Here come the Democratic Taxes

[DeepSix]

Same here; it's still too early to tell, but he does have "electability." Several of the candidates appeal to me for different reasons, not the least of which is who can be successfully "marketed" in the general election. I thought the Florida debate was good; it will be interesting to see who the running mates are and how the "issues" get played after Iowa.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

Same here; it's still too early to tell, but he does have "electability." Several of the candidates appeal to me for different reasons, not the least of which is who can be successfully "marketed" in the general election. I thought the Florida debate was good; it will be interesting to see who the running mates are and how the "issues" get played after Iowa.

I agree it will be interesting. As far as running mates go, I think one of these front-runners may just end up as a VP running mate. Maybe Thompson and Guiliani???

[The WosMan]

Social justice is marxist code talk for "we take your money and rights". Whenever you hear someone use that term you know that they are a communist.

I am sick and tired of people creating divisions where there shouldn't be, race-baiting, and class envy. There should be two classes of haves and have nots because is how the world works. It isn't all happy and cheerful and nice and that is impossible because human nature would never allow it.

People, including myself, work hard for what we have and I will be damned if I am going to let Hillary in or Charlie Rangel walk in and take it and decide how to spend it.

Sounds more like a "social equality" or even more like "Social Evolution" ... I can see it now, survival of two classes: the richest, and the most adaptable at scrounging. A completely polarized society where there is no mistake where one stands socially or fiscally... The very top and absolute bottom tiers of the social ladder, the owners and the owned, the haves and the never-will-haves...

Yeah, you know what, the most adaptable at scrounging and surviving are the rich in this country. You could take away all their money and they will come back in 10 years rich again. They are the ones that make this system work, that provide people like you and I with a job and a career and an opportunity and sign your cheque. If you are content to sit on your laurels and work the same job 30 years and not move up then it is your own fault and you have nobody to blame for your situation other than yourself.

This tax increase would destroy the economy because the main targets of it would likely pull an Atlas Shrugged, dump their employees, raise their costs of goods to the consumer (because corporations never pay taxes, they pass the cost on to you) and if they have properties or investments they will dump them which will further depress the market. When will you people learn that the only reason Rangel and Hillary want that tax money is for power and control. They could give a rat's behind about the poor, they happen to be part of the wealthiest 10% too.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

What is social justice? Those that suceed pay for those that don't?

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need?

What is success? And what is a failure to succeed? You speak in general terms and assume that they fit nicely into your logic. But really what determines success? The richest people in the world are almost exclusively those who inherited vast bodies of wealth and continue to expand them without effort because they have the right to take the bulk of the profits and use those profits to expand into more wealth. As Letum said the hardest working don't get nearly the value of their work. The Value Added of a single person's work is completely disproportionate to the wage he receives. When the economy goes sour, largely due to those who have wealth getting greedy and pushing the market too hard so that supply exceeds demand, the first thing to go down is wages. Those that did their jobs lose most because those that have so much don't want to stop making so much.

I also noticed that nobody bothered to answer Letum's statement, instead enjoying the moral superiority of taking shots at Hillary.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

What is success? And what is a failure to succeed? You speak in general terms and assume that they fit nicely into your logic. But really what determines success? The richest people in the world are almost exclusively those who inherited vast bodies of wealth and continue to expand them without effort because they have the right to take the bulk of the profits and use those profits to expand into more wealth. As Letum said the hardest working don't get nearly the value of their work. The Value Added of a single person's work is completely disproportionate to the wage he receives. When the economy goes sour, largely due to those who have wealth getting greedy and pushing the market too hard so that supply exceeds demand, the first thing to go down is wages. Those that did their jobs lose most because those that have so much don't want to stop making so much.

I also noticed that nobody bothered to answer Letum's statement, instead enjoying the moral superiority of taking shots at Hillary.

Absolute hogwash. Read this:

http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/21/top15billionaires.html

With the exception of the Saudi Prince, these people are providing global goods and services at an astronomical rate. And they've expanded or acheived greater success through nominal economic expansion. Maybe you have an HP desktop or a Dell. Is Michael Dell evil to you? Are the shareholders of HP evil to you for getting returns on their investments? How about MS shareholders? Are you jealous? Of course, you have the disease called "wealth envy". So you don't get how real wealth is gained, earned, or how risk capital can be turned into profits. And how that is actually good for a nations economy.

