Not so poor....

[DEFYANT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4&feature=player_embedded

Not meant to be a political thread. Take it or leave it, but I concur with what is in this video. I've been to the poorer homes (on a daily basis) and see exactly what he is talking about. Really got me thinking.

Mods, feel free to slam the door on this thread - no hard feelings. But give it a chance?

[steve fox]

He is right. The human heart is desperately wicked who can know it?

[guspech750]

Bill Whittle for President!!

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

[robertmee]

Besides the political message, best description of envy I've ever heard.

[BigCars4Ever]

I especially like the closing line "one tax paying American standing next to a non tax paying American that he supports in the check out line of Best Buy"

[BigCars4Ever]

Along the same lines I always liked this story:
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[sailsmen]

The most violent housing project in New Orleans, Iberville - Per NOLA the Times Picayune - at a total costs of $589,000,000 - "Total development costs for each apartment on the Iberville site will run an estimated $208,000, while off-site apartments in historic buildings will run $321,837 each, significantly more than the $229,000 per-apartment estimate for new off-site structures.

While some of those costs are only nominally higher than the $200,000 per-unit average for the Big Four, public housing redevelopments have drawn fire in recent years for being more costly than other residential construction. Those estimates are double what private developers would expect to spend per apartment, said Geoffrey Lutz, a developer who teaches real estate at Tulane's School for Continuing Studies. "I agree that we need the housing. But let's get more bang for our buck," he said."

These are luxury units - granite counter tops, wood floors, stainless appliances, club house, etc.

Our Gov't is taking money from income tax payers whose $350K home is now worth $300K and giving it to people able bodied people who have never worked a day in their life to live in a $321,000 unit excluding land costs for FREE!

Our Gov't is too in efficient and we can no longer afford it.

Nobody wants the Iberville Projects rebuilt there is a huge surplus of housing in our area. This is being pushed by politicians to buy votes and heard like cattle their slaves into one area to facilitate block voting.

Pre Katrina you could buy 80,000 votes for less than $400K. Now with this voting block dispersed it can not be economically bought.

[sailsmen]

Walter Williams studied the Gov't definition of poverty and the relative stats.
He found out you need only do 3 things to stay out of a life of poverty;
1) graduate from HS
2) get a job, any job
3) do not have children out of wedlock.

Able bodied people who live a life of poverty do so by choice.

Per BF -"Making a person comfortable in poverty condems them to a life of it".

[dohc324ci]

Poor in America and poor in a third world is no comparison.

[loud2004marquis]

Well said steve fox.

[TAKEDOWN]

Poor in America and poor in a third world is no comparison.

Yup... But in America I guess I can say poor is the new middle class, jeezZz!

[Fosters]

Along the same lines I always liked this story:
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

I've seen that before and it never gets old... great way of explaining our tax system.

[jerrym3]

Based on a fairly recent lawsuit against one major international brokerage/bank, they have been placing their money overseas.

And that's the one we know of.

[duhtroll]

In real life capitalism, not the imaginary capitalism where everyone is good and moral, the rich guy would have bought the bar, watered down the beer, lowered the salaries of the bartender and waiters, or hired illegal Mexicans off the books, and raised the prices of the brewskies and never sat at that bar again. No, he'd be drinking Johnny Walker Gold at the Four Seasons, laughing his ass off at his old chumps.

Oh yeah, and he woulda replaced the first 5 guys with two other guys on the phone in India. They would give themselves American sounding names, though.

[sailsmen]

In real life capitalism, not the imaginary capitalism where everyone is good and moral, the rich guy would have bought the bar, watered down the beer, lowered the salaries of the bartender and waiters, or hired illegal Mexicans off the books, and raised the prices of the brewskies and never sat at that bar again. No, he'd be drinking Johnny Walker Gold at the Four Seasons, laughing his ass off at his old chumps.

Oh yeah, and he woulda replaced the first 5 guys with two other guys on the phone in India. They would give themselves American sounding names, though.

REAL Life - I have been the owner and or founder of 7 businesses. Competition, as in the bar down the street, is what makes everyone better and a structure that allows failure is Capitalism.

Crony Capitalism where the Gov't picks the "winners" and there are no "losers" is what we have today.

Gov't cannot do anything with out first taking money from the private sector. Gov't does not generate wealth.

Only 4 out of 10 work for the private sector and are generating wealth. The other 6 are laughing their asses off at the 4 who are carrying them. Keep laughing at us and one day we will drop you on your ass.

[vkirkend]

If you feel the poor having a refrigerator and air conditioning is a travesty I feel sorry for you. What needs to be done is there should be a time limit on welfare just like unemployment benefits. The problem is institutionalized welfare support passed down form mother to daughter/son with no incentive to move on.

[DEFYANT]

If you feel the poor having a refrigerator and air conditioning is a travesty I feel sorry for you. What needs to be done is there should be a time limit on welfare just like unemployment benefits. The problem is institutionalized welfare support passed down form mother to daughter/son with no incentive to move on.

Right and right! Totally agree. The fridge and AC was just to illustrate the creature comforts of living in the USA. I will say, a fridge is a necessity, AC is not.

[duhtroll]

Government creates wealth by creating infrastructure that all businesses use.

Unless you think all of our infrastructure comes from private business?

Can we please stop with the "government does not create wealth" nonsense? It has been debunked. An example --

http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-think-government-cant-create-wealth-youre-wrong-2011-2

Wealth comes from more than just private sector money, since money isn't the only contributor to the equation.


REAL Life - I have been the owner and or founder of 7 businesses. Competition, as in the bar down the street, is what makes everyone better and a structure that allows failure is Capitalism.

Crony Capitalism where the Gov't picks the "winners" and there are no "losers" is what we have today.

Gov't cannot do anything with out first taking money from the private sector. Gov't does not generate wealth.

Only 4 out of 10 work for the private sector and are generating wealth. The other 6 are laughing their asses off at the 4 who are carrying them. Keep laughing at us and one day we will drop you on your ass.

[DEFYANT]

Government creates wealth by creating infrastructure that all businesses use.

Unless you think all of our infrastructure comes from private business?

Can we please stop with the "government does not create wealth" nonsense? It has been debunked. An example --

http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-think-government-cant-create-wealth-youre-wrong-2011-2

Wealth comes from more than just private sector money, since money isn't the only contributor to the equation.

Not directly. Meaning, what business is the USA in that generates wealth?

However, without the national highway system we all drive on, those 18 wheelers that drive whats left of the economy would not get around so easy.

[dohc324ci]

Lol because Joe Weisenthal said? Debunked. Ok.

[TAKEDOWN]

Simply put the Government enables people and this is passed on to generations, what's sad is with the recent economy, hard working people who lost their jobs and are in need of the Governments help are being turned down now... What a shame!

[DEFYANT]

I thought we were the gov't? Why do we allow this?

[duhtroll]

No, because the idea is a sound one. Or do you care to prove that nothing is created (by federal and state governments) that amounts to a better life for people here?

I think people are confusing "wealth" with "profit" and since the US Government doesn't hold profit as a major goal, some people mistakenly think it creates nothing.

Heck, everyone that went to a public school who turns a profit owes at least a small part of their success to their schooling, which is a government entity. Sure, taxpayer dollars paid for it but the government workers invested in it of themselves.

But it is much easier just to say that government creates nothing useful, because to admit that even in a small way, government contributes to wealth shoots down the whole talking points memo and we can't have that now, can we?

Wealth is more than your individual paycheck.




Lol because Joe Weisenthal said? Debunked. Ok.

[GAMike]

Gonna have to agree with Sailsman here for the most part Troll.........

Let me offer a recent for instance......

April 15th 2011 The United States stopped blocked all real money poker/online casino sites from working in the U.S. For Pokerstars, FullTilt and some others, this blockade represents a substancial part of their business and creates sustainability issues all on its own. Never mind all the other problems that exist in these businesses.

Just last week I was reading in the Wall St. Journal that a couple of well connected business executives in entertainment(Hollywood) and some bricks & mortar casino executives were developing a cloud based platform to host online gaming in the U.S. They were alluding to some favorable rulings for this industry in the not too distant future.....

So...... How does this all come together?

FullTilt(Tiltware) is owned by Ray Bittar, Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Phil Ivey plus a few others who are well known poker players (like Lederer, Ferguson, and Ivey). The difference is, while these people have alot of money, they do not have the connections.

Because these people in Hollywood have money from other businesses and have cultivated relationships of influence in govt., they may very well benefit from insider information regarding the viability of gaming in the U.S. Thereby being able to remove existing competition from the landscape by restricting their platforms through legislation, while introducing the ones that are being built by the people who have the blessing of our present government.

The upside is huge in this business. in the 10 years I have played poker online it has generated billions in profits never mind revenues. This is the perfect "present" example of government obstructing one business for the benefit of who they want to be in the business........ They look at poker players like Ivey and Lederer with disdain, because they have made their money nontraditionally vs. everyone else and it offends their sense of the world. This kind of thing happens more than people realize.

Money is power, but influence does not have currency fluctuations........

[dohc324ci]

So your redefining wealth then?

[Vortex]

Yep, lets trust the "Heritage Foundation" to come up with unbiased research. While we are at it, lets begrudge the poor for having two tv sets. What a crock. I'd much rather have the "Heritage Foundation" research why the wealthy are taxed at around the 15% rate on capital gains when the income tax rate for the middle class is running around 28%. The "Heritage Foundation" could care less, they are more concerned about the poor having Xboxes or whatever.

[vkirkend]

Right and right! Totally agree. The fridge and AC was just to illustrate the creature comforts of living in the USA. I will say, a fridge is a necessity, AC is not.

Unless you live in the South where temperatures can be over 100 degrees inside your home at Night!!! And I'm talking from experience..... No A/C is intolerable in some circumstances.

[Fosters]

Yep, lets trust the "Heritage Foundation" to come up with unbiased research. While we are at it, lets begrudge the poor for having two tv sets. What a crock. I'd much rather have the "Heritage Foundation" research why the wealthy are taxed at around the 15% rate on capital gains when the income tax rate for the middle class is running around 28%. The "Heritage Foundation" could care less, they are more concerned about the poor having Xboxes or whatever.

I'd take the heritage foundation over Media Matters any day of the week.

