But but bit! Aren't the democrats the ones for the working class man? Aren't they the ones in the same boots as the working class man? Seems they got some very shiny boots on the backs of that working class man to me! Maybe this is why they don't care about lowering the tax bracket of the rich to that of the working class man since it will have no effect on them! They already pay the higher tax bracket, and on top of that, they already found some sleezy way to get out of paying the higher taxes so it doesn't even bother them in the slightest!

Communism at its finest.

-S

Good points. I agree with your assessment. They already got theirs, ya know. I also think they are mostly interested in creating government dependancy out of the working man. Rather than trying to remove obstacles that will enable the working man to be self sufficient.

That's definitely what they want you to believe. :yep: But yes, they've been exploiting the working man using class envy and other tools to secure their own positions. They promise everything and deliver nothing. If you look at your typical longtime Democrat constituency, they're still crying about the same stuff they've been crying about for decades. Only now, they're nuttier. And the Democrats they continually elect that promise them the fixes, never fix anything. Democrats don't want problems solved. I've said it a million times before, If you are happy, prosperous, and fulfilled, what the hell would you need a liberal democrat for?? :88)

They're all the same. Different name, same thing.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that these top wealthy Democrats really don't care about these tax increase because they are exempt in many ways. Most of the top wealthy Dems are of inherited wealth and they generally have a lot of money tied up but little taxable income. A lot of these guys are worth hundreds of millions of dollars but they only pay taxes on a small fraction of that money compared to the "new rich" who are earning $100,000+ a year but pay a higher percentage of their income.

The fact is the top 10% pay 95% of the taxes in this country and it proves that taxes should not be progressive. Everyone should share the burden of taxes because the people who don't have to pay as much don't give a rat's patoot whether or not there is an increase because in their own little world they will stand to benefit from whatever scraps Uncle Sam throws their way while the middle/upper middle class and up all get hosed.

The reality is I am pleased the Democrats went and stepped in this pile of dogdoo. Openly touting tax increases is a surefire way to commit political suicide and they won't get what they want anyways.

That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who created America, believing that government is there solely to guarantee maximum freedom; whereas you see it as a tool to provide control, forcing everyone to follow your idea of what is right, whether they agree with you or not.

As I said, If you believe that any tax is a good thing, you shouldn't be allowed near anyone else's money.

"Show me a young man who's not a liberal, and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me an old man who's not a conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brain." - attributed to Winston Churchill

I don't mind liberals with whom I can amicably agree to disagree; I have a great deal of respect for anyone with a thoughtful and reasoned opinion. The problem today, though, is that this is practically impossible, as most of those who claim to stand for tolerance absolutely refuse to tolerate any opinion that differs from their own.

The Left is dominated by people like Rangel, Pelosi, Kennedy, the Clintons, Boxer, and so forth; these are people who stay in power by manufacturing any mandate they claim they have. It's like "The Emperor's New Clothes." They get people to pretend with them that this side of an issue is good, that one bad, or that an issue even exists at all, to wit: "If you're a teenager, get pregnant and stay that way because you'll never get ahead and I'll have a reason to stick it to the Man." Of course they don't say it that way, but in practice that's what it comes down to. They never advocate pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. It's always somebody else's fault and that Somebody owes Us something. Crap.

They keep down the people they claim to be fighting for. That's it and nothing more; they have no other legitimacy - this is why they come out with off the wall hatemongering things like blaming hurricanes and wildfires on a presidential administration. I mean, accusations of that sort are just pure vitriol and nothing else, and peddling it is the only thing that keeps them in power.

I am reminded of one of my favorite Clint Eastwood scenes (High Plains Drifter). I'm paraphrasing but hopefully not too inaccurately:

[Minister]: "You can't just put these people out on the street!"
[Eastwood]: "Are all of these people your brothers and sisters?"
[Minister]: "They most certainly are!"
[Eastwood]: "Fine. Then you won't mind if they stay at your place for a few days, then, will you?"

I suppose the alternate point of view to that in the same language is...


That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who freed Europe from
authoritarian rule by the ultra-rich aristocracy and from the suffering of the underclasses,
believing that government is there to guarantee maximum freedom what ever your social
or economic conditions and to look after the interests of all; whereas you see it as a tool,
totally separate from morality that has no responsibility to look after the sick, infirm,
disaster stricken or those who are stuck in the endless cycle of poverty and instead
letting vast self interested business oppress those they exploit with only the morality of
money.

If you believe that government has no responsibility for it's people, you shouldn't be allowed near people.

*edit* will tidy up formatting in a sec

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
-Gerald R. Ford

You believe government is the answer. I believe it's the problem. I'm perfectly happy with using the government to try to better our lives. I just don't trust people who insist they're taking something away from me for my own good.

In other words, anybody who wants to be in charge shouldn't be trusted. The best president America ever had was George Washington, and that's because he didn't want the job.

