A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
Christian Graus wrote: So you're against public hospitals, roads, police, firemen, and jails ? Yes,I am against public hospitals. Roads, police, firemen and jails I am willing to fund locally (not at the federal level) through property tax. Christian Graus wrote: OK. But you expect that to be provided magically, to a high standard, no matter how little or how much is taken ? I'm confused ??? No, not magically but thru property tax at the local level. Christian Graus wrote: They are offering a lot of subsidized services, which will pander to the majority of Australians ( i.e. unemployed or barely employed bums who want everything for free ). This speaks to one of the real problems I have with professional politicians. It becomes their job and to stay employed from election cycle to election cycle they have to do something to create a product the masses will buy (thru votes). I strongly favor term limits. By the way, at one time (early in USA history) on land owners could vote. Women were also excluded. Thus there wan't a need to "buy" the votes of the masses. Christian Graus wrote: Gee - it's possible to get a permanently fixed rate mortgage in the USA ? I can get it fixed for 24 months, tops. I'm currently paying off a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. 2 years to go. In teh 80's I had a variable rate that hit 14%. Nearly killed me because it was a very (by my standards) expensive home. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes,I am against public hospitals. Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: What if they don't want one ? Seriously, what do you do ? That's a tough one. I can be a cold heartless bastard at times but I don't want to see anybody starve - certainly not children. Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. Christian Graus wrote: One thing that people miss is that if I earn more money, I get a bigger break if a break is even across the board - I was paying more to start with. The papers always run stories on how much someone who makes 100k will get back, compared to someone who makes 25k ( which is what a lot of people live on ). Here (with the latest Bush tax cut) it wasn't a rate change per say. The rich have always paid a much higher rate than the middle class and poor. (I wasn't kidding when I said most of the US poor pay no federal income tax.) The tax cut was more opening a few windows so capital gains aren't plundered by taxes and eliminating estate taxes (death taxes). Christian Graus wrote: But if the people on the lower levels get NO break, that's not fair. If they are already paying nothing the only other choice is paying them. I'd rather the extra money be a carrot rather than a gift. Christian Graus wrote: So who needs the money more ? That becomes a slippery slope. Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. That's not even remotely what I said. I'm just saying that if there is a tax cut, the poor should get something back in similar proportion to the rich. Mike Mullikin wrote: Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. I agree. Do you think we could do it ? Actually, I'd go one better. Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. That's not even remotely what I said. I'm just saying that if there is a tax cut, the poor should get something back in similar proportion to the rich. Mike Mullikin wrote: Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. I agree. Do you think we could do it ? Actually, I'd go one better. Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: That's not even remotely what I said. Sorry, just me taking an idea and running with it... to it's extreme worse case conclusion. ;P Christian Graus wrote: Do you think we could do it ? Probably not, the world is too politically correct for such things. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Christian Graus wrote: That's not even remotely what I said. Sorry, just me taking an idea and running with it... to it's extreme worse case conclusion. ;P Christian Graus wrote: Do you think we could do it ? Probably not, the world is too politically correct for such things. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Probably not, the world is too politically correct for such things. I reckon when the backlash to all this PC crap comes, it will come in a major way. I hope I'm here to see it. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Yes,I am against public hospitals. Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. Health insurance here cost about $150 a month for a family. It's subsidised by a tax cut, which means it's half price for me, people who are seriously poor get nothing back at all. Mike Gaskey wrote: Which is to say they are make bad decisions. You're right, they do. The poor are the biggest consumers of worthless crap. Their kids in particular have no say in this, and no power to control the course of events which, in your world, would deny them medical care. Mike Gaskey wrote: As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. So you're saying that someone who is poor should get their uncle to give them a heart transplant ? The system cannot be perfect, it has to either allow cheats, or punish those who don't deserve it. Health is definately one issue where I think society should err on the side of caution. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy."...Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? Mike, Mike, Mike... "Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy. " You need to quote your sources correctly if we are to take you seriously. This is a paraphrase from only one source I found http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1595887,00.html[^] Kerry didn't say those exact words. Who knows what he actually said so we could grasp his exact context and intended message.:doh: Besides, Kerry outlines his tax plan on his website and it seems like to me he is concerned more about creating jobs from specific corporate tax cuts. So if he did say the middle class suffered I guess it was because Bush didn't provide the correct tax cuts which would be Corporate tax cuts to create more jobs. Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't exclude them either. Sure. I pay 47 cents in the dollar tax, so I'm all for tax cuts on the high end of the scale ( and the point where that tax rate kicks in is a joke, I am not rich, my any means ). Mike Mullikin wrote: giving them a job What if they don't want one ? Seriously, what do you do ? Mike Mullikin wrote: As for giving the rich a little bit bigger tax break One thing that people miss is that if I earn more money, I get a bigger break if a break is even across the board - I was paying more to start with. The papers always run stories on how much someone who makes 100k will get back, compared to someone who makes 25k ( which is what a lot of people live on ). But if the people on the lower levels get NO break, that's not fair. They will use it to increase their meagre standard of living, I'll use it to go on holidays more. So who needs the money more ? Mike Mullikin wrote: Eventually you start losing your motivation to excel when all the extra money goes to the government. Like I said, pretty much 50 cents in the dollar. It doesn't stop me chasing work, although it hurts. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Our poor pay virtually $0 in income taxes. They get robbed through sales, payroll, and the dreaded FICA (look it up). The idea of giving money back to people is not really to let them go out and blow it all on a new couch. If poor people paid any income taxes, and they got it back, most likely they would use all of it to buy stuff, which only marginally helps the economy. The real boost comes from people re-investing that money. Some invest in new employees and business expansion, while others buy stock, or improve their homes (investment in property). These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