Do you KNOW what capital gains are? Capital gains taxes paid on dividends are the most atrocious form of double taxation. You invest into a successful company, one posting profits. That company is paying taxes (unless it's GE or another one of the government's favorites... got crony capitalism?) on its profits. When all is said and done, after all of the taxes they paid (funny how liberals never mention corporate taxes being the highest in the world), when it comes time to pay the investors via dividends, they are taxed another 15%.

It's much like you having direct deposit, having your taxes taken out of your paycheck, and then the ATM charging you another 15% when you want to take your money out.

And guess what, you're more than welcome to purchase as many stocks as you want, so you can get in on that 15% tax rate, if you really think it's so great.

Capital gains taxes on sales of stock at a higher price is pretty much like flipping cars... Can you just imagine how awesome it would be if the seller/dealer had to pay 15% tax on that? Can you imagine the impact on the poor, that the liberals claim they care about? Every time a dealership took a car in on trade in value and marked it for sale higher, add 15% on top of that for tax that they would have to pay. That would get passed down to the poor SOB buying the used car. Funny how that works, if we had the capital gains tax on everything, the poor would feel it like there was no tomorrow... but since we don't, it's ok to just stick it to the "rich" - or really anyone who has investments.

[robertmee]

Yep, lets trust the "Heritage Foundation" to come up with unbiased research. While we are at it, lets begrudge the poor for having two tv sets. What a crock. I'd much rather have the "Heritage Foundation" research why the wealthy are taxed at around the 15% rate on capital gains when the income tax rate for the middle class is running around 28%. The "Heritage Foundation" could care less, they are more concerned about the poor having Xboxes or whatever.

You're right....Capital gains tax is unfair....It should be 0. Why should I pay 15% tax on money I already paid tax for when I earned it? We are taxed to death....literally.

I work hard and earn a salary....Tax my salary.
I take some of my salary and buy a car....Sales Tax on my Car. If it's a nice one, luxury tax.
I keep my car in my garage....Property Tax on My Car and My Garage
I buy Gas for my car....Gas and Highway Tax
God forbid I have vices of drinking and smoking....Tax those too.
With the little money I have left over, I invest....Capital Gains tax
I like to eat, so I go buy some bread....That bread was taxed when the wheat seed was bought from the supply house, when the farmer sold it to the flour maker, when the flour maker sold it to the baker, when the baker sold it to the grocery store and when I bought it....That's value added tax
I work hard, save hard, eat PBJs all my life, and have an estate to pass onto my children....Of course they pay tax on that, so I'm even taxed in my death.

Flat tax or national sales tax and get rid of all the above. Why won't that pass? Because it's not fair to the poor because it's not progressive and the rich aren't paying more than their fair share.

[kernie]

I would add that most of the things that sound like luxury, TV's, game consoles, A\C ect. are available in the give-away category. I've given away several old, big box TV's, game consoles, window A\C's.

Benefits of living poor in a bloated place {Canada, USA} over living poor in a 3rd world country where the "give aways" are the luxury and the vast majority have zip.

Now living well in a wealthy area and not being poor, as i think most of us fit that category, we should be thankful.

:beer:

[Fosters]

Unless you live in the South where temperatures can be over 100 degrees inside your home at Night!!! And I'm talking from experience..... No A/C is intolerable in some circumstances.

I've lived for a few months with no AC in Phoenix. Swamp coolers work great and are much cheaper. Also helps to have full time school and full time job, and never be at home except for at night...

[duhtroll]

And that is what wealth is, my friends. We throw away stuff that people in other countries (and even places in this country) would kill to have. Literally.

We have so much food that we waste it. Everyone here is guilty of it at one time or another. We have drinkable water everywhere.

Which would you choose? Being a millionaire in the US or a billionaire stuck in Afghanistan?

That is the difference government makes in wealth.

Every single one of you will cash your Social Security checks, so I don't want to hear any more hypocrisy about how the "gummint ain't done nuthin' fer ya." But we have already been through that argument. We have folks here who will deride government's influence on their lives in one breath, and in the next tell everyone they deserve that Social Security check because they earned it.

How is that redefining wealth again, dohc? I get it, you are only concerned about YOUR stuff. Well, let's entertain that point for a minute. Prove this next statement wrong, and I will agree you have a point.

Every single one of you on this board has received assistance from your local, state and federal governments at one time or another, whether you know and acknowledge it or not. This assistance increased and/or perpetuated your own personal wealth by utilizing community rather than personal resources.

See above about living here vs. most of the rest of the world. We are wealthy as a nation and our government had a part in that.

Anyone care to posit that they have done everything all by themselves?

Now before anyone says that I think government is the answer to everything -- far from it. I think our federal government is bloated and has overreached in many ways.

I am merely answering the propaganda that the government creates no wealth at all, which is simply not true.


I would add that most of the things that sound like luxury, TV's, game consoles, A\C ect. are available in the give-away category. I've given away several old, big box TV's, game consoles, window A\C's.

Benefits of living poor in a bloated place {Canada, USA} over living poor in a 3rd world country where the "give aways" are the luxury and the vast majority have zip.

Now living well in a wealthy area and not being poor, as i think most of us fit that category, we should be thankful.

:beer:

[duhtroll]

Our government lets corporations control who can be an elected official at the federal level.

What's your point?


Gonna have to agree with Sailsman here for the most part Troll.........

Let me offer a recent for instance......

April 15th 2011 The United States stopped blocked all real money poker/online casino sites from working in the U.S. For Pokerstars, FullTilt and some others, this blockade represents a substancial part of their business and creates sustainability issues all on its own. Never mind all the other problems that exist in these businesses.

Just last week I was reading in the Wall St. Journal that a couple of well connected business executives in entertainment(Hollywood) and some bricks & mortar casino executives were developing a cloud based platform to host online gaming in the U.S. They were alluding to some favorable rulings for this industry in the not too distant future.....

So...... How does this all come together?

FullTilt(Tiltware) is owned by Ray Bittar, Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Phil Ivey plus a few others who are well known poker players (like Lederer, Ferguson, and Ivey). The difference is, while these people have alot of money, they do not have the connections.

Because these people in Hollywood have money from other businesses and have cultivated relationships of influence in govt., they may very well benefit from insider information regarding the viability of gaming in the U.S. Thereby being able to remove existing competition from the landscape by restricting their platforms through legislation, while introducing the ones that are being built by the people who have the blessing of our present government.

The upside is huge in this business. in the 10 years I have played poker online it has generated billions in profits never mind revenues. This is the perfect "present" example of government obstructing one business for the benefit of who they want to be in the business........ They look at poker players like Ivey and Lederer with disdain, because they have made their money nontraditionally vs. everyone else and it offends their sense of the world. This kind of thing happens more than people realize.

Money is power, but influence does not have currency fluctuations........

[robertmee]

Every single one of you on this board has received assistance from your local, state and federal governments at one time or another, whether you know and acknowledge it or not. This assistance increased and/or perpetuated your own personal wealth by utilizing community rather than personal resources.

Now before anyone says that I think government is the answer to everything -- far from it. I think our federal government is bloated and has overreached in many ways.

I am merely answering the propaganda that the government creates no wealth at all, which is simply not true.

Of course we all have....However, I think we can also all agree, that with the exception of police, fire, armed services and the transportation infrastructure, most of the benefits the working class has received has been at a cost greater than what could have been achieved had we had our own money and had private sector options to choose from. That's the problem. The government is highly inefficient, wasteful, and in many cases has a monopoly or is the sole source for some of the services we need or depend on. Therefore, I would argue that while the government may be creating wealth as you state, it certainly isn't creating it efficiently or cost effectively. Any other corporate entity operating the way our government does would have been bankrupt long ago. Our government is on its way tho.....

[sailsmen]

Government creates wealth by creating infrastructure that all businesses use.

Unless you think all of our infrastructure comes from private business?

Can we please stop with the "government does not create wealth" nonsense? It has been debunked. An example --

http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-think-government-cant-create-wealth-youre-wrong-2011-2

Wealth comes from more than just private sector money, since money isn't the only contributor to the equation.

Gov't does not "create wealth". If it did then Cuba and North Korea would be the wealthiest Nations. Gov't only redistributes wealth.

3% of Fed spending is on infrastructure. First the Gov't must take from somonelse in order to spend. Gov't charges a admin fee for doing so. This reduces the amount of wealth.

[sailsmen]

Government creates wealth by creating infrastructure that all businesses use.

Unless you think all of our infrastructure comes from private business?

Can we please stop with the "government does not create wealth" nonsense? It has been debunked. An example --

http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-think-government-cant-create-wealth-youre-wrong-2011-2

Wealth comes from more than just private sector money, since money isn't the only contributor to the equation.

You assume had Gov't not taken money, kept and admin fee and built the infrastructure it would never have been built. This is WRONG.
Private Birdges and Ferrys at a cost far less than what Gov't builds have been around for a long time.

[sailsmen]

And that is what wealth is, my friends. We throw away stuff that people in other countries (and even places in this country) would kill to have. Literally.

We have so much food that we waste it. Everyone here is guilty of it at one time or another. We have drinkable water everywhere.

Which would you choose? Being a millionaire in the US or a billionaire stuck in Afghanistan?

That is the difference government makes in wealth.

Every single one of you will cash your Social Security checks, so I don't want to hear any more hypocrisy about how the "gummint ain't done nuthin' fer ya." But we have already been through that argument. We have folks here who will deride government's influence on their lives in one breath, and in the next tell everyone they deserve that Social Security check because they earned it.

How is that redefining wealth again, dohc? I get it, you are only concerned about YOUR stuff. Well, let's entertain that point for a minute. Prove this next statement wrong, and I will agree you have a point.

Every single one of you on this board has received assistance from your local, state and federal governments at one time or another, whether you know and acknowledge it or not. This assistance increased and/or perpetuated your own personal wealth by utilizing community rather than personal resources.

See above about living here vs. most of the rest of the world. We are wealthy as a nation and our government had a part in that.

Anyone care to posit that they have done everything all by themselves?

Now before anyone says that I think government is the answer to everything -- far from it. I think our federal government is bloated and has overreached in many ways.

I am merely answering the propaganda that the government creates no wealth at all, which is simply not true.

Can we have the same laws apply to the Fed for stealing Social Security that apply to private business? Based on my November 2010 Benefits letter from SS I will have to far exceed the mortality tables in order to get back the principal. That means I will get a negative return. Is there a law to hold them liable?

The Story of the Federal Gov't as a Fiduciary for SS.

