mrawesome22
New member
Every parties agenda is exactly the same. Put as much money in their pockets as possible. If you don't believe that you are a fool.
Last edited:
The Democratic Party mentality...
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Every parties agenda is exactly the same. Put as much money in our pockets as possible. If you don't believe that you are a fool."
Say what?
It's not the Republicans who have been trying to kill the reduced capitol gains tax.
28% capitol gains tax going to the government just because you're smarter than the average bear? That's crap, and supposedly some Democrats have talked about their wishes of actually raising that tax to 40%. Pardon me, but I really don't think the fruits of my good planning and hard work should be handed over to a lazy-assed bum or some fourth-generation welfare crack whore.
So yeah, I guess in Bizarroworld the Democrats want to put more money into my pocket by letting the cap gains tax ratched back up to 28% from 15%, killing a lot of other tax cuts that have been enacted over the past few years, and passing some sweeping NEW tax increases.
Republicans aren't too much better about taxes, though. Both parties WANT your money, as much of it as they can get. Only the Democrats are a lot sneakier, and a lot greedier.
(Oh, and I know it's capitAl gains tax. CapitOl gains tax is my own little pun).
Say what?
It's not the Republicans who have been trying to kill the reduced capitol gains tax.
28% capitol gains tax going to the government just because you're smarter than the average bear? That's crap, and supposedly some Democrats have talked about their wishes of actually raising that tax to 40%. Pardon me, but I really don't think the fruits of my good planning and hard work should be handed over to a lazy-assed bum or some fourth-generation welfare crack whore.
So yeah, I guess in Bizarroworld the Democrats want to put more money into my pocket by letting the cap gains tax ratched back up to 28% from 15%, killing a lot of other tax cuts that have been enacted over the past few years, and passing some sweeping NEW tax increases.
Republicans aren't too much better about taxes, though. Both parties WANT your money, as much of it as they can get. Only the Democrats are a lot sneakier, and a lot greedier.
(Oh, and I know it's capitAl gains tax. CapitOl gains tax is my own little pun).
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
The Democrats want my money to give to the poor, lame, and/or lazy.
The Republicans want my money to give to the elite, rich, power-brokers.
Either way, I end up with less money!
Is that a joke?
The Republicans want my money to give to the elite, rich, power-brokers.
Either way, I end up with less money!
Is that a joke?
"Papers please." -- In many European countries, the local PDs can stop you, require you to present your ID, inquire as to your destination, search your briefcase or car and generally detain you. If you smart-ass to the cops they will take you to a station where their report will be typed by two-finger-Tom and reviewed by at least 3 officials before they even talk to you again. And they'll tell you as much.
Class, Marko, pure class.
You want socialized medical care? I don't.
- New Zealand (1998) - a NZ man needed a heart operation soon. The nearest cardiac center was in a neighboring county, some 50 Km away and under-utilized. The cardiac center in his "home county" was 120Km away and heavily booked. Gov't health providers scheduled his surgery almost 10 months away, citing heavy demand at his county cardiac center. He applied for a "waiver" to allow him use of the neighboring county's very under-utilized cardiac center. It was rejected because he forgot to check a box indicating his gender. He resubmitted and it was rejected as the county has a cardiac center. On appeal he cited urgent need, travel distances, etc. Appeal was granted four weeks after the paitent died of cardiac arrest. Six months later, the gov't billed his widow NZ$8,000 for "unused medical resources" because he had never used his granted surgery.
England - 2000; An elderly WW-II veteran's favorite doctor for the last 18 years was transferred to another district and his new assigned doctor was only 28 with no geriatrics experience. The veteran and his wife invited the previous doctor to a Christmas dinner. When the veteran had a heart attack after dinner he was rushed to the hospital with the doctor in attendance. The doctor stayed through the night to advise ER doctors on the paitient's condition. Two months later, regulators decided the former doctor's participation was improper, but rather than fining the doctor for a rule violation, they declared the vet had to pay for his former Dr's services and billed him $3,000 (pounds-about $6,000US) for 5 hours time.
Germany-c1998: A 58-year old woman complained of nausea, headaches and general illness. Doctors fed her pills for over a year, then removed her spleen. When that didn't work, they performed a hysterectomy. They finally decided to replace her amalgam dental fillings but her teeth were weak from over 2 years of poor diet, so all of her teeth were pulled and ill-fitting dentures issued. Three years after it began, while visiting her daughter in Sweden, an optomitrist discovered her state-provided eyeglasses were the wrong prescription and said it would cause her to have headaches, have constant motion sickness and feel ill while wearing them. The Gov't ruled she could not sue for the unneeded surgeries because the doctors said none of the organs were necessary for her age and her teeth were poorly maintained anyway!
