person in the US is afforded food, shelter, and an opportunity for education. It is what one does with that, that makes the difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Not everybody can become President. Intelligence seems to be a limiting factor. [ certaimly on the Rebuplican side] . <hr /></blockquote> Certainly, the one your feel is less intelligent has risen to the top of the country.

[ QUOTE ]
First you complain that people are not working . Then they have to work 2 jobs because they cant earn enough because they are too stupid . Do you hear yourself ? <hr /></blockquote> This is certainly getting a bit lame. Please go back through the threads and tell me where I said they were too stupid. I might have said they made poor decisions but I did not call them stupid. I am saving that for some one else /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
WELL HELLO. WECOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

Do you think a black kid with average intelligent, with all this crap outside his door has an equal chance?
He has more chance of a bullet through the head than he has of going to college. THATS A FACT.
Correct me if i am wrong , but i read that the biggest cause of death for blacks under 25 yrs, in these area,s , is the bullet . <hr /></blockquote> You are wrong wrong wrong. An easy example would be the rappers. They have risen above their peers and got out. Other examples are little tougher to prove, simply because they are off working in a traditional sense and have gotten out of the hole their parents put them in. Yes I do believe they have a chance. Everyone is offered free education, kindergarten all the way through college. The student just needs to make sound decisions to get there.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you call yourself a Christian ? <hr /></blockquote> Yes. Now what intelligence would you like to bestow on religion. Better yet, make it its own thread not jack this one.

eg8r

Ross
06-16-2003, 02:06 PM
(User warning: Very, very long. Most CCB'ers will (and should) ignore this, since it is obvious this debate has grown tedios, is going nowhere, and will give you a headache! Nevertheless, I'm duty bout to respond. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif)

Eg8r, you purport to hold others (well, liberals) up to high intellectual standards. You frequently and sometimes harshly critize the critical acumen of those who you see to be spouting the liberal party line. This would be all fine and well (since both liberals and conservatives make mistakes, sometimes let emotions blind them to facts, have unconscious biases, etc.) if you yourself seemed really interested in exploring political issues with an open mind and intellectual integrity. But, IMO, you haven't done this.

Take this thread as an example. I responded to the topic of child tax credits to the poor with a post that made several points.

First I gave a table showing the distribution of wealth and income in the US over the last few decades. The table clearly shows several things:
1. The upper 20% of Americans are doing quite well, now possessing 84% of the vast wealth of the US.
2. The bottom 40% (that is, 116 million Americans) are doing quite poorly, as they combined split up less than 1% of the US wealth. The bottom 20% actual net worth is less than $0.
3. There is a similar, yet much less pronounced disparity in income.
4. But the main point, and the reason I put in several decades of data, is that this very large disparity in wealth and income <font color="green"> has actually been getting more and more lopsided over the last 30 or so years. </font color> If you look at the data, you will see it is not that the poor are getting poorer (you can't get much lower than 1%), but that the middle class share of the pie is getting smaller as the top 20%'s share gets larger.

Since this thread started out being about tax policy, and since tax policy is part of the determinant of how wealth is ultimately distributed in a country, I thought this data was relevant.

Your only response to this was "What is the point of point 1. It is widely known that the top few percent make the most." You failed to take in, or at least acknowledge:
1. the clear time trends of wealth and income going from the middle class toward the rich
2. that the group that is not sharing significantly in the nations wealth is almost half the nation (which rules out the possibility that it is just the lazy welfare slackers)

I then went on to make my second point that is was not true that most poor people don't work and waste their money, and that the largest group of poor were working mothers.
Your only response was "Yes they do waste money. Don't be fooled into believing they are all responsible and pay all bills. They are still purchasing their cigs and beer." First you ignore my comment about the fact that most are working mothers. You don't refute it, supprot it, or check to see if it is true. It appears not to fit your preconceived notion of the poor. You then characterize the poor with a moralistic stereotype saying "they" are a group of smoking, drinking, irresponsible money wasters. Finally, you warn me not to be fooled into thinking all poor are good citizens, even though I had never made such a claim, and had even said the opposite one sentence before: "true: most people who don't work and waste their money are poor. welfare is not the solution for this group."