The Fed by law collects 6.2% of every paycheck and an additional 6.2% from my employer. In exchange when I reach the earliest retirement age of 67 the Fed agreed to pay me a monthly benefit of $1,910 for the remainder of my life.
However, my November 2010 statement from the Fed says due to their increasing expenses they project they will only be able to pay me $1,452 per month. By law,”for my protection”, the Fed can only invest in bonds in the Fed.
Had I been an employee of the Fed the earliest retirement age is 57 and the monthly benefit is $3,938. If I wait until 62 the monthly benefit is $4,950.
Age Social Security Fed Civilian Employee
57 -0- $3,938
67/62 $1,452 $4,950.
I think the Fed has been grossly negligent and should be criminally charged.

I used actual figures from a Federal Retirement Gov website and my own SS statement

[Fosters]

Gov't does not "create wealth". If it did then Cuba and North Korea would be the wealthiest Nations. Gov't only redistributes wealth.

3% of Fed spending is on infrastructure. First the Gov't must take from somonelse in order to spend. Gov't charges a admin fee for doing so. This reduces the amount of wealth.

Exactly. It's the 3% that is the government's duty and purpose (I'd say it's a bit higher if you add in defense, though that could take some cuts too), and one can argue that while they do not create wealth directly, they enable creation of wealth. However, anything beyond infrastructure and defense is simply non-essential.

Government should provide roads, but not means of transport. Government needs to get out of the education system. Government needs to get out of funding unemployment benefits, return them to be funded solely by unemployment insurance. Welfare should simply not exist. That's exactly what charities are for. Charities have the ability to discriminate and pick who will receive the benefits, usually it is the people truly in need.

[vkirkend]

I've lived for a few months with no AC in Phoenix. Swamp coolers work great and are much cheaper. Also helps to have full time school and full time job, and never be at home except for at night...

Don't know much about a swamp cooler, I don't believe they use those in the south. See my first post. And I agree that people should work. But in the summer lots of kids are at home. Just sayin' refrigerators and A/C can be necessities. And poor people don't live in good neighorhoods. Open windows are an invitation to have what little you have taken.

[Fosters]

You're right....Capital gains tax is unfair....It should be 0. Why should I pay 15% tax on money I already paid tax for when I earned it? We are taxed to death....literally.

I work hard and earn a salary....Tax my salary.
I take some of my salary and buy a car....Sales Tax on my Car. If it's a nice one, luxury tax.
I keep my car in my garage....Property Tax on My Car and My Garage
I buy Gas for my car....Gas and Highway Tax
God forbid I have vices of drinking and smoking....Tax those too.
With the little money I have left over, I invest....Capital Gains tax
I like to eat, so I go buy some bread....That bread was taxed when the wheat seed was bought from the supply house, when the farmer sold it to the flour maker, when the flour maker sold it to the baker, when the baker sold it to the grocery store and when I bought it....That's value added tax
I work hard, save hard, eat PBJs all my life, and have an estate to pass onto my children....Of course they pay tax on that, so I'm even taxed in my death.

Flat tax or national sales tax and get rid of all the above. Why won't that pass? Because it's not fair to the poor because it's not progressive and the rich aren't paying more than their fair share.
I think this is the second beer I owe to the members of this forum. :beer:

[sailsmen]

In real life capitalism, not the imaginary capitalism where everyone is good and moral, the rich guy would have bought the bar, watered down the beer, lowered the salaries of the bartender and waiters, or hired illegal Mexicans off the books, and raised the prices of the brewskies and never sat at that bar again. No, he'd be drinking Johnny Walker Gold at the Four Seasons, laughing his ass off at his old chumps.

Oh yeah, and he woulda replaced the first 5 guys with two other guys on the phone in India. They would give themselves American sounding names, though.

Your statement shows a complete ignorance of how business works. You actually think a business will make a guy rich by ripping off it's customers with an inferior product and hiring illegal employees?

Here is a real life example. I was an owner of a restaurant that won the most coveted award as the top restaurant in the USA.
Katrina put 80% of New Orleans underwater. My uncle, a decorated war veteran, left the restaurant when a gold van pulled up, three guys in wheel chairs got out and started looting adjacent businesses. The point is as a result of the complete failure of Government on every level there was total anarchy.

Many of our homes were under water. We had no idea if our city would reopen or if our business would reopen.

We made the decision to pay in full, including benefits and tips all employees who had been in our employ at least a year. We have very little turn over so this was almost all of the employees. We did this with OUR MONEY!

At great risk we opened another location in a nearby city to put our employees to work and serve our customers. This proved very costly and we ended up closing it.

All of our employees returned to work when we reopened in New Orleans.

INS has inspected our premises, as they have many other businesses, and required proof that all our employees are legal.

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/data/500/katrina-cops-bourbon-streetjpg-be0511b9d6cf0914_large_1_.jpg (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/20050)

[sailsmen]

And that is what wealth is, my friends. We throw away stuff that people in other countries (and even places in this country) would kill to have. Literally.

We have so much food that we waste it. Everyone here is guilty of it at one time or another. We have drinkable water everywhere.

Which would you choose? Being a millionaire in the US or a billionaire stuck in Afghanistan?

That is the difference government makes in wealth.

Every single one of you will cash your Social Security checks, so I don't want to hear any more hypocrisy about how the "gummint ain't done nuthin' fer ya." But we have already been through that argument. We have folks here who will deride government's influence on their lives in one breath, and in the next tell everyone they deserve that Social Security check because they earned it.

How is that redefining wealth again, dohc? I get it, you are only concerned about YOUR stuff. Well, let's entertain that point for a minute. Prove this next statement wrong, and I will agree you have a point.

Every single one of you on this board has received assistance from your local, state and federal governments at one time or another, whether you know and acknowledge it or not. This assistance increased and/or perpetuated your own personal wealth by utilizing community rather than personal resources.

See above about living here vs. most of the rest of the world. We are wealthy as a nation and our government had a part in that.

Anyone care to posit that they have done everything all by themselves?

Now before anyone says that I think government is the answer to everything -- far from it. I think our federal government is bloated and has overreached in many ways.

I am merely answering the propaganda that the government creates no wealth at all, which is simply not true.

And many of us have pay 40-50% of our income in taxes and get very little in return. Stop taking my money and I will be far wealthier. You seem to think Gov't does things for free. First Gov't must take from someone before it can do anyting.

Most anything the Gov't does is very inefficient resulting in a huge waste of money.

[duhtroll]

Gov't does not "create wealth". If it did then Cuba and North Korea would be the wealthiest Nations. Gov't only redistributes wealth.

What are you, a parrot? Repeating something doesn't make it true.


3% of Fed spending is on infrastructure. First the Gov't must take from somonelse in order to spend. Gov't charges a admin fee for doing so. This reduces the amount of wealth.

You aren't giving credit for any effect of what these improvements have made in this country for anyone - individual or business. Just because the money came from people doesn't mean that it did not improve wealth in this country.

If you use that argument, every single business takes money from people too, so they don't create wealth either! (Yeah, I don't believe that, but it is the same argument). You're assuming there is no production, service, or product as a result of government work, which is a fallacy.

[duhtroll]

I can't believe I am saying this, but my response to your statement here is actually...

"So what?"

Without federal and state infrastructure your businesses wouldn't be nearly as profitable, if at all. It is government initiatives in the US which separate us from many areas of the world.


You assume had Gov't not taken money, kept and admin fee and built the infrastructure it would never have been built. This is WRONG.
Private Birdges and Ferrys at a cost far less than what Gov't builds have been around for a long time.

[sailsmen]

I'd take the heritage foundation over Media Matters any day of the week.

Do you KNOW what capital gains are? Capital gains taxes paid on dividends are the most atrocious form of double taxation. You invest into a successful company, one posting profits. That company is paying taxes (unless it's GE or another one of the government's favorites... got crony capitalism?) on its profits. When all is said and done, after all of the taxes they paid (funny how liberals never mention corporate taxes being the highest in the world), when it comes time to pay the investors via dividends, they are taxed another 15%.

It's much like you having direct deposit, having your taxes taken out of your paycheck, and then the ATM charging you another 15% when you want to take your money out.

And guess what, you're more than welcome to purchase as many stocks as you want, so you can get in on that 15% tax rate, if you really think it's so great.

Capital gains taxes on sales of stock at a higher price is pretty much like flipping cars... Can you just imagine how awesome it would be if the seller/dealer had to pay 15% tax on that? Can you imagine the impact on the poor, that the liberals claim they care about? Every time a dealership took a car in on trade in value and marked it for sale higher, add 15% on top of that for tax that they would have to pay. That would get passed down to the poor SOB buying the used car. Funny how that works, if we had the capital gains tax on everything, the poor would feel it like there was no tomorrow... but since we don't, it's ok to just stick it to the "rich" - or really anyone who has investments.

Just remember most Liberals cannot do math. It is well known that the long term Capital Gains Tax is 15% but most Liberals cannot understand that. It is also well known that the top marginal income tax rate is 35% but most Liberals cannot understand that.

Is it any surprise that when a person sells a business that they might get a large amount of money and that income would be taxed as long term Capital Gains at 15%? Oh that's right most Liberals don't own businesses.

[duhtroll]

I agree the raiding of SS funds is a problem, but I suggest you look over the long term as to who raided them. Were they the ones promoting the entitlements or the ones promoting private business?

You're going to have to back those fed retirement figures up with something other than typing numbers in, BTW. In any case, that is cherry-picking and therefore not germane to the discussion.

Single examples don't qualify as universals, which is how you are applying this one.


Can we have the same laws apply to the Fed for stealing Social Security that apply to private business? Based on my November 2010 Benefits letter from SS I will have to far exceed the mortality tables in order to get back the principal. That means I will get a negative return. Is there a law to hold them liable?

The Story of the Federal Gov't as a Fiduciary for SS.

The Fed by law collects 6.2% of every paycheck and an additional 6.2% from my employer. In exchange when I reach the earliest retirement age of 67 the Fed agreed to pay me a monthly benefit of $1,910 for the remainder of my life.
However, my November 2010 statement from the Fed says due to their increasing expenses they project they will only be able to pay me $1,452 per month. By law,”for my protection”, the Fed can only invest in bonds in the Fed.
Had I been an employee of the Fed the earliest retirement age is 57 and the monthly benefit is $3,938. If I wait until 62 the monthly benefit is $4,950.
Age Social Security Fed Civilian Employee
57 -0- $3,938
67/62 $1,452 $4,950.
I think the Fed has been grossly negligent and should be criminally charged.

I used actual figures from a Federal Retirement Gov website and my own SS statement

[sailsmen]

I can't believe I am saying this, but my response to your statement here is actually...

"So what?"

Without federal and state infrastructure your businesses wouldn't be nearly as profitable, if at all. It is government initiatives in the US which separate us from many areas of the world.

WRONG - IT IS LIMITED GOV't that separates us from the rest of the World. It is called the Constitution.

You assume the Private Sector would not fill a need or would do so at a greater costs than our highly inefficient Gov't.

Both your assumptions are wrong.

[sailsmen]

I agree the raiding of SS funds is a problem, but I suggest you look over the long term as to who raided them. Were they the ones promoting the entitlements or the ones promoting private business?

You're going to have to back those fed retirement figures up with something other than typing numbers in, BTW. In any case, that is cherry-picking and therefore not germane to the discussion.

Single examples don't qualify as universals, which is how you are applying this one.

Try a little research before posting incorrect "stuff".

There is no "cheery picking". It is a real world example. Regardless it is universal. Go to the Federal Retirement site it is a very simple formula.

"The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
Unlike many jobs in the private sector, government workers, including federal employees enjoy a pension system that provides for some level of lifetime earnings in exchange for public service. For federal employees this is theFederal Employee Retirement System (FERS) and with the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and Social Security, a federal employee can have a reasonable retirement. Enrollment in FERS is automatic for new federal employees, and it comes at a cost of 1 percent of salary as the employee’s contribution to the pension plan. The federal government picks up the rest of the cost.
The pension a federal employee earns is 1 percent of salary for each year of federal service and it is based on the average of the highest 36 months of federal pay. In order to retire with this amount, the federal employee must meet one of four different ways as published by OPM. Some of these involve a term called Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
The following scenarios describe the ways that a federal employee can meet retirement requirements:
Complete 30 years of service and have reached the Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
Complete 20 years of service and have reached age 60.
Complete 5 years of service and have reached age 62.
Complete 10 years of service and have reached the MRA.
For those who retire at MRA with at least 10 years of service but less than 30, the retirement benefit is reduced by 5 percent a year for each year the retiree is under age 62, unless the retiree has 20 years of service and benefits start after reaching age 60 or later.
Those who are able to serve the federal government for at least 20 years and who are over the age of 62, the retirement calculation is increased to 1.1 percent of pay vice 1 percent."

[jerrym3]

No one likes taxes, but...

If I buy $1,000 worth of stock from money that has already been taxed when I earned it, I get taxed on any profit that $1,000 makes, not the actual $1,000.

If I sell the stock at a loss, I get a tax write off on the loss.

If I sell the stock at a profit, I pay capital gains on the profit.

If there are no dividends, there are no extra taxes.

If I sell the stock for $1,000, there are no taxes.

Same when I buy a CD with money that has already been taxed when I earned it.

You are taxed on the profit/interest, not the original investment.

It's not double taxation.

The tax that I don't agree with is the estate tax.

If I've saved money, own a home, or made good investments all my life, why should my heirs pay any taxes on those assets when they get passed on to them?

[duhtroll]

Your statement shows a complete ignorance of how business works.

And "bar stool economics" is an informed model? :lol: :shake: That is what I was responding to, for the record.


You actually think a business will make a guy rich by ripping off it's customers with an inferior product and hiring illegal employees?

Yes. What planet have you been living on?


Here is a real life example. I was an owner of a restaurant ...

Did you miss the part about single examples not being treated as universal truths?

I get it, your life should be movie of the week. You are a true hero.

However, that doesn't mean you can use personal examples to explain large scale economics. Or beer drinking in bars.

[duhtroll]

So why didn't the private sector fill those gaps?

We have a limited government, as you say, so it should have been easy to do.


WRONG - IT IS LIMITED GOV't that separates us from the rest of the World. It is called the Constitution.

You assume the Private Sector would not fill a need or would do so at a greater costs than our highly inefficient Gov't.

Both your assumptions are wrong.

[duhtroll]

Your argument that the government is inefficient does not disprove that it has helped people of this nation become wealthy.

It also doesn't remove the government's assistance in your own life, either.




And many of us have pay 40-50% of our income in taxes and get very little in return. Stop taking my money and I will be far wealthier. You seem to think Gov't does things for free. First Gov't must take from someone before it can do anyting.

Most anything the Gov't does is very inefficient resulting in a huge waste of money.

[duhtroll]

So where is the argument that "if you don't like your job, pick a new one?"

Why aren't you working for the Fed if it is so good?

BTW, cherry picking is choosing one example and using it as a universal, which you have done here. You have stated nothing about what the jobs are, the qualifications, or even the salaries in question.

Generalities need specifics to back them up eventually. Especially when someone calls :bs:


Try a little research before posting incorrect "stuff".

There is no "cheery picking". It is a real world example. Regardless it is universal. Go to the Federal Retirement site it is a very simple formula.

"The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
Unlike many jobs in the private sector, government workers, including federal employees enjoy a pension system that provides for some level of lifetime earnings in exchange for public service. For federal employees this is theFederal Employee Retirement System (FERS) and with the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and Social Security, a federal employee can have a reasonable retirement. Enrollment in FERS is automatic for new federal employees, and it comes at a cost of 1 percent of salary as the employee’s contribution to the pension plan. The federal government picks up the rest of the cost.
The pension a federal employee earns is 1 percent of salary for each year of federal service and it is based on the average of the highest 36 months of federal pay. In order to retire with this amount, the federal employee must meet one of four different ways as published by OPM. Some of these involve a term called Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
The following scenarios describe the ways that a federal employee can meet retirement requirements:
Complete 30 years of service and have reached the Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
Complete 20 years of service and have reached age 60.
Complete 5 years of service and have reached age 62.
Complete 10 years of service and have reached the MRA.
For those who retire at MRA with at least 10 years of service but less than 30, the retirement benefit is reduced by 5 percent a year for each year the retiree is under age 62, unless the retiree has 20 years of service and benefits start after reaching age 60 or later.
Those who are able to serve the federal government for at least 20 years and who are over the age of 62, the retirement calculation is increased to 1.1 percent of pay vice 1 percent."

[Fosters]

Just remember most Liberals cannot do math. It is well known that the long term Capital Gains Tax is 15% but most Liberals cannot understand that. It is also well known that the top marginal income tax rate is 35% but most Liberals cannot understand that.

Is it any surprise that when a person sells a business that they might get a large amount of money and that income would be taxed as long term Capital Gains at 15%? Oh that's right most Liberals don't own businesses.


If we were ever to go to a flat % tax, it would be awesome if they set it to the top marginal rate. Simply because any lower (it should probably be around 20-25% until we pay down the debt, considering that regardless what the tax rates are, revenues average around 18-19% of the GDP; even 20% would be an overall increase), it would be viewed as a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for the poor, and that would never fly. If it was set to the top marginal rate, there would be no way to argue it's a tax cut for the rich.

Earlier this year I switched contracts, pay went up $5/hr. 5x40 = 200 dollars per week before taxes. After taxes, I had 100.23 cents additional on my paycheck. 23 cents away from being 50% of my "raise".

If the "poor" paid the taxes I pay, there would be riots tomorrow, and every major city in the US would look like London.

[sailsmen]

And "bar stool economics" is an informed model? :lol: :shake: That is what I was responding to, for the record.



Yes. What planet have you been living on?



Did you miss the part about single examples not being treated as universal truths?

I get it, your life should be movie of the week. You are a true hero.

However, that doesn't mean you can use personal examples to explain large scale economics. Or beer drinking in bars.

You truly are ignorant of the private sector and basic economics.

Do you really think no one "got rich" when there was little or no Gov't?

There were thousands of businesses that took a risk and reopened after Katrina.

Since you think the rich get rich by ripping people off. Do teachers make more money by cheating with their students test score like Atlanta? How universal is that?

[sailsmen]

So where is the argument that "if you don't like your job, pick a new one?"

Why aren't you working for the Fed if it is so good?

BTW, cherry picking is choosing one example and using it as a universal, which you have done here. You have stated nothing about what the jobs are, the qualifications, or even the salaries in question.

Generalities need specifics to back them up eventually. Especially when someone calls :bs:

There is no as you say BS. The infor was stated as coming from the Gov't retirement website and now a direct copy has been posted.

[sailsmen]

Your argument that the government is inefficient does not disprove that it has helped people of this nation become wealthy.

It also doesn't remove the government's assistance in your own life, either.

It is not assistance when you pay 40-50% of your income and get very little in return. It is a ripp off which is what Big Gov't does to it's subjects.

[robertmee]

No one likes taxes, but...

If I buy $1,000 worth of stock from money that has already been taxed when I earned it, I get taxed on any profit that $1,000 makes, not the actual $1,000.

If I sell the stock at a loss, I get a tax write off on the loss.

If I sell the stock at a profit, I pay capital gains on the profit.

If there are no dividends, there are no extra taxes.

If I sell the stock for $1,000, there are no taxes.

Same when I buy a CD with money that has already been taxed when I earned it.

You are taxed on the profit/interest, not the original investment.

It's not double taxation.



Loss deductions are capped and profits are not....So already, the tax is skewed.

As for double taxation, it can be argued that it is....profit/interest on which you are paid is usually a result of whatever stock/bond you own increasing in value because the company earned more. Well, when the company earned more, they paid more in taxes. So, they are getting taxed on earnings and we are getting taxed on the same earnings since we are owner/lenders. Double taxation.

[sailsmen]

So why didn't the private sector fill those gaps?

We have a limited government, as you say, so it should have been easy to do.

What "Gaps"?

[sailsmen]

What are you, a parrot? Repeating something doesn't make it true.



You aren't giving credit for any effect of what these improvements have made in this country for anyone - individual or business. Just because the money came from people doesn't mean that it did not improve wealth in this country.

If you use that argument, every single business takes money from people too, so they don't create wealth either! (Yeah, I don't believe that, but it is the same argument). You're assuming there is no production, service, or product as a result of government work, which is a fallacy.

You keep showing your economic ignorance. Business does not take money. Don't you understand that? Gov't takes money in the form of taxes and payment is required or you go to jail.
Is McD taking your money? Does McD put you in jail if you don't buy a BigMac?

[duhtroll]

You truly are ignorant of the private sector and basic economics.

You know nothing of my levels of knowledge, but nice try.


