A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
After the tax cuts and even a raise, I am now taking home less money than I was last year because of our skyrocketing healthcare insurance premiums. That's what I did with my tax cut.
Ours didn't go up nearly that much. In the tax cut, I am including the refund we got last year which totalled over $2500. Its the biggest refund I ever received, and we got it because of the increased child tax credit and other Bush policies.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
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: What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation Actually I do I just have an adversion to centralized power. Remember, we broke away from a monarchy and there is an inherent fear of a strong central power. There has always been a states rights versus centralized government "argument". K(arl) wrote: you seem to consider it as your enemy Not really, just something to be wary of. By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. K(arl) wrote: If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. Nope. That would permit 3 states (New York, California and Texas) to control teh rest of the country. It simply wouldn't work. K(arl) wrote: What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one. Yes, you are correct. The state is closer to the local population and should represent the wishes, desires and dreams of that locale. When it gets to be comething I disagree with I can simply move to a state that more clearly represnets the way I think. 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
-
Jason 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."
The vast majority of people that received tax cuts in the U.S. were not the super rich, but the middle class. We outnumber them and we all got a tax cut. So, take a poor chap who does not invest, but has to use the tax cut to pay off the debt he incurred from buying his big screen tv. That debt payment didn't help anyone but him. Now he can go get another loan maybe. Or if he went out and bought a new tv with the money, it helps the tv shop, which helps its employees, which helps others, etc. But the money's purchasing power diminishes after each step in the process. Let's say $600 for a new tv is divided evenly among 10 employees, so they now have $60 to spend on a new muffler for their car, which is spread among 10 mechanics who now have only $6 to spend, etc. See what I'm saying? Now if a middle class man, who has little or no debt, like myself, gets a tax cut and invests it in his home, that helps local business the same as the low income example above AND it increases the property value of the home. When the home is sold, it will sell for more than it would have before the improvements. That's more of a longer term example, but it can be used with any investment scenario. Investing in foreign markets will still bring money into the US economy through the interest earned by the US investor. It won't have as great an effect, but it will have one none the less.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. Not really true. I am in the 30 -33% bracket ( it varies from year to year ) and self employeed and I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Its kinda like a supercharged IRA. I can fund this account each year with up to 25% of my income not to exceed 40000.00 and this money is NOT counted as taxable earnings for the current tax year. I pay no taxes on this account until I begin withdrawing the money and then it is taxed at the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. This alone saves me up to 10000.00 or more a year in taxes. One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. Those are deductions, not tax credits. I was thinking more of EIC (Earned Income Credit) and some of the various credits for child care. These come straight off the payable tax and are not available for even the average middle class family. As for deducting interest on mortgage payments AND claiming the "standard" deduction - I don't think this is legal. Isn't it a choice between itemizing your deductions (mortgage interest, property tax, medical bills over a certain %, etc....) OR taking the standard deduction? :confused: Richard Stringer wrote: The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Sounds like a sort of 401K for individuals. Richard Stringer wrote: One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Amen "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
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: you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History And therein lies the reason. K(arl) wrote: If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. All things considered the President is a figurehead. The real power lies with the Senate and the Congress. K(arl) wrote: What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one. Because we KNOW those people on a local level. They live where we live - shop in the same places - send their childeren to school where we send our kids - drive the same roads. Their beliefs are very close to ours or they would not be in office. In the ideas of our founding fathers the Fed gov was to be small and had very well defines areas of authority. This has been degraded greatly - mostly during and after WWII - mostly by Democrats. It will be a sad day indeed when it everything is in the hands of the Federal Gov but that is where we are heading. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. Not really true. I am in the 30 -33% bracket ( it varies from year to year ) and self employeed and I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Its kinda like a supercharged IRA. I can fund this account each year with up to 25% of my income not to exceed 40000.00 and this money is NOT counted as taxable earnings for the current tax year. I pay no taxes on this account until I begin withdrawing the money and then it is taxed at the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. This alone saves me up to 10000.00 or more a year in taxes. One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