I make a third point that the notion that it is not true that the rich are rich because they work harder and smarter than other US citizens. In fact, the main common denominator among the rich is that they are in business, not the trades or services or any other kind of employement. Your response was factually correct (successful businessmen usually have to work hark and smart to be successful) but ignored the meat of my argument: that unless you chose the business field you weren't likely to be rich no matter how hard or smart you worked.

I then give data to show that minimum wage of $6.25/hr doesn't come close to pay for even basic housing, food, health care, etc, and especially not for single mothers. This might be relevant to a discussion of how much in income taxes we as a society choose to levee on such workers, if any.

You agree that it is not a livable wage (although earlier you argued that it is too high, since no burger flipper's work is worth this amount). You point out that people can choose other jobs, which is usually true. However in some smaller towns, these may be the only jobs with openings. And for those who don't go to college (remember <font color="green">not all are able to do college work </font color> ) the alternatives may not be much more than minimum wage.

I ask then if you think the increasing disparity in wealth and income between the poorest and the richest is a good thing?

You reply "Nope." But then "I think everyone is responsible for their own actions and decisions. If I make a sound decision to get an education and work my butt off and save money and enjoy the finer things in life, I do not think it is right to give that money to some single mother on welfare, who for a year sat around and got pregnant because it is "HER RIGHT" to have sex. Are there other situations, sure, but there are plenty of the one I described."

If you had looked critically at the data I presented first you would realize the the increasing disparity in wealth has little to do with welfare cheaters. If you had taken in the later point that a big source of the discrepency in wealth is the vast rewards that are available to those in business as opposed to those who choose other equally noble endeavors. But this theme about irresponsible welfare mothers seems to have become a mantra for you. It is as if your discussion of tax policy is completely determined by irresponsible welfare cheaters. And remember, <font color="green">you were responding to my post which started out with me explicitly said I favored welfare reform and did not support welfare for those who don't want to work. </font color>

I then say: Is it possible that one benefit of a reasonable (not-incentive killing) progressive tax system is that it corrects some of the more extreme income and wealth disparities that are naturally arise in a free market system? That it actually restores more fairness to the system?

Your response: "You use the word "corrects" I like to use the word steal. We are not correcting anything becuase when it is all said and done, and that individual spent my tax dollars what is changed. They still decide to not go out and get a second job instead they rather sit around and have more kids. Hey, more kids means more welfare tax subsidies."

Eg8r, I'm not trying to be mean here, but man, you really are stuck on this issue! I ask about the possible benefits of a progressive tax and you reduce this again to welfare chiselers?

In a later post you do say
"While not too clear, I am referring to the majority of the people on welfare, not poor. While some of the poor are included in the welfare, I most of the time am not referring to them. I am referring to the leeches of welfare most of the time."

Well, my post clearly and explicitly was not about leeches. It was about the the increasingly disparate distribution of wealth in this country and the economic realities of the working poor, all of which is relevant to a discussion of child income tax credits. For some reason, you were not able to see this, and your response comes across as a completely kneejerk reaction that you seem to critisize liberals for.

In a later post you say "I do not consider a person poor because they have little to no money due to a temporary hard times because of a layoff. I also have stated before I do not have any issues with them." Poor means "having little or not money" - how is it you don't consider them poor? I doubt that is much solace to them when it comes time for them to pay the rent. And after all tax policy will affect them as well, and while you may not have any issues with them you certainly don't give them any attention in your discussion of tax policy.

I then point out the problem of having no health insurance and note "I've known many uninsured who have had health problems that haven't gone to the doctor because they can't afford it.."

In a complete non-sequitor, you respond "They are getting the medical attention they need. I believe them being healthy is more important than sitting around sick. At least with a bill they are healthy enough to keep working and living the rest of your life. These instances are sad, but in the poorest of areas, these services are free to the patients."

Lets see:
1.they aren't going to the doctor because they can't afford it
means --
.
.
.
2. they are getting the medical attention they need?

It is also not true that "in the poorest of areas these services are free." Very few free general health care clinics still exist.