Well said.

Much like people who ask to be moderator on Subsim are dismissed, so too those who want to protect you, or want to do what is 'right' for everyone.

What an eloquent way to put it. :up:

It's not a case of a few people imposing morality on the rest because it is what has
been voted for by the majority in every social democracy in Europe.
Granted, that's a imposition by oligarchy, but that's democracy for you.

More broad assumptions, and backhanded insults too. You firstly assume that any person who is in favour of a commonly termed 'left wing' ideology is somehow not trying or is not participating in the process. You proof? Do you know me personally, or all of the other lefties out there? Are you assuming this based on your personal unprovable prejudice about the nature of left wing thought? You are very confident in your ideas but you constantly make assessments that cannot be proven, nor are likely to be true if proven. If I were not trying then I wouldn't be listening to my pinko-commie professors would I? As you said yourself higher education is the key to a greater net worth ergo people such as myself go to school. But then if in the process I adopt ideas which are against the grain of society I am branded as somehow not a participant in society. And even then you're assuming I didn't believe anything before my so called lefty classes. Apparently being a progressive thinker is a game of brainwashing or neurotic desire to avoid work. You again emphasize 'class envy'. You assume things about me without proof. You don't disprove the validity of my ideas but rather impeach the assumed motivation behind them. This is a very well thought out and written ad hominem, but it is still just that, be it about me or the body of left minded individuals.

So now it isn't an absolute but a generalization. 'Some'. So if some people are poor because they choose to be then that implies quite obviously that some are poor despite trying, or at least aren't there because of your outlined reasons. Can you account for this in anyway other than an unfair economic paradigm that keeps them where they are? And even then you don't get specific in terms of ratio. Further you place the entire burden of responsibility on those that engage in behavior counter to what leads to affluence. So all criminals choose crime. Nice and simple. The dynamics of poverty are absent here. The psychological effects of life as a poor person mean the likelihood that these people are going to be affected somehow in a way that limits their ability to make mature sensible decisions is much greater. Add to that the fact that most solutions to severe dysfunction relating to these things, such as abuse of many kinds, are expensive and hard to get when they're needed or for a sustained period. The secret to much success isn't just effort but also support. This is where class divisions are most acutely obvious. And that is just in regards to choosing poverty. That doesn't touch on the inequality of opportunity which faces a willing man which many people believe in, despite it being an unpopular idea.

So you can be derisive about my ideas all you want but don't pretend to know me and my motivations, or assume that I don't parse the ideas thrown at me. The old idea that being young dismisses my ideas is prejudicial. Assuming its all also class prejudice or envy is a generalization that isn't part of an intellectual argument of facts. You side step the arguments about the mechanics of the system and instead attack the people who argue about it.

I very much agree. I however rarely meet a person of conservative belief that deigns to argue rather than just smite my character. See above.

I very much enjoy real arguments with people that disagree with me, but I don't find much of an argument most of the time. Usually it degenerates into an angry polemic against the commies. Theres so much anger, on both sides. In my experience no person with a reasonable opinion reads word for word from their ideological prophet(s). I might have freinds on the left but I don't wholesale accept every idea or proposed action by any one party or author. The thing that bugs me is the universal blurring of all left wing ideas into one single dangerous entity. That would be like calling all Republicans Neo-Conservatives. Its a failure of intellectual imagination or energy to discuss ideas in such broadly narrow terms (if you get what I mean).

I don't think I've ever read a single left wing pamplet in my life, and I really dislike my college anti-war group for lacking any sensibility about armed forces abroad (yes lets just dissolve the military and all the others will do so too). I think that young persons' ideas start like a blunt heavy hammer and narrow to a fine dagger as time wears on. I don't see the betrayal of progressive quasi-socialist ideals as the only natural course for a man.

EDIT. btw Letum is brilliant in his own words. Like I said, not nearly as verbose as moi.

I did not intend to apply insult to you. So this is rather a broad generalization of me as well. But yes, unless you participate in the economy, you won't make it. And just participating doesn't translate into success. You may fail. Maybe once or twice. Maybe more. But what's great is that you can get back on the horse and ride again. Also, if you don't pursue greater educational goals, you will only get so far. And have nobody to blame but yourself. Also, choosing a field of study that doesn't pay well...means you won't make the bucks. That's reality. But if you're happy doing what you do...who cares. Money doesn't necessarily mean happiness. But it's the left that seems to think confiscating my money is the answer.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself here. But nobody says you can't have other ideas. But I have a problem with ideas which limit the freedom of others. That's the essence of left-wing views. Using the government as a means to correct perceived "injustices". And in doing so, controlling people's property, and perhaps redistributing other people's property to correct social inequalities. This is wrongheaded totally. And yes, it seems that most of the time class envy is a motivator or a tool pushed by politicians to get people to give them power. So we hear things like "the rich not paying their fair share" despite the rich actually paying the bulk of all income taxes. We get luxury taxes on items...like my own boat because dopes down the road don't have one. And they've employed government by their votes to enact one on me. :nope: If you can't see the class envy in politics, I don't think you're looking very hard for it. It's in broad daylight there.

