I don't want you to legislate your religious beliefs. I just don't understand how you can claim to be a good Christian and believe in the Bible, and yet say what you're saying here, which is essentially "greed is good". I'm calling you a hypocrite. You say you believe in the Bible on one hand, then ignore it on the other. I'm not telling you how to act, I'm judging you by what you've said. "I love the Bible! It should be followed! Meek inherit Earth!" "Taxes bad! Greed good!" Clearly, you don't listen to yourself -- or any "higher power".

I have no intention of legislating morality. I want to legislate taxes -- which are fine as they are. Don't you want to pay off Reagan's debt?

Why do I bring up Rush? Well, why not? He's a Republican partisan and like it or not, a leader of the Republican Party (even though, supposedly, no one is supposed to take him seriously). I wouldn't listen to his opinions on taxes because he is biased, being rich himself. Who wouldn't want to save that extra $$$?

No one is punishing success, Omega. Is that how you see it? How sad and cynical. Punishing success would be if they couldn't afford to pay their credit card bills, or send their two point three children to college. The rich for the most part, can vacation in Europe, afford a home or two, and luxury tax be dammed. They're hardly being punished.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

And I'm calling you a moron.

A) We're not talking about greed.

B) I never said what your species calls greed was right. I said people have a right to be what you call greedy. Honestly, do you even read the text in front of you? Apparently not enough to be familiar with this concept, after all the times I've presented it.

"Taxes bad! Greed good!"

What? Now TAXES are the only alternative to hoarding money? Is the concept of a charity THAT foreign to you? In case you were unaware, most charities have at least 200% greater efficiency in helping the needy relative to the government

Don't you want to pay off Reagan's debt?

If Reagan had had anything to do with the budget beyond the military, then we wouldn't be where we are. Bush would have won the '92 election, because he would never have passed a tax increase. We'd have had a surplus. And we'd never have heard the name "Bill Clinton".

I wouldn't listen to his opinions on taxes because he is biased, being rich himself.

Oh, yes, can't have people trying to defend themselves against unfair attacks, can we? Why don't we just remove that right it trials while we're at it?

You want to remove people's right to choose whom they employ or serve. You think discrimination of ANY kind should be illegal, whether by government or private citizen. But you think discrimination based upon INCOME is just A-OK. Now I'm calling YOU a hypocrite.

The nation is in debt because of Reagan. It's how we defeated the Soviets -- we outspent them. I'm not saying its a bad thing, although now we have to worry about lots of little countries with nukes instead of one big one -- but to pretend the debt isn't in large part due to the "outspend" them mentality of the Reagan Administration is foolish.

What is "Fair"? You can't define "fair" on moral terms, because morality is different for everyone. Certainly, I would agree that if a person makes more, they should contribute more. I've got absolutely no problem with the taxes I pay because I make more than enough to pay my bills, put some in savings, and have a grand old time. And if you're wondering? I am in the upper tax bracket (not the 1%, the 10% I think ... $100,000 or more?).

Now, both you Omega and you JeffK need to chill out. JeffK, telling Omega to pull his head out of his ass wasn't very nice. Omega, you're being very childish calling people a different "species" because they look at things differently than you. How very intolerant. Grow up, both of you.

So, speaking for the "upper class", I for one don't see anything wrong with the taxes -- how are they discriminatory? Okay, we pay a bit more, but it's not like we're RESTRICTED to what we can or can't do. If anything, we've still got more freedom then most people to do what we want to do when we want to do (work and school permitting). Sure I'm not going to bitch about a tax cut (who would?) but I'm not going to bitch if I don't get one. Fact of the matter is, I'll still be paying proportiantly higher taxes than the less fortunate, and that is FINE (and fair) with me. I grew up rather poor, and I've got no problems paying a bit extra to make the country a better place.

Charity? How would anyone guarentee that someone paid anything to charity? Would they have a choice between giving money in taxes or giving to charity? Seems like it'd just be a different organization getting the money, so no real big difference there.

Well, I've got to run. Adieu. Try and keep yourselves from imploding.

Oh, Omega, dismissing other concerns about the tax plan isn't a good idea. They are valid, and Greenspan HAS been wrong (quite frequently) in the last year or two. Do some research, don't believe what people tell you. Go to the library and LOOK STUFF UP.