Eg8r, you are obviously an intelligent man. And I'm not even saying your opinions are wrong - how can I - opinions are just opinions. But I find it insulting and hypocritical when you respond without really even really thinking about what I post, trying to see things from another point of view, or opening yourself to even the tiniest questioning of your own beliefs. Life is more complicated than
guns=good,
poor=welfare cheats,
rich=hardworking,
business = good,
taxes=bad,
liberals=unthinking,
no college=made that choice,
single mother=bad choices,
etc.

A final note. Eg8r, this is totally about the political discussion. On the pool table I would be happy to have you as a partner, opponent, heckler or whatever. Or to just go out and quaff a few beers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
06-16-2003, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, you purport to hold others (well, liberals) up to high intellectual standards. You frequently and sometimes harshly critize the critical acumen of those who you see to be spouting the liberal party line. This would be all fine and well (since both liberals and conservatives make mistakes, sometimes let emotions blind them to facts, have unconscious biases, etc.) if you yourself seemed really interested in exploring political issues with an open mind and intellectual integrity. But, IMO, you haven't done this. <hr /></blockquote> I don't remember stating that I was interested in exploring political issues with an open mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Your only response to this was "What is the point of point 1. It is widely known that the top few percent make the most." You failed to take in, or at least acknowledge:
1. the clear time trends of wealth and income going from the middle class toward the rich
2. that the group that is not sharing significantly in the nations wealth is almost half the nation (which rules out the possibility that it is just the lazy welfare slackers) <hr /></blockquote> Yes I did not bother. I still do not know what the reasoning for showing it. If you want it shown that is fine, we were not debating that information. That is all I was saying. I am not talking sizes of groups (liberal agenda), I am focusing on the individuals. If you do not pay in tax then you do not receive a tax break. This is not about the group one belongs to, or how long it has taken that group to get where they are. It is only about whether that "person" paid the tax, not if their group has been consitently growing larger by the decade and not paying taxes.

[ QUOTE ]
I then went on to make my second point that is was not true that most poor people don't work and waste their money, and that the largest group of poor were working mothers.
Your only response was "Yes they do waste money. Don't be fooled into believing they are all responsible and pay all bills. They are still purchasing their cigs and beer." First you ignore my comment about the fact that most are working mothers. You don't refute it, supprot it, or check to see if it is true. <font color="blue"> (sorry for switching styles) You are right, I did not bother to check if you are correct in the breakdown of the group. Maybe this hurts your feelings maybe not. You failed to acknowledge what I had also said. Why would you suggest that all are responsible and not wasting money. </font color>

It appears not to fit your preconceived notion of the poor. You then characterize the poor with a moralistic stereotype saying "they" are a group of smoking, drinking, irresponsible money wasters. <font color="blue"> Did you acknowledge the example that I have given. Where are the majority of poor (welfare) people living? Inner cities, maybe? What does the environment look like to you? This is not something made up in my mind. If one is looking for the very poor welfare driven areas of a city, head to the inner city. Look at the graffiti, cig butts and broken beer bottles. Do you leave your car alone without supervision? Better not, it might not be there. Maybe you are correct and all this crap comes from the other neighbors, the poor are just a bunch of unlucky folks. Down on their luck financially and socially (dirty neighbors who pay taxes). </font color>

Finally, you warn me not to be fooled into thinking all poor are good citizens, even though I had never made such a claim, and had even said the opposite one sentence before: "true: most people who don't work and waste their money are poor. welfare is not the solution for this group." <font color="blue"> Good call, I missed this point. I was caught up in the rest of the stuff you were saying. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> You took it upon yourself to pick a section of the poor and defend the section that was non-welfare. Fine good for you, I believe most of the discussion I have been a part of were using the welfare crowd as the basis. I am sorry I hurt your feelings and did not research your numbers. If they were relevant to me, then I would have. I just did not care at this point in time what the past decade has looked like for the poor. I was interested in the individual you are interested in the group. Do you see the difference. I also refer to the welfare portion of the poor, you choose to look only at the responsible portion of the poor. Do you see the difference?

Lastly after all this work of yours, you fail to include the discussion about the teachers, police officers, etc. I guess I satisfied your argument in my reply.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-16-2003, 03:34 PM
I want to know where anyone thinks the blame lies for "people getting a tax break that do not pay taxes"?