Belguim - c1997: Parents of a six-year-old boy were arrested and charged with child abuse. Their crime? Providing the boy with fried eggs for breakfast before school. Health authorities claimed that fried eggs are akin to "junk food", too high in cholesterol, especially when given with whole milk. Their breakfast recommendation? Soy milk and two peaches.
democrats
My basic opinion of democrats is that they are a bunch of socialist shrinks that think they can fix the world by putting a bunch of bull**** on paper.
Socialist because they think it is a good idea to make the richest 2% of the country pay 94% of the taxes. If Bill gates and Sam Walton built a better mouse trap than others, and were able to, more succesfully, find a way to make other people give them money, then they deserve to be rich. It didn't happen because they got a job at 7/11.
Shrinks because they think that giving a child a good old fashioned slap of the ass when they're being wild at the grocery store is "Child abuse" and that we shouldn't hit them because they have ADHD and it's not their fault. (I am not endorsing actual child abuse, when people BEAT a child, especially without cause then it is wrong) Shrinks because some of them say the death penalty is wrong because there are better alternatives; let's take murderers and try to "cure" them phsychologically because they were "abused" (given a good old fashioned slap on the ass) as a child, and that caused them to grow up to be homicidal. Bull**** right?
Now the bull**** on paper... they think banning guns on the street will get them out of the hands of criminals, I am sure I don't need to go there with this crowd... it is common sense. They think having an inheritance tax hurts rich people, but instead it takes farmland away from families who cant pay the tax on it so they sell it, or a family business etc. Let's pretend Al Gore owned a farm. That rich bastard COULD pay the tax without having to sell anything because... uh... he has money in the first place... see where is the logic?
My basic opinion of democrats is that they are a bunch of socialist shrinks that think they can fix the world by putting a bunch of bull**** on paper.
Socialist because they think it is a good idea to make the richest 2% of the country pay 94% of the taxes. If Bill gates and Sam Walton built a better mouse trap than others, and were able to, more succesfully, find a way to make other people give them money, then they deserve to be rich. It didn't happen because they got a job at 7/11.
Shrinks because they think that giving a child a good old fashioned slap of the ass when they're being wild at the grocery store is "Child abuse" and that we shouldn't hit them because they have ADHD and it's not their fault. (I am not endorsing actual child abuse, when people BEAT a child, especially without cause then it is wrong) Shrinks because some of them say the death penalty is wrong because there are better alternatives; let's take murderers and try to "cure" them phsychologically because they were "abused" (given a good old fashioned slap on the ass) as a child, and that caused them to grow up to be homicidal. Bull**** right?
Now the bull**** on paper... they think banning guns on the street will get them out of the hands of criminals, I am sure I don't need to go there with this crowd... it is common sense. They think having an inheritance tax hurts rich people, but instead it takes farmland away from families who cant pay the tax on it so they sell it, or a family business etc. Let's pretend Al Gore owned a farm. That rich bastard COULD pay the tax without having to sell anything because... uh... he has money in the first place... see where is the logic?
JuanCarlos
New member
Did I miss something? Are Bill Gates and/or the Waltons not rich anymore?
Charshooter
New member
By 1950s standards, I would have been a libertarian, as the social and cultural situation at the tame was not a problem. Overtime, I became more conservative because my culture seemed to be invaded by foreign ideas, not the America I grew up in. Now I am a conservative, but at heart a libertarian, believing that each man should be free to make his own way and reap the benefits of his success.
I do think some measures that came out of the New Deal were good, social security, now that I am old enough to collect. I can understand why a young fella does not want to pay into it. The main thing I like about SS is the for one, the employer has to match you savings and two, some hard-working persons are not savers and today the community approach would not work because there is a lack of community felling in this nation. Even the small towns lack it today, diversity breeds’ alienation.
The Democrats are the party for the very rich who can afford taxes, so they can keep the hard-working small businessman from being as wealthy, that is what my father believed and I think he was right. He was one of few in the South who voted Republican, now the South is a Republican stronghold, sure took then long emough!
Most of the hippies I seen in Nevada were dirty loafers who lived like pigs; they were always getting high on some type of drug, they young adults attempting to remain adolescents. Most I arrested or just chased out of town came from well-to-do families living in California who were willing to pay their fines and the bus ticket back to California, they seemed happy to do it.
I do think some measures that came out of the New Deal were good, social security, now that I am old enough to collect. I can understand why a young fella does not want to pay into it. The main thing I like about SS is the for one, the employer has to match you savings and two, some hard-working persons are not savers and today the community approach would not work because there is a lack of community felling in this nation. Even the small towns lack it today, diversity breeds’ alienation.
The Democrats are the party for the very rich who can afford taxes, so they can keep the hard-working small businessman from being as wealthy, that is what my father believed and I think he was right. He was one of few in the South who voted Republican, now the South is a Republican stronghold, sure took then long emough!
Most of the hippies I seen in Nevada were dirty loafers who lived like pigs; they were always getting high on some type of drug, they young adults attempting to remain adolescents. Most I arrested or just chased out of town came from well-to-do families living in California who were willing to pay their fines and the bus ticket back to California, they seemed happy to do it.
JuanCarlos
New member
From this:
From what I see, even after ponying up 94% of the taxes the richest 2% of the country are still pretty darn rich. Just like they deserve to be. If the kind of taxes Bill Gates pays are supposed to be "punishment," well then I'll take a double dose...the benefits seem to be well worth it.
Is it progressive tax schemes you have a problem with, or just what we're spending the money collected on? Just curious. If all the extra taxes the top 2% paid were just going to, I don't know, bombers and such would that be less offensive than having any of it go towards social welfare programs?
Let it Bleed
New member
Republicans have also endorsed Tort reform, which is great until you are the one who has been injured.
Horror stories often leave out pertinent facts and fail to report the ultimate resolution. I am not challenging the veracity of any statement, but I tend to view horror stories for what they are - aberrations that are newsworthy because they are so far outside the norm.
I believe capitalism is the best system for equitably distributing wealth, I support the goal of limited goverment, and I will fight to preserve my individual liberties. However the poor and disenfranchised are not going to go away because they are inconvienent. I also don't think anyone grows up hoping or expecting to become a "welfare crack whore."
I think both political parties pander to extremists, when most Americans would prefer them to be only slightly different shades of gray that represent the interests of the majority of people in the middle.
What seems missing in politics today are the various political factions within each party that would occasionally go against their own party on certain issues. The forced conformity within both parties seems to have empowered those with the most extreme political agendas, which in turn has polarized political debate.
I don't understand why if one party is for something, then the other party must be against it. Both parties have common roots and neither is any more American than the other. I suppose fear mongering and demagoguery are good fund raising techniques - party before principle.
Horror stories often leave out pertinent facts and fail to report the ultimate resolution. I am not challenging the veracity of any statement, but I tend to view horror stories for what they are - aberrations that are newsworthy because they are so far outside the norm.
I believe capitalism is the best system for equitably distributing wealth, I support the goal of limited goverment, and I will fight to preserve my individual liberties. However the poor and disenfranchised are not going to go away because they are inconvienent. I also don't think anyone grows up hoping or expecting to become a "welfare crack whore."
I think both political parties pander to extremists, when most Americans would prefer them to be only slightly different shades of gray that represent the interests of the majority of people in the middle.
What seems missing in politics today are the various political factions within each party that would occasionally go against their own party on certain issues. The forced conformity within both parties seems to have empowered those with the most extreme political agendas, which in turn has polarized political debate.
I don't understand why if one party is for something, then the other party must be against it. Both parties have common roots and neither is any more American than the other. I suppose fear mongering and demagoguery are good fund raising techniques - party before principle.
Charshooter
New member
Well, I don’t know if they’re worth it son, taxes used to help people who should help themselves and encourage non-citizens to jump the border so they can get free medical care.
I say we should tax less, have a flat tax and use the money for defense, particularly our borders. Best taxes are volunteer taxes, such as one goods, that is sales tax. The worst tax is on something owned by an individual, such as property taxes and personal property taxes, this is theft! If I buy something, I own it, the government has no right at all to extort money from me for what I own. In Missouri, they have a tax on things such as trucks, cars, boats, ATVs, motorcycles, any large thing you own they claim a partial right to. I keep one 1984 pickup registered there so, I am not pulled over for out-of-state plates. I also reside in Arkansas any anything else I own is registered there. My wife hates the cold up in MO. So, we are selling the place there and going to spend our last years in Arkansas. I have just 17 acres is Arkansas and it is more populated where we live there, so I might be shooting less in the future. Oh well, it beats living with a law that one thinks is morally wrong!