Do you really think no one "got rich" when there was little or no Gov't?

And when was that? How about a little history lesson? Show us the difference.


There were thousands of businesses that took a risk and reopened after Katrina.

Since you think the rich get rich by ripping people off. Do teachers make more money by cheating with their students test score like Atlanta? How universal is that?

Where did I say rich people rip people off? I said they COULD get rich by ripping people off, not that they have to.

But keep on trying to redefine me to make your argument work. Do you realize I have nothing to do with the argument, either?

Prove to me that government has had no positive effect on the general wealth of our country. That is my original position.

The simple fact is that you can't. Every time we have a discussion you return to personal stories about Katrina and stuff you found on other websites.

I made a simple point and asked you to refute it. Stop dancing around it and address it, if you can.

And as far as teachers getting rich by cheating, that is exactly what pay for performance will get us. Teachers will stop working together once they are competing for money.

[duhtroll]

What "Gaps"?


WRONG - IT IS LIMITED GOV't that separates us from the rest of the World. It is called the Constitution.

You assume the Private Sector would not fill a need or would do so at a greater costs than our highly inefficient Gov't.

Both your assumptions are wrong.

What needs (or gaps) would the private sector have filled? You said we have limited government, so I said it should have been easy for private industry to provide for us, but they didn't.

Why?

[duhtroll]

Really? What jobs are you taking about? What sectors? What are the employment pre-requisites? What are the job demands?

Until you can provide an example of something more specific than "the government retirement website" then we can't even discuss it and it is not relevant.

I can say "people from Louisiana are stupid," also. Doesn't make it true without any facts.


There is no as you say BS. The infor was stated as coming from the Gov't retirement website and now a direct copy has been posted.

[sailsmen]

What needs (or gaps) would the private sector have filled? You said we have limited government, so I said it should have been easy for private industry to provide for us, but they didn't.

Why?

All not mandated by our Constitution.

[duhtroll]

I pay taxes too, but you don't hear me complaining.

Maybe the difference is I see some of the benefits rather than closing my eyes and cursing people who are taking "my" money? Sure, the system has problems, but I am not ranting on a car board on a regular basis about how unfair my life is.


It is not assistance when you pay 40-50% of your income and get very little in return. It is a ripp off which is what Big Gov't does to it's subjects.

[duhtroll]

So why didn't they do all of these things? And don't claim that our government wouldn't let them. Our government is only just over 200 years old and many of the restrictions you complain about have been in place for far less time than that.


All not mandated by our Constitution.

[sailsmen]

Really? What jobs are you taking about? What sectors? What are the employment pre-requisites? What are the job demands?

Until you can provide an example of something more specific than "the government retirement website" then we can't even discuss it and it is not relevant.

I can say "people from Louisiana are stupid," also. Doesn't make it true without any facts.

All Federal Employees are eligible per the guideline I posted. Those in LEO get more.
Very simple do a search for Federal Employee Retirement System. All your questions are answered.
I posted the FERS guldeline copied directly that is it. It is simple just read it. Apparently you don't like.

[Fosters]

Loss deductions are capped and profits are not....So already, the tax is skewed.

As for double taxation, it can be argued that it is....profit/interest on which you are paid is usually a result of whatever stock/bond you own increasing in value because the company earned more. Well, when the company earned more, they paid more in taxes. So, they are getting taxed on earnings and we are getting taxed on the same earnings since we are owner/lenders. Double taxation.

Luckily I have him on ignore... Unfortunately, I see his banter every time someone quotes him.

I do like this bit:


If there are no dividends, there are no extra taxes.

All you have to do to not pay capital gains taxes is to not get paid for your investment, or not make any money! Man, that's so easy, I wish I would have thought of it!

Please stop quoting him... :lol:

[sailsmen]

I pay taxes too, but you don't hear me complaining.

Maybe the difference is I see some of the benefits rather than closing my eyes and cursing people who are taking "my" money? Sure, the system has problems, but I am not ranting on a car board on a regular basis about how unfair my life is.

Where have I ever said my life is unfair?

Are you really clueless that our Gov't is on the verge of complete economic collapse?

I am not cursing anyone. When I see my money being wasted and the Gov't making us and our future generations economics slaves to a Debt we can never pay back I speak out.

[sailsmen]

So why didn't they do all of these things? And don't claim that our government wouldn't let them. Our government is only just over 200 years old and many of the restrictions you complain about have been in place for far less time than that.

They did private bridges and ferrys are just one example.

[duhtroll]

And where is the salary information you quoted earlier?

And for what jobs were those salary levels? And what are the requirements and pre-requisites for those jobs? There's more, but you've ignored them the first two times I have asked.

Seems like there are a few questions that your posting doesn't answer.

The information is not present in what you have provided.

Meaning, you are using a generality with no specifics to try and prove a point.

Are you going to show me how government could not possibly have positively affected the wealth of this country, or your own life?

You are the "government does not create wealth" broken record on this board.

I am asking you to back that statement up.

Can you?


All Federal Employees are eligible per the guideline I posted. Those in LEO get more.
Very simple do a search for Federal Employee Retirement System. All your questions are answered.
I posted the FERS guldeline copied directly that is it. It is simple just read it. Apparently you don't like.

[sailsmen]

In real life capitalism, not the imaginary capitalism where everyone is good and moral, the rich guy would have bought the bar, watered down the beer, lowered the salaries of the bartender and waiters, or hired illegal Mexicans off the books, and raised the prices of the brewskies and never sat at that bar again. No, he'd be drinking Johnny Walker Gold at the Four Seasons, laughing his ass off at his old chumps.

Oh yeah, and he woulda replaced the first 5 guys with two other guys on the phone in India. They would give themselves American sounding names, though.

This is where you said it. Your statements speak.

[duhtroll]

Where have I ever said my life is unfair?

Less than one page ago. That is, unless you think "ripoff" and "unfair" are not synonymous.


It is not assistance when you pay 40-50% of your income and get very little in return. It is a ripp off which is what Big Gov't does to it's subjects.


Are you really clueless that our Gov't is on the verge of complete economic collapse?

We weren't discussing the current economic state. We were discussing how government creates wealth...or not. But you haven't shown me how they can't do so as of yet.


I am not cursing anyone. When I see my money being wasted and the Gov't making us and our future generations economics slaves to a Debt we can never pay back I speak out.

You are ranting about this on mercurymarauder.net.

Just wanted to let you know that your expected rate of return for your time investment on this topic in this particular forum is nigh 0%.

[duhtroll]

Right, and that one example is all you have, for which you are applying universal truth.

I will ask for the fifth time. Can you prove that the governing bodies of this nation have not positively affected the levels of wealth in the US?


They did private bridges and ferrys are just one example.

[duhtroll]

Said what? That ALL rich people rip people off? Is that what you took from that reply to "bar stool economics?"

If so, then you don't read very well. "Can" and "always do" are not the same thing.

Nevermind that it is a fictitious situation in both cases, but you missed that too.


This is where you said it. Your statements speak.

[sailsmen]

And where is the salary information you quoted earlier?

And for what jobs were those salary levels? And what are the requirements and pre-requisites for those jobs? There's more, but you've ignored them the first two times I have asked.

Seems like there are a few questions that your posting doesn't answer.

The information is not present in what you have provided.

Meaning, you are using a generality with no specifics to try and prove a point.

Are you going to show me how government could not possibly have positively affected the wealth of this country, or your own life?

You are the "government does not create wealth" broken record on this board.

I am asking you to back that statement up.

Can you?

Yes, I stated I used my own SS statement and compared it to the FERS. The FERS is a %. SS maxes out, that is a universal based on your age.
Anyone that has their SS statement, they are mailed in Nov, can make the comparison.

Very simply Gov't cannot generate wealth because before it does anything it must first TAKE from someonelse. Even if Gov't redistributes wealth it charges an admin fee which reduces the wealth. Even if Gov't aquires wealth from War or confiscation it did so by taking from another.

When I open a business I have done so with out taking from anyone. When I hire my first employee I do so with out taking from anyone.

I don't run around telling people if they don't give me, i.e. take, some money I am going to put them in jail.

[duhtroll]

Yes, I stated I used my own SS statement and compared it to the FERS. The FERS is a %. SS maxes out, that is a universal based on your age.
Anyone that has their SS statement, they are mailed in Nov, can make the comparison.

And you are comparing whatever it is you do with every federal position? Or are there specific ones you refer to?

Or... is it possible you are comparing things that have very little to do with one another?


Very simply Gov't cannot generate wealth because before it does anything it must first TAKE from someonelse. Even if Gov't redistributes wealth it charges an admin fee which reduces the wealth. Even if Gov't aquires wealth from War or confiscation it did so by taking from another.

And here we are back to square 1. So your position is that, even though you provide no evidence whatsoever, government has done nothing with anyone's tax money that has ever improved anyone's living conditions or wealth in the history of the US?

Just checking. If that is your position, you are incorrect.


When I open a business I have done so with out taking from anyone. When I hire my first employee I do so with out taking from anyone.

Really? Where did you get the money to start your business? Did you print it yourself? Or did it come from a bank, inheritance, grant, whatever?

All of those qualify as taking from others, BTW.

By being an American citizen of decision-making age, you are giving the US and state/local governments tacit agreement to pay taxes of different types. Your taxes are VOLUNTARY as a condition of CHOOSING to live here. If you do not like paying taxes, take your "wealth" and go somewhere where no one will tax you.

Of course, when the local warlord shows up you're going to lose more than 40%. Your choice. :D

[jerrym3]

Loss deductions are capped and profits are not....So already, the tax is skewed.

As for double taxation, it can be argued that it is....profit/interest on which you are paid is usually a result of whatever stock/bond you own increasing in value because the company earned more. Well, when the company earned more, they paid more in taxes. So, they are getting taxed on earnings and we are getting taxed on the same earnings since we are owner/lenders. Double taxation.

So, going along the same line, if I buy something with my $1,000 net income after taxes, and the recipient of that money has to pay taxes on the portion of that $1,000 that is considered his/her profit, is that considered "double taxation"?.

[sailsmen]

And you are comparing whatever it is you do with every federal position? Or are there specific ones you refer to?

Or... is it possible you are comparing things that have very little to do with one another?



And here we are back to square 1. So your position is that, even though you provide no evidence whatsoever, government has done nothing with anyone's tax money that has ever improved anyone's living conditions or wealth in the history of the US?