I certainly would not fault the "people who do not pay taxes".

highsea
06-16-2003, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> I want to know where anyone thinks the blame lies for "people getting a tax break that do not pay taxes"?

I certainly would not fault the "people who do not pay taxes". <hr /></blockquote>

Well, they do have their advocates, right? One example might be Jesse Jackson...oh, wait, he doesn't pay taxes...okay, never mind. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

eg8r
06-16-2003, 03:58 PM
I am alright with the way things are now, but I would like improvement. I work hard for my money and I do not like to see where some of it goes. I cannot do anything about it, except hope that I have enough business deductions to take care of any liability I am responsible for.

The main issue that has popped up recently is the addition to the tax cut that is currently working its was through Washington. The 10k to 26k are going to be allowed to take advantage of the new tax credits pertaining to children. I personally feel there is already a program available (welfare) that covers these costs. Why give them more? If you are a couple and your family takes in a grand total of 26k and you have a child, there is a huge chance you did not pay any taxes in. Why should you benefit from this break. The childs necessities are already being covered by the government. It is not the governments responsibility to pay for the extracurriculars and field trips that Ross has talked about. Sure it would be nice to take you kid to a movie, the problem is that is an extra. If you are already paying a good portion of your own bills with my tax money, you should not even think about using your extra money to watch a movie. How about being a responsible adult and save the $10 for the next time you are short some cash. This logic bothers Ross and others but I feel it to be the truth (why else would I state it?).

If I was paying my bills (necessities, like food, water, shelter, etc) through welfare or other handouts, and I had an extra $10 bucks, I sure would not be headed off to a movie. Sure this is easy to say, but do I do it. Absolutely. Any extra money I have at the end of each month goes right to my debt. Either I am making an extra payment on school loans or making an extra payment on my house. Either way, I do not spend a lot of it wastefully. Heck I only play pool once or twice a month as it is.

eg8r

Ross
06-16-2003, 04:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are right, I did not bother to check ....Maybe this hurts your feelings maybe not.<hr /></blockquote>
Don't worry, eg8r, you would have to do a lot more than that to hurt my feelings! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I don't remember stating that I was interested in exploring political issues with an open mind.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
My bad! I gave you the benefit of the doubt and took you for someone with intellectual integrity. From now on, I will give your responses to my posts the credence they deserve!

eg8r
06-16-2003, 05:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My bad! I gave you the benefit of the doubt and took you for someone with intellectual integrity. From now on, I will give your responses to my posts the credence they deserve! <hr /></blockquote> How does this have anything to do with intellectual integrity. I have not seen one post in which someone has ever changed their stance either way. You included. So are you being hypocritical or what?

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2003, 09:46 PM
eg8r [ QUOTE ]
I don't remember stating that I was interested in exploring political issues with an open mind.
<hr /></blockquote>



Brilliant. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


Thats just too good. LOL
You have surpassed yourself this time, buddy . /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


Still LOL

Q

Qtec
06-16-2003, 09:49 PM
Tap. Tap. Tap

Well said,
Q

eg8r
06-17-2003, 06:12 AM
No I did not surpass anything. It is being honest. I am not real open when we talk about the tax issues. I do listen, and I do reply and some people have good responses from the "other" side however none of it makes any sense.

I have posted real world analogies the tax system (you don't get a rebate if you don't buy the product) and no one ever disputes them. Reason being is that my analogies are the real world. In the real world if a person tried to steal money that was not theirs, they would be in jail. Plain and simple. Except.....if you are the government. They steal the money.

You can defend that the poor need the money more, however they have no "right" to the money. They have done nothing to earn the money so what else would you call it. I use the term "handout".

I feel I deserve my money more so I really am not open to change my mind. No one has really stated anything with any real logic as to why they should get my money. I am sorry, but I am not real open to new ideas when I am being robbed. Call me greedy I guess. Is that what someone is when they work hard for their money and do not like it when someone else steals it. I guess so!!!!!

All the war stuff, sports stuff, gun control stuff, etc I am open. With tax, until you make a decent ststement don't expect much more than what you have already seen. Until you can answer one question it is all frivolous (sp?).

eg8r

cheesemouse
06-17-2003, 01:09 PM
eg8r,
[ QUOTE ]
No one has really stated anything with any real logic as to why they should get my money. I am sorry, but I am not real open to new ideas when I am being robbed. <hr /></blockquote>

Here's a piece of logic that comes from history. If you've ever read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" in the end there was an expression used in the streets of Rome, it was, "alms for the poor". The poor, the rabble, the unclean, the unemployed, the crimimals and any others that were left behind in their society accosted any and all who looked rich or well dressed as they moved about the city. The privileged class had to make sure they had a bag of money or alms along with guards to protect them if they went anywhere or they would be torn apart just for the cloths they wore. The rich were driven to stay in their onclaves for fear for their lives.....does that bit of history ring any bells or make you see any similarity in the city you live in. Take a drive to finer parts of your city and take note of the Gated communities...make your own analogy....maybe giving to the poor to keep them from desperation is a tax that should be paid....lets call it the don't cut my throat tax........

I fully expect you to not get this lodgic.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

highsea
06-17-2003, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> eg8r,
Here's a piece of logic that comes from history. ...The poor, the rabble, the unclean, the unemployed, the crimimals and any others that were left behind in their society accosted any and all who looked rich or well dressed as they moved about the city. The privileged class had to make sure they had a bag of money or alms along with guards to protect them if they went anywhere or they would be torn apart just for the cloths they wore. ....maybe giving to the poor to keep them from desperation is a tax that should be paid....lets call it the don't cut my throat tax...I fully expect you to not get this lodgic.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

No need to call that a tax ,Cheese, we already have a word for it. Extortion aka "Protection Money".

-CM

Qtec
06-17-2003, 03:58 PM
What the guys seem to have forgottem is that all revolutions are started by the poor or the lower classes. Once people have nothing to lose , they become dangerous.
Palestinians blow themselves up because they have lost hope .

Q

highsea
06-17-2003, 05:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What the guys seem to have forgottem is that all revolutions are started by the poor or the lower classes. Once people have nothing to lose , they become dangerous. Palestinians blow themselves up because they have lost hope.
<hr /></blockquote>

I think the mid-east crisis is one thread over...this one was taxes.

(I had to reread it just to be sure) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

eg8r
06-18-2003, 07:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I fully expect you to not get this lodgic.... <hr /></blockquote> Yup I agree with this logic. We already pay the tax you are talking about, it is the protection of the police and military.

This logic still does not explain why another person should be entitled to the wage that I worked for. I do not mind paying for government protection, police, fire, military. I do not mind paying for schools, and most of the other things that taxes go to. What I hate is paying taxes that go to people on welfare that abuse the system. Is there a way to single out the money that is going to them? If so it would be great to quit paying them. It is funny because your example is exactly what I was trying to show (poor cruddy areas) earlier and Ross took offense and started defending single mothers. Alright so be it, that is fine and there are some people that are poor making it on their own and there are some very legitimate people on welfare trying to get off it. The problem lies in the group that is taking advantage of it. I think you will find a very large portion of these people in the inner cities. Do you disagree? In those inner cities you will find some of the biggest abuses of cigs, beer, drugs etc. Sounds like wasted tax payer dollars to me.

eg8r

eg8r
06-18-2003, 07:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What the guys seem to have forgottem is that all revolutions are started by the poor or the lower classes. Once people have nothing to lose , they become dangerous.
Palestinians blow themselves up because they have lost hope .
<hr /></blockquote> These people are not as bad off as you think. They do have shelter, food and education provided to them. Does this way of life suck? You betcha. I am more than happy to help those that help themselves, it is the abuser that drag the whole bunch down.

As far as Palestinians. This is funny because you ridicule me for watching the News (or channels that you don't watch), however you use the word "Palestinians", a word the News passes around like the truth. There are no Palestinians, if so there would be a Palestine or some Palestinian state, there is none at this point. The "Palestinian" leader is an Egyptian. Why doesn't he want to be called an Egyptian? Another thing, your reasoning for the Islamic killers is that they "lost hope". Ha ha, that is hilarious. They have not lost hope this is just a new way to continue the fight they have been having for centuries. These people have been fighting since the beginning. This is nothing about losing hope, instead it is about taking back land they view as theirs.