BTW, who should assign the value of someone's work? Remember, you nor the government owns jobs in the private sector. The employer does. And every employer I've come into contact with has paid the fair market value for the work done, and for the cost of living in the area lived in. If the employer does not pay a wage commensurate with a competitive wage, he won't be able to cover the positions. The reason why low skilled occupations, like burger flipper, meat packer, and such don't make as much is because the market is saturated with low skilled people looking for those types of jobs. And the turn over is rather high in those occupations. That's also why higher skilled jobs, and higher education will usually result in a higher net worth.

BTW, I used to be a "have not" myself. I'm now pretty well off. And I'm a "person of color" . How did I do it in such a so-called "unjust" society?!?!?! Bottom line, if people don't bust their butt's, they simply will not acheive success. In a free society, you make choices. Some choices make you poor. Like making babies you can't afford. Or dropping out of school and partying. Or choosing to engage in criminal activity. Or just settling for whatever comes your way, rather than pursuing something that can bring better rewards. You'll only go as high as your work, investment, time, energy, choices, persistence, and innovation take you. And you are free to pursue or not pursue higher goals for yourself. But if you don't pursue higher goals, you only have yourself to blame. Likewise, if you choose poorly like the examples above, you only should look in the mirror for the culprit. Personal freedom, personal responsibility, and good decision making are a part of living in a free nation. If you can't handle it, Chavez is having his little revolution in Venezuela. Please move there. Because whining here won't get you what you want. Because people in "Red" revolution societies usually are or become destitute, oppressed, and unhappy, they will usually do anything to escape their marxist "paradise". I don't know why some in the free world refuse to learn that lesson.

Originally Posted by The Wosman

People, including myself, work hard for what we have and I will be damned if I am going to let Hillary in or Charlie Rangel walk in and take it and decide how to spend it.

Well Said! Count me in as someone who has worked too hard to allow these hacks to confiscate my property to give to those who refuse to take care of themselves. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes to take care of infrastructure, military, national R & D like space research, and such. But I'm sick of paying for things that grown adults should be doing for themselves.

[LtCmdrRat]

Hillary [censored] sweet lady of democrats sonets
Democrat Al Gore as a Nobel Prize winner....[sensored] educated prostitute
Same as G.W. Bush with his WMD in Iraq [censored] liberator


May be better to be subjects of the E-II Crown than to have such honorable gents ( and probably lady ) as head of state?( God, save us from Hillary!).
Bill of rights started to look like a mirage in the Sahara's sands.

Good sides to be subjects of the crown:
- better school education
- 40 and less hours to work
- bigger vacations
- you have time to read, to travel, for your loveones (including your kids and even wife)
- nobility ( knighthood)* and i am very serious about this.
- better health care
- professional police, they will not shoot you because they just had feeling that you are armed
- less shooting practice in schools
- freedom of speech including jokes about everything in airports.
- less sexual harasment cases
- no Darwin debates

Bad sides:
- all ot the above &
- bigger taxes

// i quoted myself from other post

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

....But I'm sick of paying for things that grown adults should be doing for themselves.

Absolutely. Too many people seem to confuse "freedom" with "freedom from responsibility."

A Giuliani/Thompson team would be interesting. It's possible (anything's possible in politics) and it could work, but I also wonder if Rudy and Fred would put aside their differences over tort reform and abortion? On the other hand, their jabs at each other during the debate may have been limited to the debate - the differences may evaporate in a few months ("Oh? What differences? We see eye to eye on everything....").

One would think that some combination of Rudy and McCain would work, since they're both seen as moderates and are not that far apart in principles (AFAIK), and thus would have the broadest appeal. Likewise, Thompson and Huckabee might appeal to the social conservatives.... But who knows. I was somewhat surprised to find myself liking Huckabee more. I don't think he's got much chance for the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised if the nomination went to a "moderate" who then turned around and tapped Huckabee as a running mate to bring in the social conservatives.

At any rate, I feel better about the field than I did before.