Conservative definition of "Fair": seeing that the laws treat everyone equally, so that everyone has the same STARTING place, then allowing nature to take its course, wherein everyone rises or falls according to their merits, abilities and actions.

Equality under the law.

Liberal definition of "Fair": seeing to it that the laws treat everyone differently, so that that no matter the starting place, merits, abilities, or actions, of a person, everyone ENDS in the same place.

Enforced Equity under the law.

JUST like Harrison Bergeron.
Read it, you'll see. http://www.crosslink.net/~jbloom/harrison.html
I swear, I'm gonna start a petition to have JeffKarde's name changed to Diana Moon Glampers.

FAIR, my friends, has nothing to do with the ratio of tax cut. There is STILL a disparity in how much is paid by whom, and it's still against the wealthy. It's just less UN-fair.

FAIR is what helps EVERYBODY, not the downtrodden-group-of-the-week.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

No. This nation is in debt because of the Democrats in control of Congress during the Reagan administration. I'll try and dig up a web source for you tonight, but if you'd care to do the research yourself, you'll find that, thanks to a couple massive tax cuts, the economy got a kick in the pants after a decade of stagnation, and that that doubled tax revenues between '81 and '89. They went from something like $.5 billion to a trillion, as I recall. Then you'll want numbers on military spending. THAT went from something like 17% of total spending to something like 22% of total budget. You can't possibly believe that that 5% is what put us, what? Four trillion in debt? To eat up as much extra money as we had, the military would have had to have been nearly 60% of spending, not a measley 20%.

Get your facts straight.

It's how we defeated the Soviets -- we outspent them

This is right, though. Reagan was brilliant there.

calling people a different "species" because they look at things differently than you. How very intolerant.

My, has the definition of "tolerance" become that screwed up? "Tolerance" is not saying, "Well, maybe we're ALL right." Tolerance is not burning someone at the stake because they disagree with you. Which, I suppose, doesn't say much for the DNP in their treatment of Ashcroft and Harris.

I for one don't see anything wrong with the taxes --how are they discriminatory?

They're discriminatory in that certain people are treated worse than others. Is that not discrimination?

Okay, we pay a bit more, but it's not like we're RESTRICTED to what we can or can't do.

So you don't care that you're treated worse than the rest of the country, by your own government? That concept is generally considered quite insidious when it takes place in other countries. And actually, you are restricted in what you can do with it. You can actually help people if you keep it, whereas if the government gets its hands on it, it's more likely to spend it on utter crap, like the National Endowment for the Arts.

I've got no problems paying a bit extra to make the country a better place.

And here's the crux of the entire problem. The government DOESN'T use your money to make the country a better place. Again, it spends the extra money on the NEA ("Our strength is our perversity") or other assorted useless programs. YOU use your money to make the country a better place, or at least you can. That's the whole point. In YOUR hands, the money can actually do some good. In the GOVERNMENT's, it may as well be flushed down a toilet. One with a $600 seat on it. Or even better, one that doesn't have a seat, because it's on display in the NYC museum of modern art.

How would anyone guarentee that someone paid anything to charity?

You wouldn't. It's your money, and you have a right not to give it away if you choose. It's all about your rights. Anyway, history shows that when people have more money to play with, they donate more.

Seems like it'd just be a different organization getting the money, so no real big difference there.

Actually, it's a huge difference, because the government doesn't do any good with the money, and even what little it spends on charity, it has something like 25% efficiency (meaning for every dollar put into the program, a needy person gets a quarter). A real charity can have upwards of 90% efficiency. That, and the person donating chooses where the money goes.

Liam:

The US defeated the Soviets? When was this?

Why did you think the USSR fell apart? They tried to match our military spending, and spent themselves into oblivion.

The son of someone making $300,000 is not the same as the son of someone barely scraping $12,000 a year.

Now, let me look at those definitions of yours.

Conservative definition of "Fair": seeing that the laws treat everyone equally, so that everyone has the same STARTING place (not allowing for social and financial inequalities which in fact make certain that not everyone has the same STARTING place), then allowing nature to take its course (so that the rich have an easy time making it, and the less fortunate more often than not don't), wherin everyone rises or falls according to their merits, abilities, and actions (which explains why we've got a 50-year old guy flipping burgers at McD's because more often than not, he went to work ASAP to help support his family and didn't have the advantage of going to school)

Liberal definition of "Fair": seeing to it that individual citizens contribute more or less (depending on their financial standings) to help the less fortunate have opportunities that might not otherwise be available to them, so that no matter the lack of financial or other opportunities readily available to the upper classes, the lower classes will have the opportunity to succeed based on their merits, abilities, and actions.

Your definition completely ignores social equalities which do exist. Therefore, your definition is not correct.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 15, 2001).]

BINGO! It's not the government's JOB to fix social inequalities. That's OUR job, as human beings. If you want to shove your responsibility off on someone else who can't do it worth a flip, don't try and force me to do the same.

Well why didn't he put off having a family until after he was through with school?

Or do you mean he was supporting his parents and siblings?

Guess what? The kids in my gf's family did that too (because their father was too stupid to take a higher-paying job when it was offered to him, because his 19th-Century mentality wouldn't allow him to say 'no' to an Important Person), but... with the exception of my gf, who was PUTTING HERSELF THROUGH GRADUATE SCHOOL when she first became seriously ill, and only hasn't finished because she CAN'T get appropriate government help*, They're all making out economically MUCH better than their parents did. And their kids, if current trends continue and they don't screw it up themselves, will likely do even better.

My father worked early mornings in a bakery while going to a small college, to pay his way, because his father, who worked in the mill and HADN'T gone to college, couldn't cover the whole thing. Having paid for his college, my father worked hard at his job, (and my mother did, as well) and saved enough money that my the time my brother and I went to college, he could cover all of both of ours, although I was on my own for grad school. Now I'm working, in the hopes of being able to support my gf as my family. Admittedly, I botched a lot of it by being lazy, which is my own fault. Fortunately (I suppose) I won't be having children, absolving me of the responsibility for their upbringing.

Success happens by increments. REAL working people understand this. It's the "I want it ALL, now, now, NOW!" whining crybabies that can't accept it.

The rest of America calls it drive, ambition, and hard work.

*Come to think of it, I've never known of anybody who bettered their situation with government help, aside from tuition aid. Certainly not around here, where government aid generally perpetuates through generations.

The Government's type of aid does NOT create independency. It creates dependency, in the long run.
If this is not the case, explain why the SSI people are unwilling to shell out the small amount of extra money NOW to help my gf get the equipment she needs to finish her education and get a job that might make her self-sufficient a couple years down the road.

HMM?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Grew up in Baltimore, did okay. Inner city public schools ain't that great, and especially not in Baltimore. Didn't do drugs or any of that kind of stuff, kept his nose clean. Graduated, thought of going to college.

Then his mom died. His dad was long gone by this point. Dante got a minimum-wage job at and did his best to raise his sisters. How the hell are you supposed to go to college if you're working 60 plus hours a week just to scrape out a living for yourself and two others?

Society is hardly equal. Dante didn't have the chances that others did, and pretending a tax cut is going to fix these problems is border-line delusional. "Oooh, it's all about hard work!" Well, sure it is, and Dante worked real hard for what ... $4 an hour? $6 when he was on overtime? With two kids to support? Please, take your "hard working people can do it!" attitude and shove it up your ass. Every situation is different and pretending that all it takes is hard work and determination is bullshit.

Well, then you ask, how is Dante at Towson now?

One of his sisters moved out. Maryland moved in and took over the city's school system a few years back, and she even got a partial scholarship to Morgan State. Ooooh ... wanna know something else? I forgot to mention this part.

Dante got on welfare to help him out -- about four years ago. Quit the minimum wage job. It's how he's able to afford Towson (his "real" job pays under the table so he's able to afford tuition without the Gov't stopping his welfare), afford the Morgan State tuition that still needs to be paid, support his other sister, and pay rent, utilities, and keep food on the table ... yep, that's right, the Government does help those less fortunate, because without that welfare check, Dante wouldn't be able to afford TU or MSU.

First, I don't know why those guys are being mean to your girlfriends. I've never said that the gov't is perfect, and it certainly needs some reform, but does cutting the taxes of the rich really do any of this? No, it doesn't.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Besides, you don't pay taxes on welfare benefits, do you?

I mean, you're expecting, now that he's in college and one of his sisters is too, that he'll be OFF welfare eventually, right? That's good. That's what should be being strived for. But it isn't, and THAT'S the problem I have with it. Like you said, his job HAS to pay him 'under the table' because the welfare folks would cut him off if they didn't.