As CG said, the money's gotta come from somewhere. Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending... but that starts to get troublesome, doesn't it? My question is, why doesn't it bother you that tax cuts are being done at all? As i see it, there are really two possibilities - either they weren't really required in the first place (in which case someone should be 'fessing up or forced to take the fall for it), or there are favors being cashed in. :suss:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: Gov'ts can cut spending If only they would... :sigh:
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Christian Graus wrote: So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. The return being more jobs created and thus more taxes collected. It has to work this way or the whole system fails. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. When you allready got a Lambourghini, a Ferrari and a couple of VW Phaetons, I would believe that your'e allready spending as much as possible... Your answer, Im psychic you see (or was it Psychotic, hmmm...), is that they will invest those money. And some of them probably will. But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Our poor pay virtually $0 in income taxes. They get robbed through sales, payroll, and the dreaded FICA (look it up). The idea of giving money back to people is not really to let them go out and blow it all on a new couch. If poor people paid any income taxes, and they got it back, most likely they would use all of it to buy stuff, which only marginally helps the economy. The real boost comes from people re-investing that money. Some invest in new employees and business expansion, while others buy stock, or improve their homes (investment in property). These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: The real boost comes from people re-investing that money Like these guys who really boosted the Taiwanese economy..[^] Jason Henderson wrote: Some invest in new employees In India perhaps?[^] Or maybe China?[^] Jason Henderson wrote: or improve their homes Sometimes very rich people probably will improve their homes. They may buy Danish furnitures, Oriental carpets and decorate with Italian designs. :) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Damn. That would totally rock. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Damn. That would totally rock. Not always. In Denmark it's also possible to get a fixed rate mortgage. When my girlfriend and I bough our house, we had to loan about 1.000.000 DKK (about 143.000 USD). We couldn't quite agree on the form of loan, so we splitted it up in a fixed rate, and a variable rate loan which must be renewed every year. Now, 3 years later, there is a 30.000 DKK difference in the two loans... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Jason Henderson wrote: The real boost comes from people re-investing that money Like these guys who really boosted the Taiwanese economy..[^] Jason Henderson wrote: Some invest in new employees In India perhaps?[^] Or maybe China?[^] Jason Henderson wrote: or improve their homes Sometimes very rich people probably will improve their homes. They may buy Danish furnitures, Oriental carpets and decorate with Italian designs. :) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
I'm not talking about corporations. An individuals tax cut wouldn't make much of a difference in a corp., but it would to a small business owner. After Bush's last tax cuts, I renovated our bathroom. That's an investment in our home, which will increase the property and resale value. It has nothing to do with the furnishings.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. That's not even remotely what I said. I'm just saying that if there is a tax cut, the poor should get something back in similar proportion to the rich. Mike Mullikin wrote: Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. I agree. Do you think we could do it ? Actually, I'd go one better. Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. :omg: I never thought I would hear from you such a totalitarian proposition! that's a mix between the T4 operation and the Stalinian "Article 58[^]" Unless you're trolling? :suss:
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Our poor pay virtually $0 in income taxes. They get robbed through sales, payroll, and the dreaded FICA (look it up). The idea of giving money back to people is not really to let them go out and blow it all on a new couch. If poor people paid any income taxes, and they got it back, most likely they would use all of it to buy stuff, which only marginally helps the economy. The real boost comes from people re-investing that money. Some invest in new employees and business expansion, while others buy stock, or improve their homes (investment in property). These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: which only marginally helps the economy Please demonstrate. Jason Henderson wrote: These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV. Joe-Six-Pack will probably buy his TV in a store near his location, "helping" the store owner. If this one has enough money to satisfy his needs, he will perhaps invest it. This money will then have a "double" use. On the other hand, tthe big investor will probably put his money in foreign markets (as Jan noticed), not in the US economy. Moreover, there's no proof (s)he will invest in stable and profitable operations, but (s)he may well speculate, helping then to destabilize the economy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? If you mean are people here selfish, I would say yes, and more and more. If not, "we" wouldn't have elected a conservative president, or there wouldn't be so many abuses of the social protections Michael A. Barnhart wrote: People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants And a Nation should display solidarity towards its citizen, and not abandoning them when they are in need. Giving to its citizen the right to live is the less a Nation can do, and for this ensuring Health Care for anybody is IMO the first article of the social contract. WTF, "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. Of course there are some abuses, some people live at the expense of the Society, but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. In a perfect world, I don't see the problem of the society fitting the needs of everybody? Did you never watch Star Trek? :-D Michael A. Barnhart wrote: So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? My first reaction is that it's sad the professors have to care about buying papers and pens, it shouldn't be part of their job. Next, to answer your question, the selfish ones are definitively the "profiters" (the ones who take profit), and these ones should be punished because they exploit the collectivity and endanger the whole system. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: To be honest they had been taught this way Exactly. Everything is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? And where could they probably have picked up that selfish behaviour? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. When you allready got a Lambourghini, a Ferrari and a couple of VW Phaetons, I would believe that your'e allready spending as much as possible... Your answer, Im psychic you see (or was it Psychotic, hmmm...), is that they will invest those money. And some of them probably will. But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. Don't beleive what the US democrats are saying. The Bush tax cut was NOT only for the rich. In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate than the middle class and the poor pay nothing. jan larsen wrote: But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. Maybe the corporations do, but rarely individuals. P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? :confused: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick