reason why NOT to vote for most/all of the democrats in the 08 election (USA)

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

gameguy6700

Oh, but we can't be doing that... because they 'worked hard' for that money, and thus have the right to dine on a new set of diamond-encrusted silverware each month. I mean, if you took away the ability to be exorbitantly wealthy, well then the profit motive would disappear entirely, and the whole nation would collapse. :roll:

:( It seems you neither know the definition of communism, where taxes go, or which party spends more money (republicans).

Welfare is just meant to help people get back onto their feet in bad times, help people who are disabled or sick, unable work, ect. It's not a perfect system, I don't think that's deniable, it is being improved all the time, but I believe it's a nessasary net to help the people within a socioty.

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

gameguy6700

some good points here and there...but i cringe when i hear people are kucinich supporters.... sorry, but he is bad, very bad. at least like some more mainstream dems. kucinich is well, i don't know; the complete and utter nonpresident incarnate. vote or support someone that has a chance of winning. NathanHawkins

I think every Kucinich supporter knows good and well that he has no chance in hell of winning. Its about principle though. There's no way I'm voting for Obama or Clinton, they're too mainstream. All their platforms are are time-tested "safe" stances that, in the end, mean absolutely nothing. As much as people complain about how they want an "honest" candidate who will "do something", they'll never vote for someone like that. Just like electing your high school president, the Presidential elections of the US are more of a popularity contest than anything. Hell, look at Obama. The guy is almost entirely charisma. His platform may as well be "I'll be the first black man in the white house and I'm not a republican". Anyway, the thing about Kucinich is that, if elected, he would most definitly do something, he's outspoken, and his platform actually matches his voting record. Like I said, he has no chance in hell of winning, but I'm still going to vote for the guy since the alternative is either not voting or voting for a candidate I don't want to win.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

Def_Jef88

why should we be fair when the poor need their wide screen tvs? i propose a government program to use those tax dollars to give all the poor people plasmas. whose with me?! that's what they'll buy with itanyway instead of actually saving it

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

Def_Jef88

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents? Perhaps you think that Lil' Bow Wow buying his third house at age 16 is more important than a single mother of four getting the chemotherapy needed to save her life?

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

gameguy6700

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents?

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

amob

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents?

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

I thought I made that clear in my post, but apparantly the complex concept of "the example" evades you so let me make it more explicit:

The poor are still people. People have needs. The poor, in many cases, can't afford these needs. The rich, on the other hand, who control most of the money in the country have enormous pools of money that they could never hope to spend in their lives, and the money that they do manage to spend goes to increadibly useless luxeries. What I'm saying is that the basic needs of people (health, education, etc.) should take priority over someone with a bank account in excess of $2 billion buying a diamond encrusted pillow. With welfare we're not handing money over to the poor (at least we aren't if we use a good system). We're saying "oh, your seven year old has leukemia, you don't have health insurance, and make $10,000 per year? Alright, we'll pay for the treatment for you".

Yeah, the rich earned their money, even if it was by doing something that children do for fun like playing football. They should give it back to their nation as well instead of hording it. Like I said, they'll still be super-rich. Their standard of living won't be changed in the least.

As opposed to my hard earned tax dollars going to a war I don't support?LJS9502_basic

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

amob

Do you or did you go to public school?

If so, why do you think you were entitled to get an education on someone else's money?

I've found that neither the republican or democratic idealism really deals with the reality of the world. Unfortunately for me, my age group is generally under-represented in congress. Most of it is our own fault, since people my age don't vote as much as they should and hence have no major lobby.

sonicare

[QUOTE="amob"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

gameguy6700

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents?

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

I thought I made that clear in my post, but apparantly the complex concept of "the example" evades you so let me make it more explicit:

The poor are still people. People have needs. The poor, in many cases, can't afford these needs. The rich, on the other hand, who control most of the money in the country have enormous pools of money that they could never hope to spend in their lives, and the money that they do manage to spend goes to increadibly useless luxeries. What I'm saying is that the basic needs of people (health, education, etc.) should take priority over someone with a bank account in excess of $2 billion buying a diamond encrusted pillow. With welfare we're not handing money over to the poor (at least we aren't if we use a good system). We're saying "oh, your seven year old has leukemia, you don't have health insurance, and make $10,000 per year? Alright, we'll pay for the treatment for you".

Yeah, the rich earned their money, even if it was by doing something that children do for fun like playing football. They should give it back to their nation as well instead of hording it. Like I said, they'll still be super-rich. Their standard of living won't be changed in the least.

It should be the person choice on whether or not they want to give their money to the poor. It is of course.............their money. I feel bad for how socialist the US is getting these days.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

gameguy6700

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents? Perhaps you think that Lil' Bow Wow buying his third house at age 16 is more important than a single mother of four getting the chemotherapy needed to save her life?

[QUOTE="amob"]

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

SpaceMoose

Do you or did you go to public school?

If so, why do you think you were entitled to get an education on someone else's money?

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="amob"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

bacon_is_sweet

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents?

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

I thought I made that clear in my post, but apparantly the complex concept of "the example" evades you so let me make it more explicit:

The poor are still people. People have needs. The poor, in many cases, can't afford these needs. The rich, on the other hand, who control most of the money in the country have enormous pools of money that they could never hope to spend in their lives, and the money that they do manage to spend goes to increadibly useless luxeries. What I'm saying is that the basic needs of people (health, education, etc.) should take priority over someone with a bank account in excess of $2 billion buying a diamond encrusted pillow. With welfare we're not handing money over to the poor (at least we aren't if we use a good system). We're saying "oh, your seven year old has leukemia, you don't have health insurance, and make $10,000 per year? Alright, we'll pay for the treatment for you".

Yeah, the rich earned their money, even if it was by doing something that children do for fun like playing football. They should give it back to their nation as well instead of hording it. Like I said, they'll still be super-rich. Their standard of living won't be changed in the least.

It should be the person choice on whether or not they want to give their money to the poor. It is of course.............their money. I feel bad for how socialist the US is getting these days.

So should it also be their choice as to whether or not they should give money to the government to fight a war they may nor may not agree with? Or give the government to build weapons? And I guess it should also be everyone's choice as to whether or not they want to pay for the education system.

To make another point, let me just add that when you pay taxes it hits you a lot harder than it hits the rich. To them paying the $500,000 in taxes that they have to is like you paying a dime in yearly taxes. They don't even flinch. But I'm guessing with you the case is different, to the point where you have to budget your income thanks to taxes as well as bills, and loans. And that's going to get worse too when all the baby boomers hit 65. If you're making the average American income of $35,000, then I hope you enjoy living on $10,000 (probably less) per year income 15 years from now, while those super-rich you're so desperate to protect live on a very meager $200 million a year.

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="amob"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

gameguy6700

Even after taking 75% of that $100 million income, that's still $25 million going into their pocket. I think most people can agree that's more than enough to live comfortably on, and I don't think its up for dispute that that still outearns most people in the US by a very hefty margin. I'm just tossing numbers out there though. Point being, its more than possible to generate a lot more tax dollars by just taxing the super-rich. They'll still be super-rich, its just that they'll be less super-rich. Most of them don't even use the majority of what they earn. This would basically be taking what they can't possibly spend and it putting it to good use by improving the lives of people who actully need the money. What's more important to you: P. Diddy buying his 14th private island, or getting a few hundred kids living in poverty to go to a good college so that they can rise into the middle class and not have to live paycheck to paycheck like their parents?

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

I thought I made that clear in my post, but apparantly the complex concept of "the example" evades you so let me make it more explicit:

The poor are still people. People have needs. The poor, in many cases, can't afford these needs. The rich, on the other hand, who control most of the money in the country have enormous pools of money that they could never hope to spend in their lives, and the money that they do manage to spend goes to increadibly useless luxeries. What I'm saying is that the basic needs of people (health, education, etc.) should take priority over someone with a bank account in excess of $2 billion buying a diamond encrusted pillow. With welfare we're not handing money over to the poor (at least we aren't if we use a good system). We're saying "oh, your seven year old has leukemia, you don't have health insurance, and make $10,000 per year? Alright, we'll pay for the treatment for you".

Yeah, the rich earned their money, even if it was by doing something that children do for fun like playing football. They should give it back to their nation as well instead of hording it. Like I said, they'll still be super-rich. Their standard of living won't be changed in the least.

It should be the person choice on whether or not they want to give their money to the poor. It is of course.............their money. I feel bad for how socialist the US is getting these days.

So should it also be their choice as to whether or not they should give money to the government to fight a war they may nor may not agree with? Or give the government to build weapons? And I guess it should also be everyone's choice as to whether or not they want to pay for the education system.

To make another point, let me just add that when you pay taxes it hits you a lot harder than it hits the rich. To them paying the $500,000 in taxes that they have to is like you paying a dime in yearly taxes. They don't even flinch. But I'm guessing with you the case is different, to the point where you have to budget your income thanks to taxes as well as bills, and loans. And that's going to get worse too when all the baby boomers hit 65. If you're making the average American income of $35,000, then I hope you enjoy living on $10,000 (probably less) per year income 15 years from now, while those super-rich you're so desperate to protect live on a very meager $200 million a year.

Paying for the war is it to the benefit of the entire nation. Paying the poor would hurt the countries people as a whole. And we are "capitalist" so I can strive to make it big and try. Or if I used your theory I can be a piece of **** for my life and still live some what well.

Poor people don't have a reason to get other people's money. They should get jobs. End of story.catfishmoon23

My man speaks wisdom. I mean. If illegal aliens can get jobs so can the poor.

If I was an american, I would have vote for Nader. I can't believe peoples are still stupid enough to not recognize what he has done for his country.Redgarl

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

bacon_is_sweet

Yeah? What about people who work two full time near-minimum wage jobs, neither of which has health coverage? And don't tell me that is far-fetched because I have known people in exactly that situation. Screw them too, right? Their fault for...for what, for not being born geniuses?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Now call me crazy, but perhaps if we just hiked up the taxes so that the oil company CEO and famous hollywood actor collecting $500 million per year pay, say, 75% of their income to taxes a lot of our money problems as a country would be eliminated? They'd still be rich as hell, just not as rich. It makes a lot more sense than, say, giving them a tax cut and making the middle and especially lower classes pick up the slack instead.

Def_Jef88

Being that I hold a degree in economics, I feel that I may be able to help here. (I know this is long, but if you want to read, read. If you don't, dont.)

First, our government taxes high income earners at a greater rate not just because of the assumptions being discussed here. I'm afraid it's a little more cynical than that:).It is also about earning money for our government. If there was a flat tax at, say, 30%, our government would collect less money than one that is tiered, say, where the bottom 20% pay 10% and the top 10% pay 50%. Why? It is really very simple economics.

Let's say we have a grand economy ofthree people. Wow. Three. Anyway, let's say person one earns 100$ a yr, person 2 earns 300$, and person 3 earns 2,000$. If we had a flat tax of 30%, than the government would collect about 750$ for that year. Now let's say that we are using the tier system. Person one gets taxed 10%, 2 gets taxed 25%, and 3 gets taxed 50%. Now we collect 1,085$.

Bottom line, we need to tax the very wealthy at a higher rate if we want our government to collect the same amount of money. I believe that the top .1% (yes- that is .1, with a dot befor the one) of income earners in the U.S. pay about 15% of all government collections, while the ENTIRE BOTTOM HALF PAY LESS THAN 5%. That means that one out of every 1,000 people will contribute THREE TIMES as much money to the government as 500 others. If we changed to a flat tax, our drop in government savings would be FAR greater than the example I used above.

Remember also that if we taxed the middle class higher, than they would have less spending power. Already, they are losing their spending power, and if it drops further (considering they consist of the meat of our economy), it could be disastorous for our entire economy. I won't go into detail- look up Alan Greenspan's concern over this issue if you want more- but it goes something like this:

If a majority of consumers can no longer purchase a healthy amount of goods anymore, than demand will fall. A fall in demand will mean a fall in production to meet the lower demand. With a fall in production there will be even more layoffs and less money earned. It is a vicious cycle that eats itself, and eventually the bottom will drop out.

Oh, and please remember, if the wealthiest 1% in America were taxed 99%, they would still hold morewealth than 90% of all Americans. Also keep in mind that out of ALL THE WORLD POWERS, the U.S. has the highest gap between rich and poor, which is proved by the Gini Coefficient, which I will not discuss but you can research if you wish. And remember, a 50% tax rate is not high at all today considering this gap, as it was once higher than 95% in the 1940s- when the income gap disparity was not nearly as disporportionate as it is today.

You can call people commies if you want, but the only real justification to having a flat tax would be for "fairness" (though this in itself is disputable- again regarding the largest income gap in history).

......Don't know why I wasted so much time posting this, hopefully people will understand it.

The_Baymonster

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="amob"]

why is that you think that poor people are entitled to someone else's money?

bacon_is_sweet

Do you or did you go to public school?

If so, why do you think you were entitled to get an education on someone else's money?

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

let me repeat myself: welfare does not give money to the poor. It gives them services to help them get back on their feet/meet their basic needs. An example would be providing free college education and healthcare. Like all welfare programs we can put in a clause that prevents certain types of people from exploiting the system. For example, with free healthcare a clause would be you can't be a drug addict. With most monetary handouts its only for a short time as well, and that person has to show that they're working to get a job and not just sitting on a sofa at home watching NASCAR.

To give you an idea of why such services are important, let's imagine a scenario: You were never born into your current family. Instead, you were born into a family with three other kids that has a yearly household income of $12,000. Think you can still go to college? Probably not unless you're the very, very rare type of person who would work extremely hard to get amazing scholarships. What's far more likely is that you'll complete high school, if that, and work in a crappy job for the rest of your life. You'll never escape poverty, you'll marry, have kids, and they'll grow up to live in poverty as well. And god forbid you should ever get seriously ill or injured because you'll just be ****ed plain and simple then. Even assuming you manage to live through it with no health care (remember, you can't afford it) you'll have lost your job. And seeing as how you were living paycheck to paycheck, well that means you probably weren't able to pay your lease. Say goodbye to your car and house. Time to file for bankruptcy and move into a Motel 6 as you borrow money from family and friends to pay for the room you and your family are living in while you find a new job.

Believe it or not, the majority of the lower class are not drug addicts and criminals. They also do have jobs and they work hard. The problem is that the jobs they have are crap. For example, when I worked at Kroger as a bag boy I made $5.25 an hour. I considered that a crap wage at 18 and was glad I could look forward to future when I would be making ten times that, if not more. However, a lot of my co-workers were people in their 40's and 50's who had no hope of ever making significantly more than that. A lot of those people worked two or three jobs just to make ends meet. And you want to know something? If they had ever gotten ill for more than two weeks, they would have been laid off. Keep in mind that they needed that $5.25 an hour to keep some modicum of a decent living. Losing that job wasn't an option.

It's really easy to say "yeah, the poor are lazy good for nothing drug addicts who don't even bother to get a job" when the most interaction you've ever had with the lower class is watching an episode of Cops.

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

SpaceMoose

Yeah? What about people who work two full time near-minimum wage jobs, neither of which has health coverage? And don't tell me that is far-fetched because I have known people in exactly that situation. Screw them too, right? Their fault for...for what, for not being born geniuses?

Damn how sad.............life an't fare. :| Some people just need to go with it. You think I have a lot of money? No. I'm in college and the last thing us college go'ers need is more taxes for the poor with half who don't even deserve it. All thats gonna do is make us poorer.

Damn how sad.............life an't fare. :| Some people just need to go with it. You think I have a lot of money? No. I'm in college and the last thing us college go'ers need is more taxes for the poor with half who don't even deserve it. All thats gonna do is make us poorer.

bacon_is_sweet

Yeah, because God only knows that what we are talking about here is raising the taxes of college students working $10 an hour or whatever jobs. We weren't talking about people who make millions of dollars a year or anything. Nice swticheroo though. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Yeah, "some people just need to go with it," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. "Hey, I got diagnosed with cancer and every penny I earn has to go towards my treatment! I can rest easy though, knowing that Mr. CEO Vanderbucks is buying his tenth beachfront property! I guess I just need to go with it!"

[QUOTE="Redgarl"]If I was an american, I would have vote for Nader. I can't believe peoples are still stupid enough to not recognize what he has done for his country.Def_Jef88

Exactly what I said... boo boo... :roll:

Here is the reason: Most, if not all of the running democrats are supporting government funding policies, such as poverty and healthcare, which will put a bunch of new taxes on you. Now the "end to poverty" thing shouldn't be promoted because if a democrat who intends to end poverty is selected as the next President he or she will be uselessly be putting a bunch of new taxes on YOU, and converting YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY and giving it to poor people without jobs who DON'T WORK and DON'T DESERVE IT. And of course, in the end poverty will never be conquered, so if you vote for a democrat, you're basically just throwing away your own money. Besides, don't you Americans realize that the End to Poverty government funding progam is simply a HUGE example of COMMUNISM in the free country of the United States?huladog123

Let's pretend the world is all so simple :roll:

Compared to fighting an unnecessary war under a false premise that actually bolsters our enemies and at the same time a thinning list of allies ... I'll take a crazy republican nightmare welfare state as an alternative anytime.

As for taxes, I hate to break it to you but they're going up regardless of who you vote for. They have to pay for the war we have been and will be fighting. That will be in the hands of the next few administrations...

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

bacon_is_sweet

Yeah? What about people who work two full time near-minimum wage jobs, neither of which has health coverage? And don't tell me that is far-fetched because I have known people in exactly that situation. Screw them too, right? Their fault for...for what, for not being born geniuses?

Damn how sad.............life an't fare. :| Some people just need to go with it. You think I have a lot of money? No. I'm in college and the last thing us college go'ers need is more taxes for the poor with half who don't even deserve it. All thats gonna do is make us poorer.

Which is why we're saying tax the rich more. We're not saying "tax everyone more" just the rich. They can afford even a 95% tax and still live more well off than you can ever hope to. But its this "socalism is teh evil!" attitude in America that results in the rich getting taxed barely more than what the middle class does.

Anyway, let's hope that you never lose your job due to illness and have your health insurance drop you (which does happen). Because then you're going to being standing in line at the welfare office collecting your $200 check. Or if you get your way, you'll just be a bum on the street because you wont even be able to afford that.

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]Poor people don't have a reason to get other people's money. They should get jobs. End of story.bacon_is_sweet

My man speaks wisdom. I mean. If illegal aliens can get jobs so can the poor.

Your assumptions on what the majority of people are like is discusting. Most people who are poor work multiple jobs, more hours a week than the avarage white collar, and yet make significantally less, often barly enough to make ends meat. I don't know where you get the idea that the poor don't have jobs, but it's pretty damn obvious your contact with the poor has been practically non-existant considering your being so quick to judge.

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

SpaceMoose

Yeah? What about people who work two full time near-minimum wage jobs, neither of which has health coverage? And don't tell me that is far-fetched because I have known people in exactly that situation. Screw them too, right? Their fault for...for what, for not being born geniuses?

the short answer: yes screw them.

It is not the responsibility of the fellow citizens to help the said poor person. It is, in fact, thepoor person's responsibility to find a betterpaying job to supporthis or her situation. the capitalist system provides ample opportunity for that person to make a good living and to not get in that situation to begin with.

Here is a little anecdotal evidence:

my grandfather had nothing. he didn't even finish high school. however, hetook it upon himself to make aliving by building houses. nothing spectacular, enough to pay the bills to start off. however, by taking what little money he had left over and investing it, he was able to retire at the age of 45, pay the medical bills of a wife who wassuffering and eventually died of cancer, and put an only son through college as well as dental school.All of thisoff of a small initial income.

however, would it be nice to help the poor person? yes. But it is not the super rich's responsibilty to do so inthis system.

Let's pretend the world is all so simple :roll:

Compared to fighting an unnecessary war under a false premise that actually bolsters our enemies and at the same time a thinning list of allies ... I'll take a crazy republican nightmare welfare state as an alternative anytime.

As for taxes, I hate to break it to you but they're going up regardless of who you vote for. They have to pay for the war we have been and will be fighting. That will be in the hands of the next few administrations...

duxup

Yeah, and the sick part about the inevitable tax raise is that if a Democrat is the next president, the right wing talking heads will all shake their heads at them for trying to bring the ever-increasing national debt back under some semblance of control.

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]Poor people don't have a reason to get other people's money. They should get jobs. End of story.yoshi-lnex

My man speaks wisdom. I mean. If illegal aliens can get jobs so can the poor.

Your assumptions on what the majority of people are like is discusting. Most people who are poor work multiple jobs, more hours a week than the avarage white collar, and yet make significantally less, often barly enough to make ends meat. I don't know where you get the idea that the poor don't have jobs, but it's pretty damn obvious your contact with the poor has been practically non-existant considering your being so quick to judge.

Let me rephrase that, I mean poor, homeless people. Not low-income people.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]Poor people don't have a reason to get other people's money. They should get jobs. End of story.catfishmoon23

My man speaks wisdom. I mean. If illegal aliens can get jobs so can the poor.

Your assumptions on what the majority of people are like is discusting. Most people who are poor work multiple jobs, more hours a week than the avarage white collar, and yet make significantally less, often barly enough to make ends meat. I don't know where you get the idea that the poor don't have jobs, but it's pretty damn obvious your contact with the poor has been practically non-existant considering your being so quick to judge.

Let me rephrase that, I mean poor, homeless people. Not low-income people.

the short answer: yes screw them.

It is not the responsibility of the fellow citizens to help the said poor person. It is, in fact, thepoor person's responsibility to find a betterpaying job to supporthis or her situation. the capitalist system provides ample opportunity for that person to make a good living and to not get in that situation to begin with.

Here is a little anecdotal evidence:

my grandfather had nothing. he didn't even finish high school. however, hetook it upon himself to make aliving by building houses. nothing spectacular, enough to pay the bills to start off. however, by taking what little money he had left over and investing it, he was able to retire at the age of 45, pay the medical bills of a wife who wassuffering and eventually died of cancer, and put an only son through college as well as dental school.All of thisoff of a small initial income.

however, would it be nice to help the poor person? yes. But it is not the super rich's responsibilty to do so inthis system.

amob

Uh-huh, and what if your grandfater had suddenly come down with some terrible illness, or got hit by a car and could hardly move his arms anymore at, I don't know, let's say age 30?

I'm just waiting for you to say, "Oh well. Screw my grandfather then." Just say it so I can pity your disgusting attitude and move on.

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]Poor people don't have a reason to get other people's money. They should get jobs. End of story.yoshi-lnex

My man speaks wisdom. I mean. If illegal aliens can get jobs so can the poor.

Your assumptions on what the majority of people are like is discusting. Most people who are poor work multiple jobs, more hours a week than the avarage white collar, and yet make significantally less, often barly enough to make ends meat. I don't know where you get the idea that the poor don't have jobs, but it's pretty damn obvious your contact with the poor has been practically non-existant considering your being so quick to judge.

Let me rephrase that, I mean poor, homeless people. Not low-income people.

You should watch Bowling for Columbine, you see that the mother of the 6 year old kid that shoot a girl was having 2 jobs provided by the gouverment. I don't call this proper help but anyway... not my country.

don't you guys understand what I'm saying? do you seriously want communism and liberalism to take over the US?huladog123

how is public health care a bad thing?

just remember that republicans are wating money too. They are funding a war that will never be won, and they're paying billions for a wall along the mexican border that will be useles to keep people out

You should watch Bowling for Columbine, you see that the mother of the 6 year old kid that shoot a girl was having 2 jobs provided by the gouverment. I don't call this proper help but anyway... not my country.

Redgarl

What's this now?

Okay, the homeless people on the streets begging for money. Those are the people who need to get jobs.catfishmoon23

Keep in mind that most people like that do suffer from some sort of mental illness, and many are children.

I'm voting for anyone that can make gas prices go down.

[QUOTE="Redgarl"]

You should watch Bowling for Columbine, you see that the mother of the 6 year old kid that shoot a girl was having 2 jobs provided by the gouverment. I don't call this proper help but anyway... not my country.