I guess I don't really have a view one way or the other on the Israel thing. I am a Christian and feel the people of Israel own the land. I also believe that the only way to have land and call it your own is to take it. This happened about 50 years or so ago. Now it is Israels job to defend it.

eg8r

Qtec
06-18-2003, 10:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As far as Palestinians. This is funny because you ridicule me for watching the News (or channels that you don't watch), however you use the word "Palestinians", a word the News passes around like the truth. There are no Palestinians, if so there would be a Palestine or some Palestinian state, there is none at this point. The "Palestinian" leader is an Egyptian. Why doesn't he want to be called an Egyptian? Another thing, your reasoning for the Islamic killers is that they "lost hope". Ha ha, that is hilarious. They have not lost hope this is just a new way to continue the fight they have been having for centuries. These people have been fighting since the beginning. This is nothing about losing hope, instead it is about taking back land they view as theirs.

I guess I don't really have a view one way or the other on the Israel thing. I am a Christian and feel the people of Israel own the land. I also believe that the only way to have land and call it your own is to take it. This happened about 50 years or so ago. Now it is Israels job to defend it.
<hr /></blockquote>

Now i have heard it all ! This is absurd. So because there is no Palestine the Palesinians do not exist .
What do you call an American that lives in Eygpt ? An Eygptian ?

Obvously you know nothing about what is going on in Israel at the momment.

Do you know about the wall.?
Do you know that as a Palestinian on the West bank you have no rights .NO rights.
Just an example . The Wall isbeing built through the middle of a man,s olive grove . This is his only source of income he has to feed his family. His parents and family members have land that is on the other side of the wall. His land is cleared , the olive trees are taken away , never to be seen again. There is a checkpoint but he is not allowed through it . He is left without his land ,his income and cut off from his relations .I would be more than a little miffed ? Wouldnt you ?
This happens every day .
I brought up the Middle east question , but nobody was interested .
How do you reckon that they [Israel ]has a right to that land .?
You say that you believe in the right of conquest ? If you can take it its yours ? What ever happened to the LAW.?

Believe me when i tell you people blow themselves up only when they cant fight back any other way.

Q

Ross
06-18-2003, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> It is funny because your example is exactly what I was trying to show (poor cruddy areas) earlier and Ross took offense and started defending single mothers.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Eg8r, you really are a slow learner, aren't you?

I pointed out the simple-to-understand fact that the majority of the poor are not welfare chiselers, and that it is an error to think of the two terms as synonymous. You seemed to get it for a post or two, but then reverted to your simple-minded monotonous anti-welfare mantra. I'm OK with that since I've given up on your ability to expand your thinking beyond simplistic stereotypes.

But now you have to drag my name in and again mischaracterize what I say. So from now on, since you invariably distort what I say, I'm asking you to leave my name out of your posts when arguing with others. Would you do me that favor?

eg8r
06-19-2003, 10:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, you really are a slow learner, aren't you?

I pointed out the simple-to-understand fact that the majority of the poor are not welfare chiselers, and that it is an error to think of the two terms as synonymous. You seemed to get it for a post or two, but then reverted to your simple-minded monotonous anti-welfare mantra. I'm OK with that since I've given up on your ability to expand your thinking beyond simplistic stereotypes.

But now you have to drag my name in and again mischaracterize what I say. So from now on, since you invariably distort what I say, I'm asking you to leave my name out of your posts when arguing with others. Would you do me that favor? <hr /></blockquote> Might I also say you are a slow learner. I replied to you stating that when I am referring to the "poor" I am referring to the welfare crowd. I have stated this plenty of times yet you still don't get it. In the first post in which I stated that I was not open to changing my view on taxes, your panties got all tied and must not have read everything. Go back and read it, and you will see an explanation to my use/definition to "poor" as it pertains to this board. I really do not think the word "stereotype" fits in this discussion. I have stated that I am refering to one portion of a group. I am not referring to the entire group. I appears you are the one "invariably distorting" what I say.