What you are speaking of are deductions. Deductions and credits are different. Deductions reduce your taxable income. Credits reduce your tax obligation. Like you I can claim several deductions including mortgage interest, student loan interest, charitable contributions, retirement contributions, etc. But, I can't claim a single tax credit.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. Those are deductions, not tax credits. I was thinking more of EIC (Earned Income Credit) and some of the various credits for child care. These come straight off the payable tax and are not available for even the average middle class family. As for deducting interest on mortgage payments AND claiming the "standard" deduction - I don't think this is legal. Isn't it a choice between itemizing your deductions (mortgage interest, property tax, medical bills over a certain %, etc....) OR taking the standard deduction? :confused: Richard Stringer wrote: The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Sounds like a sort of 401K for individuals. Richard Stringer wrote: One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Amen "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Those are deductions, not tax credits Thats why I hire an accountant to do my taxes :) Mike Mullikin wrote: As for deducting interest on mortgage payments AND claiming the "standard" deduction - I don't think this is legal See above. :) Mike Mullikin wrote: Sounds like a sort of 401K for individuals. Much better than a 401. It is a self managed account - just like a normal brokerage account. You can have any kind of investments that you want CD'd - money market - mutual funds - stocks - bonds - T Bills. Also you can continue funding the account even after you retire. You can also tap the fund before retirement at no penalty for health care - buying a house ( first time buyer only ) education etc. And you can begin withdrawing monies at 59 1/2 regardless of your retirement status. It's the best plan the Gov. has ever came up with for funding ones retirement. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
JoeSox wrote: Mike, Mike, Mike... Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link[^] Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. 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: Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link Then why did you compose it like.... 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." When the correct quote is from the author "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." I am just pointing out that you miss quoted which does happen here in the soapbox often. Mike Gaskey wrote: Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. I am skeptical about anything a politician says. I don't think it is wise to make a judgment ASAP about it though. Personally, I trust Kerry's judgment more than Bush's because Kerry is more of a centralist out of the two. I also think Kerry is a Thinker, meaning he will be more logical about the decisions he makes. Bush is more extreme. I mean, what a dirtball for conducting his campaign the way he is. But whatever. Bush has shown the world that he will do whatever it takes to win. It makes me nauseous just thinking about it. X| This is probably why Putin said he Bush is predictable. Anything to win. Why do we have to win all the time? I am really tired of thinking about politics. After watching that McNamara documentary the other night it's amazing how White House mistakes can mess up the planet, or save the planet. It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too. Although I loved Australia, in fact, I liked it so much I almost didn't go back to the ship:-O Hey, I was 21. It looks like the National Debates is going to be a nice scripted sitcom this election.:~ X| :suss: Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
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."
Actually, I would prefer if they discovered a way to temporarily sterilize everyone at birth and only enable them to have children once they meet a strict set of guidelines, such as: 1. "Parenting" license, 2. Decent income, 3. Home ownership, 4. 25 years of age or older, 5. Never been jailed or out of it for the past 5 years, 6. Married for 3 years, 7. etc... I know it's radical but just think of all the problems this could potentially solve. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
-
Actually, I would prefer if they discovered a way to temporarily sterilize everyone at birth and only enable them to have children once they meet a strict set of guidelines, such as: 1. "Parenting" license, 2. Decent income, 3. Home ownership, 4. 25 years of age or older, 5. Never been jailed or out of it for the past 5 years, 6. Married for 3 years, 7. etc... I know it's radical but just think of all the problems this could potentially solve. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
Are you absolutly sure you wouldn't be sterilized too?
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: Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses It would seem to me to be a moot point. If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. And see my earlier comments about how in Australia it's not possible to get a home loan that's fixed for more than a year or two. Richard Stringer wrote: The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . I agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. 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."