No not all. But your actions will largely determine your outcome. I see it all the time. How far do you think you'll get as a dropout? Unless you're highly innovative and can invent something that drives demand for your idea.....I don't expect you'll get very far. And yes, despite trying you may fail. But does that mean give up and remain poor? Does that mean go running and screaming to the government that other people have stuff, and you have nothing, therefore they should make it right for you? That's economic tyranny you're looking for, if you are this kind of lefty. And what dynamics of poverty and crime are you looking for. I used to be poor. I didn't commit crimes. Many people used to be poor and were not inclined to criminality. That argument does not wash. Yes, criminals choose crime. There are other choices to make, despite hard times. I think your portrayal of poor people being more inclined to criminality is insulting in a way. You are attacking my roots. Nobody, in America at least, is trapped in poverty. There are ways out. I'm living proof of that. This all or nothing pardigm is yours, not mine.

In addition to the above, people are totally responsible for their own behavior, and are responsible for pursuing their own outcomes. That is what living in freedom is all about. But I have problems with lefty's because their answer is always limiting somebody else's freedoms to right a perceived wrong. Look. You want textbook answers. And are repulsed by common sense. That's your choice. But the world is a truly living classroom. When I went to college I learned alot about living on my own. And I learned that some things are just pushed on the students. It was always the lower division general ed.coursework that was pushed/mandated on the student despite major field of study. Mine being in engineering. And it was always pseudo-marxist in nature. And you rationalize alot like those professors by throwing up things which challenge notions of common sense and attempt to blur the lines of reality. You try and seperate people from their own responsibilities by providing excuses for their failures. I'm not saying you are like them, but yes, you sound like them.

That basically boils down to your interpretation of the essense of left-wing ideas. Left-wing ideas, to put them all in one big gravy boat of anti-goodness, are pursued because of an interpretation that the status quo is a contributor to the limitation of freedom. You can disagree with the practise of many iterations of left wing ideas, communism being the dead horse oft flogged, but the basic premise of them is not the elimination of freedom. Speaking specifically of taxes, many people claim that the rich already pay more than their share since their contributions to the pool of tax revenue is so large in figures. However looking at the proportion of disposable income available to average people versus those who have more (such as in the millions+) the 'rich' don't pay nearly as much, proportionally, as the average person. And even Adam Smith, father of the free market so they say, said that the Rich should pay at least as much proportionally, and even more hopefully, to support the government in maintaining the necessities of society. Here we would diverge into another thread headed by wastegate about the role of government in society.

So the concept of taxation of the rich in such a great way isn't so alien or new.

Portrayal that poor are more inclined to crime? That was yours. Stating that people ought to work rather than choose crime. So being a criminal and being poor was your connection, not mine. And in fact it is true to a degree, poverty ridden areas are laden with crime, compared to more affluent areas. Thats a reality well documented. How can you criticize those who choose crime over success and then turn it on me that I'm insulting them when I rebuff your own remarks?

Yeah, but the bottom 50% are paying only 3% of all income taxes now. And they also qualify for tax-payer ripoffs like WIC, and the EITC which are basically giveaways. The middle class to rich are the ones keeping the ship afloat. What you suggest is punitive, because you think the current system doesn't hurt those who have more income. You seem to want to correct a perceived inequity with the power of government confiscation. That's tyranny friend. Which is, you seem to want to limit the freedom of those who make more. You basically want to limit success and punish innovation. You want to depress investment by eliminating incentive. Well history shows that when you do that, job growth and economic growth as a whole slows. You wish to punish those who are actually at the forefront of economic growth and job creation. This is why I say, lefties worry too much about other people's success. They got their noses in everyone's chili. I say mind your own damn business and focus on your own life. And take responsibility for your own outcome. (Not you personally). This is why I say those on the left are wrongheaded about any tax policy. Because it all seems to be about punishing acheivement, empowering government over people's lives, and the limitation of freedom. You've proven that with your own words.

Nope. I said choosing crime will usually limit your success and acheivement. That is, failure is a result of choosing criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is not a result of being poor or failing at anything. You got it backwards. Could it possibly be that criminal types can only afford poorer, more depressed areas because they are, well, poor? Poor as a result of their bad choices? Poor as a result of being in and out of a jail cell rather than a school? So of course you see more crime in these areas. It's not ingrained...only that criminals (former/reformed) can only afford the low cost areas? But even they are free to pursue better education, tech school skills, etc. to lift themselves out of poverty if they wish to do so. Freedom, and the ability to succeed are great things. If we could only get alot more people to see the value in it.