[Gorduz]

deleted

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

With the exception of the Saudi Prince, these people are providing global goods and services at an astronomical rate. And they've expanded or acheived greater success through nominal economic expansion. Maybe you have an HP desktop or a Dell. Is Michael Dell evil to you? Are the shareholders of HP evil to you for getting returns on their investments? How about MS shareholders? Are you jealous? Of course, you have the disease called "wealth envy". So you don't get how real wealth is gained, earned, or how risk capital can be turned into profits. And how that is actually good for a nations economy.

Of course, my ideas are not the result of any reality, only some form of irrational jealousy based on not being rich. And here you support the standard capitalist economic benchmark of more production is better. If you sell it then its good, then you're a good person. Nevermind that on that list is the family that owns Wal-Mart which is accused of being exploitative of its workers, and theres Bill Gates who, at the time of that article, had just seen that court ordered split of Microsoft. Further you assume that since I disagree with our paradigm that I therefore lack an understanding of how the economic machine functions. I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.

BTW, who should assign the value of someone's work? Remember, you nor the government owns jobs in the private sector. The employer does. And every employer I've come into contact with has paid the fair market value for the work done, and for the cost of living in the area lived in. If the employer does not pay a wage commensurate with a competitive wage, he won't be able to cover the positions. The reason why low skilled occupations, like burger flipper, meat packer, and such don't make as much is because the market is saturated with low skilled people looking for those types of jobs. And the turn over is rather high in those occupations. That's also why higher skilled jobs, and higher education will usually result in a higher net worth.

All good points. However these low rent jobs which don't support a sustainable living require no qualifications. To get a higher net worth as you say you need higher education. Here enters the limitations of poverty. To get a higher skill level you need to go to a school generally. So poverty immediately handicaps anyone who wants to compete with someone with money. Its hard to get ahead with low skilled jobs that don't pay enough for post-secondary, and this is still ignoring the social implications of poverty which might otherwise retard fruther the process of 'success'.

I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.

Right. But if you want it to work for you, you have to actually participate in it. Just sitting on the sidelines and screaming about what everyone else is doing won't help you. I think that's the ultimate reason why some don't make it in the system. Because they refuse to participate. They'd rather participate in crying and moaning over "class envy" issues, made up "social injustice", and other things. Individuals are solely responsible for their own outcomes. That applies in the real world. Not some school textbook, or what comes out of the mouth of a lefty professor in some social science course.

I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.

Not necessarily. Just some choose to be poor by making bad decisions. Put another way, People make bad choices...which leads to poverty. Making babies you can't afford is one of the prime examples of how to keep yourself in abject poverty. Watching loads of TV at night rather than taking some night school courses and trying to develop valuable marketable skills is another way not to get ahead. Dropping out of high school and choosing to engage in criminal activity is another way you may end up poor. If you want to make it in a free society, it's up to you to do the work. Not the government to make everything right for you. I swear some people would do alot better, get richer, and have a better quality of life if they would focus on what they need to do to succeed rather than worrying about what everyone else has. Individuals nned to take responsibility for their own outcomes.

[SUBMAN1]

I never quite understood how communism and cummunist ideas could enter our American Senate, and then have a communist run for president and hold the democratic parties reigns, but I live in a wierd world I guess.

-S

PS. I also never understood why democrats say they are out for the people, but when you analyze each and every one of their own personal wealth, they obviously are out for themselves with almost all of them being multi millionaires. Seems they are out for the people to make them wealthy allright. This probably means that Republicans are truely the ones for the people.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I never quite understood how communism and cummunist ideas could enter our American Senate, and then have a communist run for president and hold the democratic parties reigns, but I live in a wierd world I guess.

-S

PS. I also never understood why democrats say they are out for the people, but when you analyze each and every one of their own personal wealth, they obviously are out for themselves with almost all of them being multi millionaires. Seems they are out for the people to make them wealthy allright. This probably means that Republicans are truely the ones for the people.

What's your definition of "communism" here?

Are we talking old skool Marxism? Leninism? Proto-Lenin Dictatorship? North European Social Democracy? The Utopian Ideal?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

What's your definition of "communism" here?

Are we talking old skool Marxism? Leninism? Proto-Lenin Dictatorship? North European Social Democracy? The Utopian Ideal?

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1.

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.

If the class envy folks only knew.:hmm:

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If the class envy folks only knew.:hmm:

Unfortunately, the class-envy folks simply won't listen. They purposely put their own blindfolds over their own eyes.