Just checking. If that is your position, you are incorrect.



Really? Where did you get the money to start your business? Did you print it yourself? Or did it come from a bank, inheritance, grant, whatever?

All of those qualify as taking from others, BTW.

By being an American citizen of decision-making age, you are giving the US and state/local governments tacit agreement to pay taxes of different types. Your taxes are VOLUNTARY as a condition of CHOOSING to live here. If you do not like paying taxes, take your "wealth" and go somewhere where no one will tax you.

Of course, when the local warlord shows up you're going to lose more than 40%. Your choice. :D

I am merely comparing the SS of retirement that by Law I must participate in to the one Big Gov't provides it's own employees. What I or the Fed employees did or do has no bearing on the retirement benefits, with the exception that LEO get better FERS. I also find it very distrubing that Big Gov't would cut my SS 24% with out cutting Fed workers retirement particularly when the Fed system is so expensive we obviously cannot afford it or we would not be cutting SS 24%.

I did not take any money from anyone. I earned it in exchange for my labor. I provided labor and in exchange I was paid. "Giving" and "My taxes are voluntary"? Totally ignorant statement.

If I want to stop paying most taxes I can just join the bottom 40% of income tax filers who get more then they pay in income tax and FICA in direct payments or just work for the Gov't.

If you have children or grandchildren this is the future of debt our Big Gov't is enslaving them to. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/doorbell.php

What part of create wealth is not understood? A bank robber who robs a bank has also improved his life and possibly his families but he did not generate wealth in doing so! Or do you think he did?

[robertmee]

So, going along the same line, if I buy something with my $1,000 net income after taxes, and the recipient of that money has to pay taxes on the portion of that $1,000 that is considered his/her profit, is that considered "double taxation"?.

Yes because you are presumably paying sales tax on your purchase. We'll take a simplified example:

A man invests $1000 to build a new engine. He then sells it to you for $2000.

He pays 15% on the $1000 profit (could be corporate tax but for simplification assume cap gains)
You pay 8% sales tax on the $2000

Government gets $150 + $160 = $310 on $1000 added to the economy (the original $1000 investment already existed). That's a 31% tax shared by buyer and seller. Same money taxed twice.

[duhtroll]

I did not take any money from anyone. I earned it in exchange for my labor. I provided labor and in exchange I was paid.

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. You EARN your money whereas government workers do not. :rolleyes:

Well, in that case you are simply prejudiced. You took money from others regardless of how you justify it.

Your customers giving you money is no different than you choosing to live in the US and pay taxes. Both have the option of not paying.

Obviously, you think living here and paying taxes is better than living elsewhere and not having taxes. It is kind of entertaining to watch you try and explain your way out of that one.

Bottom line is that you live here because we are a wealthier nation than most, and not just monetarily.



"Giving" and "My taxes are voluntary"? Totally ignorant statement.

So you are forced to live and work here?

Really? Explain.

I'd say choice is an accurate word to describe paying taxes in the US. You have a choice to leave. Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes.


If I want to stop paying most taxes I can just join the bottom 40% of income tax filers who get more then they pay in income tax and FICA in direct payments or just work for the Gov't.

So what is stopping you? Seems like you complain a lot for someone who is wealthy by definition.

Are you aware that government workers pay taxes, too?


If you have children or grandchildren this is the future of debt our Big Gov't is enslaving them to. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/doorbell.php

Yep. Booga booga booga!


What part of create wealth is not understood? A bank robber who robs a bank has also improved his life and possibly his families but he did not generate wealth in doing so?

And you liken the government to common thieves, and state that they provide nothing in return for your tax money. You are wrong.

They aren't the best at managing money, but they are a far cry from just taking with no return on the investment.

Show me how government providing infrastructure, education, public safety and other social programs does not create wealth for our country. All of those things make everyone's life easier and more profitable.

Simply by having a socialist police force enables you to hang onto what you have "earned."

But it is easier to claim credit for everything yourself, isn't it? It is much easier to live in prejudice than to stop and consider that some of your whining might be misplaced.

No one does it all on their own. Not in this country.

[duhtroll]

I am merely comparing the SS of retirement that by Law I must participate in to the one Big Gov't provides it's own employees.

You're comparing SS to a pension program. Apples/oranges. If you don't like your pension program, get a different job and stop whining about it.


What I or the Fed employees did or do has no bearing on the retirement benefits,

Why the hell not? You go on to say...



...with the exception that LEO get better FERS.

...so obviously you make a distinction based on duties when it suits you.

[dohc324ci]

Troll just because you have a response doesn't mean you are correct? you just have a position perspective that may or may not pursuade members here.

We just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers.

[duhtroll]

Yet so far no one here who is anti-gubmint can address the statement of proving government does not at least assist in creating wealth, even in the smallest way.

I'll turn that one around on you -- saying I'm wrong does not make YOU correct. I have at least provided examples to be dis-proven, which no one can seem to do.

For the record, I have ignored the last 100 or so postings of "government does not create wealth."

Completely ignoring the fact that such statements are complete crap, they don't even belong as discussion on a car board. Yet the same people keep creating the same kind of threads.

You will never see another political post from me again if the thread creators can get their keyboards some Immodium.


Troll just because you have a response doesn't mean you are correct? you just have a position perspective that may or may not pursuade members here.

We just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers.

[dohc324ci]

Troll - Your arguments/fallacies are all over the place when I try on focus on a statement all of a sudden you redirect to something new?

Government doesnt produce/create wealth. Why because government must take from one segment of society to give to another. (I can buy some aspects of your argument at a macro level but you have yet to provide data supporting this position)

Give references other than an internet blogger that supports this argument; your anecdotal evidence isn't helping to convince me. If you want to debate lets debate with statistic, data and valid case studies supporting your position.

So far what I see from you is the "attitude of the intellectual elite". We are just do dim to get the concept?

BTW, I really enjoy healthy debates because that's how we can better define the issues from multiple perspectives.

[duhtroll]

Then you haven't read anything I have posted. By the brevity of your responses it is obvious you don't intend to spend the time making a point, so why would you spend the time reading anyone else's?

I say infrastructure, education and public safety not only create wealth but help perpetuate it, increase it and sustain it. I have given supporting examples if you would go back and read them.

Disprove that statement. It is the same thing I have been saying this entire thread.

Go gather your facts and figures if you like. Show me how it is fallacious, if you can.

Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so.

If you say government does not create wealth it means that every single dollar is wasted and does not improve anything. It says that none of that money is reinvested in any way to anything positive. The statement "government does not create wealth," is simply bumper sticker politics for the uneducated.



Troll - Your arguments/fallacies are all over the place when I try on focus on a statement all of a sudden you redirect to something new?

Government doesnt produce/create wealth. Why because government must take from one segment of society to give to another. (I can buy some aspects of your argument at a macro level but you have yet to provide data supporting this position)

Give references other than an internet blogger that supports this argument; your anecdotal evidence isn't helping to convince me. If you want to debate lets debate with statistic, data and valid case studies supporting your position.

So far what I see from you is the "attitude of the intellectual elite". We are just do dim to get the concept?

[dohc324ci]

What part of anecdotal evidence did you not get? Partially, maybe true, cherry picked but unjustifiable; I only ask how you came to this conclusion with supporting perspectives i.e case studies, 3rd party references surely you can provide this for us. The first thing I am looking for in an argument is supporting postions...so I can understand. What I am seeing from you just banter..and I get disinterested. I am mearly focusing on the statement "Government Produces Wealth". Are you after being right or being informative?

[duhtroll]

Here is an article on the effects of ONE government program that has sparked billions of dollars in innovations and industry.

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html

That took 8 seconds to find.

Are you going to continue to plug your ears and close your eyes saying "LALALALALALALA it doesn't exist" because I don't include a pie chart?

Anecdotal? If you went to public school, you owe at least some small part of your success to government. If you live anywhere with public safety, they protect your investments. If your trucks drive on government roads, they helped your business make money. Your socialist military protects your ability to breathe. How's that for anecdotal? There are thousands of examples like this.

You can say it is anecdotal all you like, but assigning a label to it doesn't make it cease to exist.

Have fun with your case studies. :lol:



What part of anecdotal evidence did you not get? Partially, maybe true, cherry picked but unjustifiable; I only ask how you came to this conclusion with supporting perspectives i.e case studies, 3rd party references surely you can provide this for us. The first thing I am looking for in an argument is supporting postions...so I can understand. What I am seeing from you just banter..and I get disinterested. I am mearly focusing on the statement "Government Produces Wealth". Are you after being right or being informative?

[dohc324ci]

Your so witty and smart;) focus daniel son focus. This is good; supporting your position how hard was that.

But here is why I say otherwise? http://mises.org/daily/3058 - http://www.patriotsmind.com/2009/12/16/government-create-jobs-2/

Thomas Sowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell) writes: “What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use. But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether through taxation, selling bonds or imposing mandates. However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy"

But perhaps you are partially correct;) Both Private Sector and Government create wealth http://www.edlotterman.com/RWE/Articles/20070503.htm

"Government uses resources to create wealth" - I would buy this statement.

Google:http://www.google.com/search?q=does+government+creat e+wealth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[duhtroll]

Um, you are saying that all I have to do is provide you with more internet links and THEN my argument has value? That ideas require someone else to endorse them before they are valid? :baaa:

I guess some people do believe stuff just because it is on the interwebz.

BTW there were other supporting points you ignored earlier -- or just didn't bother to read, but since they didn't come from a fancy website I guess you wouldn't have deemed them useful anyway. :P

Let's take my infrastructure point. Everyone on here knows the govt created much of it and everyone also knows that businesses and individuals use most of it. Yet when I point out that this is common knowledge and people should realize it is a good investment of their tax dollars (i.e. generating wealth!) I am told to back it up with sources or it won't be deemed valid?

Pretty damn silly.

On another point --

Businesses use resources to create wealth too, some of which are provided by the government.

From some of the viewpoints on here it seems people believe wealth appears from nowhere just by having businesses around. But most business resources come from people too, and that means they take resources from others just like government does.

Aw, crap. That was anecdotal and therefore can't be true. F:censor:. I will have to find my information on the internet and post a link.



Your so witty and smart;) focus daniel son focus. This is good; supporting your position how hard was that.

