Originally Posted By mnsharp <<Why would we do this? In order to protect the tax cuts on the wealthiest among us? Call me a democrat, but I think that clinton's right - if spending is going up dramatically, income has to follow suit. Anything else is irresponsible.>> <<Here's an idea - let's maintain our social services for the poor, sick and elderly, and tax the citizens to pay for them. Revolutionary, ain't it?>> gaddzuux - actually it is not revolutionary, what you want is called SOCIALISM. I won't call you a democrate - I will lump you in with the rest of the socialists. Here's a revolutionary idea, show us where socialism (ie taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor) has EVER worked thoughout all of history. You seriously think that lumping all the money in the US together, then redistributing it will work? Oh, no. You just want anyone who has more than you to have to give up what they have, ya that makes a lot of sense.
Originally Posted By mnsharp <<Don't forget that the Federal gov't. was responsible for the building and maintenance of the levees that kept New Orleans and it's vital port for MidWestern Grain and the southern oil infrastructure intact.>> If you take the time to look into things, you will note that Louisiana gets more funding for the Core of Engineers than any other state, by far, just to maintain those levees. There population is nothing compared to CA and yet they recieve an unbelievable amount of money more than CA. Also, look into the wonderful democrates that have been running Louisianna and what they spent the money on, the feds send the money and the locals spend it. Once you know about the corruption in the undeniably democratic area of the country, then we can allocate real blame. <<What about the New Yorkers that died on 9/11. Aren't they some how partly responsible for working and living in an area that might be a target?>> This shows how far you will stretch to try to get an evil neocon. Living in a floodplain where you KNOW that something WILL happen does not even get close to an act of terrorism. It's like saying that if I get shot while walking down the street by some maniac, I'm just as responsible as if I shot myself. They KNEW that a flood would happen, there was no doubt at all, it was a matter of time. So, if they knew that it would happen and still did nothing to protect themselves (ie move, issurance, etc.) then why is the federal government responsible? Or more importantly, why am I responsible? Why do I have to pay for someone that chooses to live in a floodplain? Sure, if I choose to help thats fine, but to say it is the federal government's responsiblity is literally saying it is my responsiblity. <<Could it be that almost all of those were middle class or wealthy people (and White to boot)? Aren't the poor dunces that lost everything in NO, Black?>> I think it is pretty funny that the only ones that ever bring up race are the dems. Keeping a racial divide is so vital to keeping liberals in office, that anytime blacks are victims, it's only because they are black and the evil rich white neocon is out to get them. How long were Dems in power in the US? Aren't most impovershed black areas run by dems? And yet it's the evil white neocons that keep them down. Man, how come you guys don't win elections anymore?
Originally Posted By ecdc O'Reilly not a liar? Bwahahahahaaaa! Yeah, that's why he had to settle for an undisclosed (but reportedly huge) amount of money for sexually harrassing a woman, after repeatedly denying he had done anything. The innocent don't generally pony up big bucks - unless you think Michael Jackson didn't molest anyone, either.
Originally Posted By mnsharp As I recall, McDonald's settled with a woman who spilt coffee on herself. Ya, I guess if you settle, you're atomatically guilty of something. Settling outside of court has never made someone guilty. Sometimes settling outside of court is a lot cheaper than paying lawyers and bad exposure and whatnot. O'Reilly knows that if he goes to court the media will make him out to be a perv. for months, then when it's found that he is innocent, they may just make a side mention, like it's no big deal. He also knows that people like you will atomatically assume he is guilty whether he is innocent or not, so why not just settle and have it done with.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>gaddzuux - actually it is not revolutionary, what you want is called SOCIALISM.<< NO IT IS NOT! I am getting sick and tired of right wingers calling anything done proposed by democrats or done by any branch of the government (except harassing Mexicans or going to war) socialism. Socialism is defined as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." Nominal regulation of business to ensure that employees are protected is not central planning and control. Regulation that ensures that a business doesn't step on the toes of its neighbors is not central planning and control. It's called promoting the general welfare (one of the things mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution). Right wingers, you look really ignorant when you say things like that!
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> what you want is called SOCIALISM. << No it is not. There is no conflict between bush's vaunted "ownership society" and clinton's "pay as you go". What I want is called FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - and you obviously won't get it from the republican party.