SpaceMoose

What's this now?

The US gouverment don't help the peoples efficiently. My whole point.

I'm voting for anyone that can make gas prices go down.

MetalGearRex007

It will only go up and you now it. We just need to close the pump here in Canada and the US will go in a state of crisis. Same for electricity.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Your are right in the sense that both are socialist. But donating money for the benefit of the nations education guarantees far more worth then give some bum off the street cash that he'll wast on beer anyway. And the "ooh there are people who really just had bad luck in life and never had a chance" the % of that, that have that situation is very slim.

amob

Yeah? What about people who work two full time near-minimum wage jobs, neither of which has health coverage? And don't tell me that is far-fetched because I have known people in exactly that situation. Screw them too, right? Their fault for...for what, for not being born geniuses?

the short answer: yes screw them.

It is not the responsibility of the fellow citizens to help the said poor person. It is, in fact, thepoor person's responsibility to find a betterpaying job to supporthis or her situation. the capitalist system provides ample opportunity for that person to make a good living and to not get in that situation to begin with.

Here is a little anecdotal evidence:

my grandfather had nothing. he didn't even finish high school. however, hetook it upon himself to make aliving by building houses. nothing spectacular, enough to pay the bills to start off. however, by taking what little money he had left over and investing it, he was able to retire at the age of 45, pay the medical bills of a wife who wassuffering and eventually died of cancer, and put an only son through college as well as dental school.All of thisoff of a small initial income.

however, would it be nice to help the poor person? yes. But it is not the super rich's responsibilty to do so inthis system.

Your grandfather is an extremely rare example. People do rise up from the lower class every now and then, but its usually not possible. Also, its a lot harder these days to start up a business from scratch and have it be successful. Like I said, I've worked in places that pay minimum wage. I've met people who were in their 50's, getting paid minimum wage, and working three jobs. If these people tried to start up a business most of them would fail and be worse off than when they started. Next time you walk into a McDonald's, a Publix, or any other place like that, look around and count how many adults you see working there. Those are the people who are screwed, usually by no fault of their own. But hey, they can all start up their own businesses and get money that way right? Nevermind the fact that if every poor person did that the market would become gloated and almost all of those businesses would fail miserably, or the fact that almost none of those people have the skills or knowledge nessecarry to successfully run a business or make great investments that would allow them to retire at age 45. America is full of success stories like your grandfathers. You know why? Because people don't like to hear failure stories.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Redgarl"]

You should watch Bowling for Columbine, you see that the mother of the 6 year old kid that shoot a girl was having 2 jobs provided by the gouverment. I don't call this proper help but anyway... not my country.

Redgarl

What's this now?

The US gouverment don't help the peoples efficiently. My whole point.

Okay, but I'm still not sure what you were saying. Something about someone having two jobs working for the government and that somehow having something to do with a child shooting someone? Where are you from anyway, just out of plain curiosity?

Yeah, our government is too busy wasting all of our money on military technology to worry about much of anything else apparently.

Pop quiz time: what is the biggest reason for the financial fiasco America situation that has been thrust upon Americans by an irresponsible administration? Hint: It isn't the war on terror.

pianist

Hey, are you going to keep us in suspense forever? :D

(By the way, are you going to say the tax cuts?)

[QUOTE="Redgarl"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Redgarl"]

You should watch Bowling for Columbine, you see that the mother of the 6 year old kid that shoot a girl was having 2 jobs provided by the gouverment. I don't call this proper help but anyway... not my country.

SpaceMoose

What's this now?

The US gouverment don't help the peoples efficiently. My whole point.

Okay, but I'm still not sure what you were saying. Something about someone having two jobs working for the government and that somehow having something to do with a child shooting someone? Where are you from anyway, just out of plain curiosity?

Yeah, our government is too busy wasting all of our money on military technology to worry about much of anything else apparently.

I'm a french canadian living in Quebec.

What I wanted to say is the mother of the child was having 2 jobs and couldn't take care of her kid due to bad finnances. The government programs helped her to get 2 jobs at 5$ per hour. She couldn't be at home and the kid got the gun while resting in his uncle house. The programs don't help peoples like some here might believe.