But here is why I say otherwise? http://mises.org/daily/3058 - http://www.patriotsmind.com/2009/12/16/government-create-jobs-2/

Thomas Sowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell) writes: “What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use. But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether through taxation, selling bonds or imposing mandates. However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy"

But perhaps you are partially correct;) Both Private Sector and Government create wealth http://www.edlotterman.com/RWE/Articles/20070503.htm

"Government uses resources to create wealth" - I would buy this statement.

Google:http://www.google.com/search?q=does+government+creat e+wealth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Fosters]

This thread has so many "This message is hidden because duhtroll is on your ignore list." that it makes me think I'm missing something good. If I take him off ignore though, I have a feeling this thread will get locked quick... I guess it's not fair to pick on unionized government dependents.

[Fosters]

Figured I'd post up one of the ways government supposedly "creates" wealth. This is an analysis done by Jason Lewis; I don't know how many of you get to listen to Jason Lewis, but last Friday he had a pretty good analysis and perspective on the department of education:

mp3 of friday's show:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS080511_Hr1_PublicEducatio n.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&NG_ID=&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.ktlkfm.com&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&TRACK=

The good part starts at 10:50 into the mp3, it's only a few minutes long after that. Well worth the listen. The statistics, when put into perspective, are astounding.

[dohc324ci]

Um, you are saying that all I have to do is provide you with more internet links and THEN my argument has value? That ideas require someone else to endorse them before they are valid? :baaa:

I guess some people do believe stuff just because it is on the interwebz.

BTW there were other supporting points you ignored earlier -- or just didn't bother to read, but since they didn't come from a fancy website I guess you wouldn't have deemed them useful anyway. :P

Let's take my infrastructure point. Everyone on here knows the govt created much of it and everyone also knows that businesses and individuals use most of it. Yet when I point out that this is common knowledge and people should realize it is a good investment of their tax dollars (i.e. generating wealth!) I am told to back it up with sources or it won't be deemed valid?

Pretty damn silly.

On another point --

Businesses use resources to create wealth too, some of which are provided by the government.

From some of the viewpoints on here it seems people believe wealth appears from nowhere just by having businesses around. But most business resources come from people too, and that means they take resources from others just like government does.

Aw, crap. That was anecdotal and therefore can't be true. F:censor:. I will have to find my information on the internet and post a link.

No silly all you have to do for me is give me the facts and none of your silly op ed pieces. Just the facts. Bottom line Ive got to weed out your ******** to get to the facts. BTW, Thomas Sowell isnt just an internet blogger..

You really need to leave your emotion out of the the argument because it clouds your message. Again links provide context on your position a framework of what your are referencing. If you read my post I said I agree to:


"Government uses resources to create wealth" in other words I am agreeing to you if you use this term vs "Government creates wealth". IMO is inaccurate.

[jerrym3]

Luckily I have him on ignore... Unfortunately, I see his banter every time someone quotes him.

I do like this bit:



All you have to do to not pay capital gains taxes is to not get paid for your investment, or not make any money! Man, that's so easy, I wish I would have thought of it!

Please stop quoting him... :lol:

Geez Fosters, you have to get out of the house more.

It was an example, not a goal. Of course I want dividends and capital gains, even if it means more taxes.

[Shaijack]

Wow I love you guys.

[duhtroll]

I have posted the same (rather simple) statement to be refuted now at least five separate times. You didn't need to "weed out any BS" to find the point.

Prolly six times, actually. I have offered several supporting ideas, and even links after your cajoling. IIRC the first link I posted you immediately dismissed, attacking the person (while knowing none of his credentials (http://www.businessinsider.com/author/joe-weisenthal)).

Then later you asked for more links.

So much for clouding the argument - my position could not be more clear. Yet no one seems to have a decent rebuttal. Emotion? I think not. I have remained on message despite the name calling and antagonism.

I wonder if you guys think labels you assign to my posts will change the actual meaning? You keep labeling things but it isn't going to change the point. My position stands until one of you gubmint haters can form a cogent point yourselves. You say it is opinion but offer no reason why it is false. Show me why, if you can.

BTW, grammatically, "Government creates wealth," is essentially the same statement as "Government uses resources to create wealth." Adding a modifier may change the meaning for you, but the main point is the same.

You can substitute the word "business" for "government" in either statement, since businesses use resources also.




No silly all you have to do for me is give me the facts and none of your silly op ed pieces. Just the facts. Bottom line Ive got to weed out your ******** to get to the facts. BTW, Thomas Sowell isnt just an internet blogger..

You really need to leave your emotion out of the the argument because it clouds your message. Again links provide context on your position a framework of what your are referencing. If you read my post I said I agree to:


"Government uses resources to create wealth" in other words I am agreeing to you if you use this term vs "Government creates wealth". IMO is inaccurate.

[dohc324ci]

Well I am glad we cleared that up.

[DEFYANT]

Let uncle Archie explain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_kME&feature=player_embedded

[GAMike]

Our government lets corporations control who can be an elected official at the federal level.

What's your point?

Your first statement is somewhat bs here Troll....... Corporations spend money to influence outcome. It does not always happen.......

Corporations spend money on candidates who will look upon their issues favorably (regardless of party). Shutting down businesses, just to have another take their place (remember these businesses have been operating without governmental interference for over 6 years......... Quasi legal or not) is not what our government is in place to do. Its not their function regardless of who is in power.

So even if you and I are diametrically opposed politically, I think we should be able to agree on that. That is my point........

[Granddaddy Marq]

Besides the political message, best description of envy I've ever heard.

Ya I know. I'm envyes!

[duhtroll]

No, not BS. Elections are most often won by the candidate with more money, all else being equal - that short guy from Texas notwithstanding -- Perot! (knew it would come to me eventually). It doesn't even matter if they are telling lies as long as they are in the voter's ear more than the other guy.

Would you agree that B.O. won his election primarily due to his fundraising? Well, and the existence of that human wind tunnel Para Sailin'. :D But that was just a bonus.

Allowing corps to raise money for candidates must (yes, must) result in the election of candidates on that corp's payroll. OK, payroll is a strong word but donating to a "campaign" when the candidate can write checks off the account is nearly the same thing.

And "regardless of party" is misleading, since you and I both know that one party is predominant due to their pro-corporation stance.

Unions say they support candidates who support their issues "regardless of party affiliation" also. But we both know what that means.

I completely agree that government should have no role in shutting down business that is operating legally and at no threat to the public (be it environmental or whatever).


Your first statement is somewhat bs here Troll....... Corporations spend money to influence outcome. It does not always happen.......

Corporations spend money on candidates who will look upon their issues favorably (regardless of party). Shutting down businesses, just to have another take their place (remember these businesses have been operating without governmental interference for over 6 years......... Quasi legal or not) is not what our government is in place to do. Its not their function regardless of who is in power.

So even if you and I are diametrically opposed politically, I think we should be able to agree on that. That is my point........

[Fosters]

One more link, which seems fitting for this thread. This is our entitled class in a few years. For their sake, I hope if they start looting, it's after 2nd amendment is repealed (hopefully never)... I don't see something like this go very well for them in the US, due to people protecting their property.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html#ixzz1Ub1DwHGz

My favorite quote:

As a girl looter told a BBC reporter, it showed ‘the rich’ and the police that ‘we can do what we like’.

This was played on talk radio this morning too; girl was in a happy mood, admitted she was drinking "rosay wine" and the above...

[PonyUP]

No, not BS. Elections are most often won by the candidate with more money, all else being equal - that short guy from Texas notwithstanding -- Perot! (knew it would come to me eventually). It doesn't even matter if they are telling lies as long as they are in the voter's ear more than the other guy.

Would you agree that B.O. won his election primarily due to his fundraising? Well, and the existence of that human wind tunnel Para Sailin'. :D But that was just a bonus.

Allowing corps to raise money for candidates must (yes, must) result in the election of candidates on that corp's payroll. OK, payroll is a strong word but donating to a "campaign" when the candidate can write checks off the account is nearly the same thing.

And "regardless of party" is misleading, since you and I both know that one party is predominant due to their pro-corporation stance.

Unions say they support candidates who support their issues "regardless of party affiliation" also. But we both know what that means.

I completely agree that government should have no role in shutting down business that is operating legally and at no threat to the public (be it environmental or whatever).

I'm just gonna say Troll, and I'm not going to get sucked into the pissing match this thread has become with who can find more crap on the internet to support their argument, but what about the corporations that donate to multiple candidates to hedge their bets?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I read it as because Republicans have a pro-corporate stance (and both parties should have that stance) that Corporations only donate to Republicans while unions and minorities vote for Democrats.

I would venture to say corporations will support whomever they think will win in hopes of accessing some influence.

If I misread your point I apologize. But if you read the tone of this thread, how can any of you wonder why political threads get shut down. Many in this thread have a complete lack of respect for the opposing point of few, and then go on the attack at each other. My question is, why can't you just debate with respect for the other persons point of view.

And lastly, I am so sick of the liberals "can't do math, can't read and are blithering idiots crap" painting a point of view with a broad stroke like that would be akin to me saying every conservative is a bible toting nutbag a half step away from a backwood militia. Doesn't feel good does it?

Geez guys, treat opposing views with respect even if you disagree with it. In the end there is a lot more that unites us than divides us. There are reasons why people believe what they believe, and a lot of it has to do with person experience and upbringing, and attacking something that is bred like that is not fair. That's it, got in before the lock

[Ozark Marauder]

I love these polls..............

"Voters are more convinced than ever that most congressmen are crooks.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters now view most members of Congress as corrupt. That’s up seven points from June (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/congressional_performance/just_8_approve_of_job_congress _is_doing) and the highest finding yet recorded. Just 29% think most members are not corrupt, and another 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/july_2011/questions_rate_congress_july_2 4_25_2011).)

Similarly, a whopping 85% of voters think most members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping other people. That’s a record high for surveys stretching back to early November 2006. Only seven percent (7%) believe most of the legislators are more interested in helping others."

:agree: BTW......I always wondered about people who are not sure or don't know...........

[GAMike]

I'm just gonna say Troll, and I'm not going to get sucked into the pissing match this thread has become with who can find more crap on the internet to support their argument, but what about the corporations that donate to multiple candidates to hedge their bets?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I read it as because Republicans have a pro-corporate stance (and both parties should have that stance) that Corporations only donate to Republicans while unions and minorities vote for Democrats.

I would venture to say corporations will support whomever they think will win in hopes of accessing some influence.