Damn - my lengthy reply has been killed by IE. Yes, I'm serious. We spend far too much time defending the rights of adults to be terrible parents, and not enough time worrying about the rights of children who are ( through no fault of their own ) born to idiots. And through environmental conditioning, they grow into people who offer nothing to society but a bill for their dole cheque. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Are you absolutly sure you wouldn't be sterilized too?
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."
:confused:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
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."
Remember, the very people who created our central federal government were suspecious of it themselves, considering it, at best, a necessary evil. We are culturally imbued as a people with a deep seated mistrust of centralized power - which is precisely why we have never had a dicator and never will. Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems. Traditionally, Americans instinctively do not want to be 'taken care of' and we do not view government as having any responsibility to do for us that which we can do for ourselves just as well. Until very recently, we have always chosen to honor the founding principles of our nation and to deny power to the government that, while it could care for us, could just as easily be used to control us. That government is best which governs least. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Richard Stringer wrote: If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. And see my earlier comments about how in Australia it's not possible to get a home loan that's fixed for more than a year or two. Richard Stringer wrote: The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . I agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. I am sure that even Down Under they have heard of mutual funds and stocks :) I ma getting around 6.5 % on my money and if interest rates go up I'll move some money into bonds and make a little more. Christian Graus wrote: have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan There are a lot of reasons for not paying off a home. If the home is appreciating in value enough to cancel out the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage then you are essentially living in the home for free. Using your existing monies to pay off the home if you are not investing it is not a real good choice because you are paying with todays dollar which is going to be more than tomorrows dollar so to speak. Of course I have no clue about the vagrancies of an adjustable rate mortgage - I would never take one - its financial suicide. Christian Graus wrote: agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. One benefits according to what one contributes. If I pay 50000.00 a year in taxes ( which I do ) and get a 10% tax cut I get 5000.00 bucks. Joe Lazybones pays 200.00 a year and gets 2 bucks. I am not gonna cry for him - he got what I got. And if the poor pay nothing well 10% of nothing is nothing. Seems fair to me. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link Then why did you compose it like.... 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." When the correct quote is from the author "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." I am just pointing out that you miss quoted which does happen here in the soapbox often. Mike Gaskey wrote: Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. I am skeptical about anything a politician says. I don't think it is wise to make a judgment ASAP about it though. Personally, I trust Kerry's judgment more than Bush's because Kerry is more of a centralist out of the two. I also think Kerry is a Thinker, meaning he will be more logical about the decisions he makes. Bush is more extreme. I mean, what a dirtball for conducting his campaign the way he is. But whatever. Bush has shown the world that he will do whatever it takes to win. It makes me nauseous just thinking about it. X| This is probably why Putin said he Bush is predictable. Anything to win. Why do we have to win all the time? I am really tired of thinking about politics. After watching that McNamara documentary the other night it's amazing how White House mistakes can mess up the planet, or save the planet. It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too. Although I loved Australia, in fact, I liked it so much I almost didn't go back to the ship:-O Hey, I was 21. It looks like the National Debates is going to be a nice scripted sitcom this election.:~ X| :suss: Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Why do we have to win all the time? Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. JoeSox wrote: It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. JoeSox wrote: I also think Kerry is a Thinker, Maybe in the sense of Rodin - but a real thinker - nope. What has he ever done in his life except marry rich women and politics. GB has at least had to struggle a bit and one having overcome adversity is only made stronger by it. And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Christian Graus wrote: I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. I am sure that even Down Under they have heard of mutual funds and stocks :) I ma getting around 6.5 % on my money and if interest rates go up I'll move some money into bonds and make a little more. Christian Graus wrote: have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan There are a lot of reasons for