It might be time for you to get over yourself. You have a high ego however you have never shown a change in your opinion. I stated as far as taxes go, You and no one else on this board have showed any reason as to why someone else should get a tax break if they never paid taxes in. In your brilliant display of internet searches, you came up with growing disparity between the classes over a few decades. I don't care about that in this particular discussion. Sure there is a growing concern about the increasing disparity but why in your mind do you feel the logical solution is to steal from one to give to the other. That is not fixing the problem, and your example does not help anything.

Maybe next time before you inflate your chest and spout off anomalies to the suggested group, you might want to find out what was the original definition of the group in question. A sign of intelligence would be for you to find out what the heck the discussion is about and then join in, not the other way around. I don't think it is any secret to the majority of the posters here that when I refer to the "poor" my beef is with the Welfare and they are the subject.

As far as keeping your name out, maybe, maybe not. If I feel you are a good example of what not to do, then I will include your name. If I feel you are a good example of what to do, then I will also include your name. If you are not a good example at all (either way), which is most of the time, I will not use your name.

eg8r

eg8r
06-19-2003, 10:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now i have heard it all ! This is absurd. So because there is no Palestine the Palesinians do not exist .
What do you call an American that lives in Eygpt ? An Eygptian ?
<hr /></blockquote> Well you had a chance to edit the wonderful post, but since you have not, let me answer the question. Since Palestine does not exist as a country or state or anything else except imagination or the past, then NO you are not Palestinian. Pick another country. If an American is living in Egypt he is still an American becuase AMERICA EXISTS. Quite a foolish post of yours. Let me help you with your example, you are stumbling on the easy logic...If a person was from Atlantis, and is now in Egypt, would they still call themselves an Atlantis(ian). NO, since Atlantis is just like Palestine, non-existent.

That was easy I am surprised was so tough to comprehend.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you reckon that they [Israel ]has a right to that land .? <hr /></blockquote> They fought for it in a war and won. It is theirs.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can take it its yours ? What ever happened to the LAW.? <hr /></blockquote> Great question...Is there a law in Israel that states you cannot take this land away through battle?

Ross
06-19-2003, 01:28 PM
yeah, whatever...

eg8r
06-19-2003, 01:50 PM
Exactly.

eg8r

nAz
06-19-2003, 03:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Since Palestine does not exist as a country or state or anything else except imagination or the past, then NO you are not Palestinian. Pick another country.
How do you reckon that they [Israel ]has a right to that land .? They fought for it in a war and won. It is theirs.<hr /></blockquote>

Dude are you Insane are you telling me that I and the last 16 (thats as far as they have been able to trace back) generations of my fathers familly does not exist??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]

If you can take it its yours ? What ever happened to the LAW.? Great question...Is there a law in Israel that states you cannot take this land away through battle? <hr /></blockquote>


Well then I guess that those Palestinians killing civilians and soilders alike is ok since they are trying to take the "land" back.
I think not but then again the Jewish freedom fighters did some of these same things against the British earlier in the last centuary.
and if you read some of the Dead Sea Scrolls you'll find text refering to what the Romans called Terrorists and the Jews called Freedom fighters.
"what one person calls terrorist another will call a freedom fighter"

eg8r
06-19-2003, 03:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Dude are you Insane are you telling me that I and the last 16 (thats as far as they have been able to trace back) generations of my fathers familly does not exist???
<hr /></blockquote> I did not say you do not exist. I just said you are not a Palestinian. If you are a palestinian, would you please take a current map and show me the name Palestine. I am not referring to cities in the US. Show me a country named Palestine.

[ QUOTE ]
Well then I guess that those Palestinians killing civilians and soilders alike is ok since they are trying to take the "land" back. <hr /></blockquote> I don't see suicide bombers trying to take any land back. It looks to me that they are just trying to kill innocent people on buses.