That shouldn't be allowed. They should, really, add to his benefits for working. I think that'd be right.

Your friend Dante's a good man, willing to work for a better life. So is my gf, except she's a woman. Both need help, both get SOME, but just enough to keep them dependent, without resorting to 'shady' means. The system needs serious reform in that area.

My gripe isn't about these people. More power to them.
My gripe is about the people who AREN'T trying, and despite propaganda to teh contrary, we probably ALL know examples of what we mean. People who screw it up themselves, and want us to clean up the mess.

Dante didn't screw it up, but his 'long gone' dad did. My gf didn't screw it up, but her illness did.

Neither of them should suffer for things that are not their fault. They should both be helped until they are self-sufficient. I WANT to pay taxes for that.

But these people who sit at home and vegetate, who pop out one after another kid, who blow their money on booze and drugs and fraud... screw them. Don't say they aren't out there, I KNOW these people. Help their kids, any way you can, but keep their parents' grubby hands off the money, because they'll only waste it.

Anyways, now that we're sufficiently off topic, who's going to lead us back?

It was the promise of a tax cut that got Reagan elected in 1980. He kept that promise, and the economic growth that followed got Reagan re-elected in 1984. It was the promise of "now new taxes" that got Bush Sr. elected in 1988, and it was breaking that promise that cost Bush Sr. the presidency in 1992.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Since higer taxes on the wealthy mean less expansion of business, (most large or chain businesses are owned by wealthy people, you know, and they won't expand unless its sufficiently profitable) do you see a potential connection here? You can't get a job, even a minimum wage job, if nobody's hiring. If the jobs are all full, and nobody expands and no new businesses move in to town, what then?

It's kind of like the power in California. If the power plants aren't there, the electricity won't be there, no matter how many people want it.

The old saw "you have to spend money to make money" is true. And the people who can spend the money are the people who have the most of it. And the more that's spent, the more is generated.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Thank you Right, for helping mediate the 'uncivility' between Omega and Mr. Kardde. Sometimes, they just get out of control, with attacks on their parents, their sexual orientation (most often with animals and/or extra-terrestrials), and quite often littered with such profanities as "fucking cock-sucker monkey cum licking dog fucker" & "noodleboy".

I sometimes think that they are 13 year old AOLers, and not the fairly mature young men that they are in actuality. Lord knows they never act like it. Too often will conversations end up in degenerate "NO YUO SI TEH FUCKING HOMO FAGORT!!!!", to which is replied: "I HAEV TEH SEXXOR WIHT YUOR MOM!!!". Extraordinarily rarely are the discussions at least vaguely on topic and rational.

I rarely visit the Flameboards, because, as the name suggests, it gets quite "flamey", meaning hot. But now that we have at least one member concerned with the civility levels in here, I will no doubt be visiting quite often from now on.

I also admire subtlety, and I don't think you can get much more subtle than subtler-than-subtle hint droppings like "in case you are wondering, I'm in the top tax bracket. $100,000." This works in so many ways, as it functions as a class reminder, and as a foil to the largely peasant population that inhabit these forums. (They really do inhabit these forums. They have no homes, of course.) Also, it works so well, as nobody actually was wondering.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

While I completely agree with you that the welfare system needs fixing, I don't see how giving a rich guy a cut amounting to $50,000 is really going to mean much to me. I mean, if he's making THAT much money to be getting that $50,000 back, does he really need it all that badly? And since this is -- as far as I am aware -- personal income, how would it affect how he runs his business?

Now, I'll admit, I'm not quite sure how the business taxes are, true enough. It just seems to me that there's a difference between personal/ and business/ income.

In answer to your other questions:

Dante's crap job was at McDonalds. He's working at the Pizza Palace in Towson (pizzas, subs, beer you know, the mom & pop place on the corner) as a driver.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

The way it seems to me is that there are two situations here:

1) Man gives Money to tax people who collect the money: It goes to the government. It is then distributed throughout the various tax fueled programs, and while perhaps the local homeless shelter may recieve a new bed, a documentary on porn called like "bubbles" or something gets produced, and airs on CBC.

2) Man buys things with money. This creates more demand, which creates more supply, which creates jobs for homeless men, and raises wages, to cope with demand. He may also invest some money, or donate some to charity.

The way I see it is, the more money that can actually get to a helpfull situation, is better. Porn (Especially Canadian Porn) is not good.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.