not paying off a home. If the home is appreciating in value enough to cancel out the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage then you are essentially living in the home for free. Using your existing monies to pay off the home if you are not investing it is not a real good choice because you are paying with todays dollar which is going to be more than tomorrows dollar so to speak. Of course I have no clue about the vagrancies of an adjustable rate mortgage - I would never take one - its financial suicide. Christian Graus wrote: agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. One benefits according to what one contributes. If I pay 50000.00 a year in taxes ( which I do ) and get a 10% tax cut I get 5000.00 bucks. Joe Lazybones pays 200.00 a year and gets 2 bucks. I am not gonna cry for him - he got what I got. And if the poor pay nothing well 10% of nothing is nothing. Seems fair to me. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: I am sure that even Down Under they have heard of mutual funds and stocks Apparently. I'm more interested in putting my money in real estate tho. In the short term, I don't know of a way to get a good rate and have access to my money. We're about to build a house, you see, I don't have enough money to tie any of it up for long periods. Richard Stringer wrote: Of course I have no clue about the vagrancies of an adjustable rate mortgage - I would never take one - its financial suicide. Yeah, it worries me a lot, especially as rates are so low right now ( i.e. they must rise ). But the fact is, that's the way it works here. Richard Stringer wrote: One benefits according to what one contributes. If I pay 50000.00 a year in taxes ( which I do ) and get a 10% tax cut I get 5000.00 bucks. Joe Lazybones pays 200.00 a year and gets 2 bucks. I am not gonna cry for him - he got what I got. And if the poor pay nothing well 10% of nothing is nothing. Seems fair to me. Sure - that's what I said as well. In Australia, everyone who makes more than $6k a year pays tax. The average wage is about $40k, I believe. Where I live, 95% of people earn less than $50k. The recent tax cut was only for people who earn more than 52k a year. They changed the higher rates, but not the lower ones. Fine for me, I'll earn at least 100k this year. Not so good for people who are living hand to mouth because they have a low paying job, even though they work 40 hours a week, and who see me driving a nicer car because I got a tax cut and they didn't. That's how revolutins start. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
pankajdaga wrote: Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. Quite a leap in logic here. Precisely what do you base these conclusions on? pankajdaga wrote: No wonder you have so many fans. Who the fuck is running a popularity contest? And just for grins, tell me how many people sneak into your country becuase of the quality of life offered there. 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: And just for grins, tell me how many people sneak into your country becuase of the quality of life offered there. ROTFL - got my 5, and made my day. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
JoeSox wrote: Why do we have to win all the time? Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. JoeSox wrote: It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. JoeSox wrote: I also think Kerry is a Thinker, Maybe in the sense of Rodin - but a real thinker - nope. What has he ever done in his life except marry rich women and politics. GB has at least had to struggle a bit and one having overcome adversity is only made stronger by it. And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. Haven't you ever heard of cooperation? Last time I checked, peaceful intelligent beings have learned to cooperate. Richard Stringer wrote: Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. Yeah, it's funny how that works. Richard Stringer wrote: And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. I don't know Ann Richards so how can I ask her? Didn't Bush and Kerry both graduate from the same University?:rolleyes::doh: Didn't Bush and Kerry both fight in Vietnam? Oh wait[^]. What was the biggest conflict Bush help prevent while he served? Hurricane Camille? Impressive.:| Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
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."
First I will say I believe interpretation of words between us is not as clear as we would like. I see disagreement and agreement with the same issues in your response. K(arl) wrote: Exactly. Everything is about education. I think we agree, just what is the scope of education? I would say it includes being responsible for yourself when you can is included. How you handle taking care of those when they can not, is the question. Simply saying let the government provide all, is not the right answer imho. K(arl) wrote: and not abandoning them when they are in need. When did any of us suggest abandoning people? Remember the "That is what family is for" statement? K(arl) wrote: "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. I never said or implied that at all. I do know some that would choose to live poor versus taking any responsibility. K(arl) wrote: but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Some bad apples? 100% of this example group is not some, it is an entire segement. But back to what is education. K(arl) wrote: In a perfect world Yes, but we do not. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.