[ QUOTE ]
"what one person calls terrorist another will call a freedom fighter" <hr /></blockquote> Very true.

eg8r

nAz
06-19-2003, 03:44 PM
hmm i think i found one /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif



http://www.4data.ca/palestine/222palestinianmap.gif

highsea
06-19-2003, 06:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Now i have heard it all ! This is absurd. So because there is no Palestine the Palesinians do not exist.
What do you call an American that lives in Eygpt ? An Eygptian ?<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Since Palestine does not exist as a country or state or anything else except imagination or the past, then NO you are not Palestinian. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>How do you reckon that they has a right to that land .? <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>They fought for it in a war and won. It is theirs.<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>If you can take it its yours ? What ever happened to the LAW.? <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Great question...Is there a law in Israel that states you cannot take this land away through battle? <hr /></blockquote>

Okay gentlemen, I think I'll chime in again. eg8r, whether you agree or not, Palestinians exist. The term refers to an ethnicity, not a nationality. Saying there's no such thing as a Palestinian is the same thing as saying there is no such thing as a Kurd or a Navaho. If the Palestinians are successful in getting an independant state, then the term will refer to a nationality also.

Qtec, I agree with you on the legality of Israel's occupation of the territories in the West Bank and Gaza. This is not supported by International Law. The expansion of Jewish settlements into these territories is in violation of UN resloutions. The US does not pressure Israel to return the territories, because no truce has been reached with her Arab neighbors.

Israel's existence at the pre-67 borders [i]is in accordance with International Law. In November of 1947, the UN general Assembly voted on an amended partition plan calling for 56.5 % of Palestine for a Jewish state, 43 % for a Palestinian one and the internationalization of Jerusalem. In May of 1948 the declaration formally took effect. The State of Israel was officially recognized immediately afterwards by the US and the UK.

A little history of Palestine:

That part of the mid-east has been historically referred to as Palestine, and has been fought over for 3,000 years. Arabs gained control around 600 a.d., the end of Byzantine rule. Prior to that time it had been under Persian, then Greek, then Roman rule. Control passed between Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo until it was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire around 1500 a.d., with about a hundred year interlude by the Europeans during the crusades (1099-1287a.d.) The Ottomans ruled it from about 1500 until 1917.

A little history of Israel:

Israel was carved out of this British controlled territory formerly under control of the Ottoman Empire. Britain took control after WW1 ended and the Ottoman Empire was broken up by the Treaty of Sevres (1918). This began the influx of Jewish people to Palestine. (Look up the Balfour Declaration, 1917)

When Israel was attacked by her Arab neighbors in 1967, she seized control of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai Peninsula in the 6 Day War. After a truce was reached with Egypt, the Sinai was returned. Anwar Sadat lost his life over this when he was assasinated for making peace with Israel. Israel maintains control over the Golan Heights, the West bank and Gaza today.

Since the latest uprising by the Palestinians began, Israel has carefully maintained a 3-1 casualty ratio. For every Israeli killed, there will be 3 Palestinians killed. Look at the numbers any time, and the ratio will always be exactly 3-1.

That's all I have to say, and that was a lot. Sorry for the long winded dissertation.

-CM

eg8r
06-19-2003, 08:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Okay gentlemen, I think I'll chime in again. eg8r, whether you agree or not, Palestinians exist. The term refers to an ethnicity, not a nationality. Saying there's no such thing as a Palestinian is the same thing as saying there is no such thing as a Kurd or a Navaho. If the Palestinians are successful in getting an independant state, then the term will refer to a nationality also.
<hr /></blockquote> I will accept that argument.

eg8r

eg8r
06-19-2003, 08:39 PM
Nah, that isn't one. lol

I do accept highsea's explanation of a Palestinian. If you consider yourself a Palestinian, so be it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
08-25-2003, 03:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Tax Cut: More Money for the Well Chosen Few

The "official" cost of the tax cuts enacted in May 2003 is $350 billion through 2013. But this does not take into account the various gimmicks used to conceal the true cost of these tax cuts, which is likely to be $800 billion to $1 trillion.


Ok, but what's wrong with a middle class tax cut?
Well, there really wasn't one. The middle class wasn't the focus of these cuts.
The White House used the misleading technique of "averages" to try to get the public to buy in to the plan. The Treasury Department release said that "91 million taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,126." But households in the middle of the income spectrum will only receive an average cut of $217; 53 percent of households -- 74 million -- will get a cut of $100 or less; and 36 percent will get no tax cut.

<hr /></blockquote>


What a surprise . /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

More bucks for GW and friends .

Q


http://www.uaw.org/atissue/atstory.cfm?atId=28