If I misread your point I apologize. But if you read the tone of this thread, how can any of you wonder why political threads get shut down. Many in this thread have a complete lack of respect for the opposing point of few, and then go on the attack at each other. My question is, why can't you just debate with respect for the other persons point of view.

And lastly, I am so sick of the liberals "can't do math, can't read and are blithering idiots crap" painting a point of view with a broad stroke like that would be akin to me saying every conservative is a bible toting nutbag a half step away from a backwood militia. Doesn't feel good does it?

Geez guys, treat opposing views with respect even if you disagree with it. In the end there is a lot more that unites us than divides us. There are reasons why people believe what they believe, and a lot of it has to do with person experience and upbringing, and attacking something that is bred like that is not fair. That's it, got in before the lock

Good post Brad.......
If we are all busy attacking ea. other, we won't have time to notice the plunder going on right in front of us.......

If someone wanted too, they could plot the track record of political donations from the 500 largest corporations and their executive leadership. Betcha it would reveal more fence sitting than anything...... For example........Wall Street firms are notorious for playing both sides of the donation game especially in an election year, because the risk of being associated with a loosing candidate is greater than not buying access to "both" candidates......

[Fosters]

I'm just gonna say Troll, and I'm not going to get sucked into the pissing match this thread has become with who can find more crap on the internet to support their argument, but what about the corporations that donate to multiple candidates to hedge their bets?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I read it as because Republicans have a pro-corporate stance (and both parties should have that stance) that Corporations only donate to Republicans while unions and minorities vote for Democrats.

I would venture to say corporations will support whomever they think will win in hopes of accessing some influence.

If I misread your point I apologize. But if you read the tone of this thread, how can any of you wonder why political threads get shut down. Many in this thread have a complete lack of respect for the opposing point of few, and then go on the attack at each other. My question is, why can't you just debate with respect for the other persons point of view.

And lastly, I am so sick of the liberals "can't do math, can't read and are blithering idiots crap" painting a point of view with a broad stroke like that would be akin to me saying every conservative is a bible toting nutbag a half step away from a backwood militia. Doesn't feel good does it?

Geez guys, treat opposing views with respect even if you disagree with it. In the end there is a lot more that unites us than divides us. There are reasons why people believe what they believe, and a lot of it has to do with person experience and upbringing, and attacking something that is bred like that is not fair. That's it, got in before the lock

As long as you guys keep quoting him, I'm gonna take my pot shots:


It doesn't even matter if they are telling lies as long as they are in the voter's ear more than the other guy.

And I wonder what impact the main stream media has on this... :o:D

[jerrym3]

This thread has so many "This message is hidden because duhtroll is on your ignore list." that it makes me think I'm missing something good. If I take him off ignore though, I have a feeling this thread will get locked quick... I guess it's not fair to pick on unionized government dependents.


And from another post, he feels compelled to take a pot shot at a poster who is on his ignore list (of which, am proud to say, I am also a member), which must be getting bigger by the day.

Fosters cannot be part of a civil discussion without dragging it downhill, and, by his own words, he openly admits it.

I, for one, will never put him on any ignore list, because he's just so damn entertaining!

[duhtroll]

I am confused - you are posting but don't want to be involved? :o

I'll put good money down that this board contains many hundreds if not thousands more insults toward liberals than toward any other viewpoint, yet we only seem to have these problems when someone from the other side speaks up.

And I have to wonder how people can be so angry with their lives that they have to put all these threads up in the first place.


I'm just gonna say Troll, and I'm not going to get sucked into the pissing match this thread has become with who can find more crap on the internet to support their argument, but what about the corporations that donate to multiple candidates to hedge their bets?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I read it as because Republicans have a pro-corporate stance (and both parties should have that stance) that Corporations only donate to Republicans while unions and minorities vote for Democrats.

I would venture to say corporations will support whomever they think will win in hopes of accessing some influence.

If I misread your point I apologize. But if you read the tone of this thread, how can any of you wonder why political threads get shut down. Many in this thread have a complete lack of respect for the opposing point of few, and then go on the attack at each other. My question is, why can't you just debate with respect for the other persons point of view.

And lastly, I am so sick of the liberals "can't do math, can't read and are blithering idiots crap" painting a point of view with a broad stroke like that would be akin to me saying every conservative is a bible toting nutbag a half step away from a backwood militia. Doesn't feel good does it?

Geez guys, treat opposing views with respect even if you disagree with it. In the end there is a lot more that unites us than divides us. There are reasons why people believe what they believe, and a lot of it has to do with person experience and upbringing, and attacking something that is bred like that is not fair. That's it, got in before the lock

[dohc324ci]

come on troll you have the mainstream media pumping up the liberal cause you cant compare that to a membership of a few thousand on this board can you? I enjoy the opposite view it helps me define/modify/change my position as long as we do without insults and have dialog sure why not. I live and work in Northern California Bay Area so I know the feeling of being out gunned out numbered and in a hostile environment...lol

And who tagged this thread a kentucky hot brown...lol I dare not look that up after the last one "Alabama Hot ***"

[duhtroll]

First of all, I don't watch "mainstream media."

Which is another fallacy, BTW. (that media is liberal) Compare the viewership of Fox/Abc to NBC/MSNBC/CNN.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/08/09/fox-news-dominates-on-wall-street-sell-off-monday-the-five-sets-viewing-highs/100032/

Looks like conservative TV is winning out by the numbers.


come on troll you have the mainstream media pumping up the liberal cause you cant compare that to a membership of a few thousand on this board can you? I enjoy the opposite view it helps me define/modify/change my position as long as we do without insults and have dialog sure why not. I live and work in Northern California Bay Area so I know the feeling of being out gunned out numbered and in a hostile environment...lol

And who tagged this thread a kentucky hot brown...lol I dare not look that up after the last one "Alabama Hot ***"

[Bradley G]

I realy find it hard to belive that the ultra wealthy will leave if the Government mandates that they pay thier
"Fair Share" of the tax burden.
This applies to Corporations too, however we will need the support of The government to relinquish financial advantages to keep the work Here!

[dohc324ci]

First of all, I don't watch "mainstream media."

Which is another fallacy, BTW. (that media is liberal) Compare the viewership of Fox/Abc to NBC/MSNBC/CNN.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/08/09/fox-news-dominates-on-wall-street-sell-off-monday-the-five-sets-viewing-highs/100032/

Looks like conservative TV is winning out by the numbers.

Thanks Troll.

I try not to too. By your own reference the ABC/NBC/MSNBC/CNN are all trounced by FNC viewership? You really have to ask yourself why? Are that many viewers wrong?

Media Research Center - Bias in the Media: http://www.mrctv.org/videos

The ones getting beat are left leaning they have "more" positive coverage of the "democrats" then they do of a "republican" candidate.

Reference works supporting argument - http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

Conservative Women are attacked in particular - Misogyny only applies to left leaning then?

Video examples:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43182395

http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-maher/2011/07/12/maher-calls-palin-bachmann-****s-cnn-host-laughs

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2011/07/12/sexist-misogynist-pig-bill-maher-uses-term-****-on-cnn-for-conservatives-bachmann-palin-video/

[Fosters]

I realy find it hard to belive that the ultra wealthy will leave if the Government mandates that they pay thier
"Fair Share" of the tax burden.
This applies to Corporations too, however we will need the support of The government to relinquish financial advantages to keep the work Here!

Again, what is the "Fair Share" in your eyes? And what do you think about 50% of the US not having any "skin in the game" or federal income tax liability?

Also, the wealthy and the corporations do leave because of taxes:

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-amazon-pulls-out-in-california-over-sales-tax-debate-20110629,0,4048023.story

You may find it hard to believe, but your side claims the rich are greedy. If that's the case, then it's not hard to see that they would move to keep as much of the money they earn as they can. Not sure why it's so hard to believe for you.

[jerrym3]

I watch Fox for a number or reasons.

More entertaining.

Gets my heart rate going when I hear stuff such as the well rehearsed "that's a great question", or the sometimes teenage giggling.

More attractive women newscasters.

And, thanks to Hannity, I've learned that "elected" and "anointed" are synonymous.

To be "fair and balanced", I couldn't stand Keith O much either, and Maher, Stuart, and Colbert can go over the edge also, but they make me laugh.

I just cannot tolerate BS from either the far right or left, and that's all we get....BS.

[duhtroll]

Wait a sec - you implied we have a liberal media.

Then I posted numbers showing Fox viewership as highest.

Then you say you don't watch them.

THEN, you say "are that many viewers wrong?" (which kinda implies that you agree with Fox)

Using the majority argument, President Obama was voted in by a large majority so you should love him too. ;) Agreed? :P

Secondly - if the numbers had shown that MSNBC had the most viewers, what would you have said then? That we have a liberal media and the majority are still wrong?

I got a really nice laugh out of this.

And for the record, people watch these "news" shows for conflict. Drama. Shouting matches and calling people names add viewers. Heck, Jon Stewart makes fun of CNN on a regular basis for trying to create drama when there is a slow news day.

Fox News has cornered the market on conspiracy theories. Though I am certain it has dropped about 400% since Glen Beck left.

We don't have a generalized liberal bias or conservative bias in the media. They have a profit bias. They will argue, call names, imply conspiracy where there is none and do anything they can to get people to watch.

All of them. The network news is probably the least offensive and most straightforward of the news outlets, which is why no one watches them. Too boring. Why would they want news in 21 minutes when they can see 24 hour surveillance of Casey Anthony? :shake:

And as far as women in the media, you guys have short memories. No one on the conservative side has taken as many shots as Hillary Clinton took during her presidential run.

You don't think Nancy Pelosi has been vilified? :rofl: You'd think she stole cars, kicked dogs and ate babies for a living.

O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck have dozens of choice clips for you to view about each of them. Largest audience, remember.


Thanks Troll.

I try not to too. By your own reference the ABC/NBC/MSNBC/CNN are all trounced by FNC viewership? You really have to ask yourself why? Are that many viewers wrong?

Media Research Center - Bias in the Media: http://www.mrctv.org/videos

The ones getting beat are left leaning they have "more" positive coverage of the "democrats" then they do of a "republican" candidate.

Reference works supporting argument - http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

Conservative Women are attacked in particular - Misogyny only applies to left leaning then?

Video examples:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43182395

http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-maher/2011/07/12/maher-calls-palin-bachmann-****s-cnn-host-laughs

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2011/07/12/sexist-misogynist-pig-bill-maher-uses-term-****-on-cnn-for-conservatives-bachmann-palin-video/