JuanCarlos
New member
For the former, I'd say part of the reason some people can't "help themselves" is because a majority of the people who own the businesses they'd work for (and let's face it, not everybody can be self-employed) aren't willing to pay them enough to do so. Not everybody can "help themselves," and some people will always be poor.
As for the latter, I'd say that's a separate issue that ought to be addressed (not giving public aid to non-citizens/those not here legally).
Lastly, I'm not your son.
Sales taxes are regressive, though, in that those who make the least spend the largest portion of their income. This is generally true even after you exempt things like food.
I'm not a fan of "taxes" on things like vehicles, either. Registration fees are different, in that they theoretically could be used to pay for the public roads you'd be driving on...provided you're not driving on public roads, you should not have to pay a tax on a vehicle.
Property taxes (such as on a home) can be argued either way. Personally I think it's a travesty anytime somebody has to sell a home because they cannot afford the taxes on it. However, there are certain services (police, fire, etc.) that you benefit from whether or not you still make any income...and taxes on the property where you live are an effective way to ensure that you still pay your part for these things, even if you're no longer employed (such as retirees).
Unless, of course, you're on the extreme end of the libertarian spectrum (where things like police and fire services shouldn't be the government's responsibility)...but at that point you wouldn't be in favor of the government taxing us for things like border security, since that would be best left to the private sector as well.
EDIT: One of the best ideas I can think of to "fix" property taxes, at least on residences, is to tax them at the value at which they were purchased, adjusted only for inflation. Tax any increases in value only if the property is sold.
I agree.
Also, my choice of words was incorrect. High taxes for rich people aren't punishments, but I still think it is wrong to do so.
A flat tax makes more sense, the more you make, the more money the government takes, and it is directly proportional to how much you make, not exponentially proportional.
Also, my choice of words was incorrect. High taxes for rich people aren't punishments, but I still think it is wrong to do so.
A flat tax makes more sense, the more you make, the more money the government takes, and it is directly proportional to how much you make, not exponentially proportional.
JuanCarlos
New member
Except that this treats each dollar somebody makes as equally valuable to them, which they most definitely aren't.
If you tax every dollar somebody makes at a flat rate, then you're taxing people's non-disposable income at the same rate as somebody else's disposable income...which means now those who are living in poverty cannot afford little luxuries like food.
Fine, you may say, add some sort of exemption for the first X dollars of income to make up for this, and tax the rest at a flat rate....well then, now we no longer have a flat tax, now do we? It's just a marginally less progressive tax. Note that I have never heard any serious suggestion of implementing a truly flat tax...there is always an exemption of some portion of income to tax those at the bottom less (allowing for "necessities" such as food/clothing/shelter).
At which point you're already admitting that dollars become less "valuable" (or more worthy of taxation) to those possessing them the more that person has. If the first, say, 10,000 dollars of income is not taxed at the same rate as the next 100,000, then why should the last million be taxed at the same rate as that first 100,000?
All any flat tax proposal I've heard ever does is shift the burden from the upper class to the middle class.
The reason that taxes are generally exponentially proportional to income is that the utility of that income decreases exponentially as it goes up.
Let it Bleed
New member
The following site uses some easy to understand examples regarding progressive/regressive taxes and who should pay.
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html
It may be oversimplified, but then again the "flat tax" argument ain't rocket science either.
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html
It may be oversimplified, but then again the "flat tax" argument ain't rocket science either.
mrawesome22
New member
Every parties agenda is exactly the same. Put as much money in our pockets as possible. If you don't believe that you are a fool.
I meant their pockets, not our. Woops
I meant their pockets, not our. Woops
Charshooter
New member
Now that is the truth for about 98 percent of us! Show me a well off man, I bet he is a Republican, show me a traditional man, I bet he is a Republican, show me a poor man, I bet he is a Democrat, show me a man who likes secular progressive ideas, I bet he is a Democrat, then show me a very rich man and I will place odds he is a Democrat.
Few are motivated by something outside themselves, even altruists are have some expectation that rewards them.
Charshooter
New member
I live out where there is no municipal services, have to pay directly for the rural fire department. No sewer or garbage, all is done through septic and burning trash. The one thing I can say, is that Arkansas has very low taxes and Texas has tax breaks for landowners. Missouri is decent in the rural southern part, just not good on personal property.
I look at the east and see their high property rates and think they are different types of people pure and simple, just would not go over here.
Sorry about calling you son, but I bet with your outlook, you are 30 years younger than me, around here, old men call young fellas son and it is not meant to be degrading. They sometimes call me pops!
- Status