Originally Posted By mnsharp No, you said you wanted the rich to be taxed to pay for the poor. That is socialism. It is taking the money from the people and giving it to the government who will the distribute it. You called for taxing the rich to give money to the poor. This who board was started about taxing the rich. All of us want FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, none of us thinks that congress is budgeting wisely, but thats it, budget, not tax. You called for higher taxes to pay for more spending, that's not fiscal responsibility. Fiscal Responsibilty is only spending what you have. If you want to allocate money somewhere, you have to cut something. Like I said earlier, if you want to spend more than you have, you either take out a loan or find a way to spend less, you don't demand a pay raise from your boss. If you want to raise taxes, then raise taxes. Don't say only raise taxes on the rich just because they have more. The bottom 60% of earners do not have the right to tell the top 10% earners that they are not paying enough, period. Yes, they have more money, but that's not what taxation is for. Taxation is to pay for the services provided by the government to the public. Why do we demand that the top earns foot the bill for the programs that only benifit the bottom 50%. Because they have money? This is a socialistic attitude of the Democratic Party to gain votes, period. If you step back and actually use your brain you will realize that it doesn't make sense. The means of production do not neccesarily have to be owned collectively, but when the goods are collectively owned and then redistributed it is a "theory or system" of socialism.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> You called for taxing the rich to give money to the poor. << Actually I didn't. The closest thing I said to that quote was ... >> Why would we do this? In order to protect the tax cuts on the wealthiest among us? << Notice the difference - I'm not singling out the "rich" for taxation; I'm saying that the efforts of this administration is to protect the tax cuts for the richest. >> You called for higher taxes to pay for more spending, that's not fiscal responsibility. Fiscal Responsibilty is only spending what you have. << Not in the world we live in, with "unfunded mandates". There are some expenses that are unavoidable, which is as it should be. If you believe that we as a society should preserve the dignity of our fellow citizens, then we have to provide them with basic healthcare, housing, food. You can't tell these people "tough, we don't have the ready cash, so starve and die". The GOP has long been known as the "throw grandma in the snow" party. There's never a shortage of tax dollars for military applications, but when it comes to basic human necessities for the least among us, they become an unwelcome burden. The republican priorities are clear - military adventuring, unfettered avenues for corporate profiteering, and protection of wealth. Whatever crumbs are left over can be tossed to social programs. "I got mine jack". Sound familiar? >> The bottom 60% of earners do not have the right to tell the top 10% earners that they are not paying enough, period. << In a way, they do. It's called "government". The government CAN tell the top ten percenters that they need to contribute more. >> Taxation is to pay for the services provided by the government to the public. << Exactly. >> Why do we demand that the top earns foot the bill for the programs that only benifit the bottom 50%. Because they have money? << Who said that? Not me. Yes, I agree that the "bottom 50%" may benefit more, but only in the sense that their quality of life goes from horrible to merely tolerable. But everybody gains from a society that maintains a basic standard of decency. Leave it to the GOP and they'd just build more big sturdy fences around their gated communities. What next, machine guns in the carport? >> This is a socialistic attitude of the Democratic Party to gain votes, period. << Gee - all this time I thought it was out of decency. Huh.
Originally Posted By mnsharp Man, I couldn't have said it better myself. We in the GOP only care about the wealth. We only want to protect what is ours. We don't want to give any crumbs to the "so called" people out there that can't afford my respect. Wow, what a way to put it. Can't come up with a decent arguement, so lets just call them all "white, rich, biggots, racists" GO DEMS!!! LET'S LOSE SOME MORE ELECTIONS!!! How long did the Dems run congress? How long have the Dems run Louisiana? Why are there still poor people in this world. Oh, it's because the GOP is out to get them? The truth is that National Heathcare doesn't work, there is not one society that is better off because of it. When has government programs ever, ever helped the poor get out of their situations? Did you know that one of the Presidents from Afica pleaded with the US to stop sending so much aid? Why? Because with all the hand outs we have made his country a country of dependancy. They are dependant upon the US to sustain themselves. Not only that but by giving them clothes, food and more, we also take business opportunities away from the people. A society dependant upon the government to provide basic neccessaties is doomed to fail, it always has, it does today and it will in the future. The government's responsibility is not to provide health care, food and shelter. It's responsibilities are to protect peoples rights, build infrastructure and provide services that are better provided by the public than the private (ie police, fire, military) You will find that most GOPers are generous. I am more than willing to help the less fortunate, in fact in my opinion I give a lot (more than 12% of my income goes to charity) and I'm a college student that makes less than 40k with a family with one kid and another on the way. Don't tell me that all I care about is myself and building walls around my compound. It's not the government's job, it may be societies responsibility, but not the government's to sustain these things. Ya, programs to help when needed, but not these revolving door programs that benifit no one in the long run (healthcare, welfare, etc.) <<In a way, they do. It's called "government". The government CAN tell the top ten percenters that they need to contribute more.>> This is what I am talking about. You think that government can, just because they can? What has happened through our programs (welfare, social security) is that government has created a society that thinks that just because you are rich and I am not, you owe me. Since when does Bill Gates owe me? Or you? or any other person in this country? Government does, because power comes from that dependancy, the more the people depend upon government handouts, the more power the government has. Why do you think a Democrate came up with social security and Democrates love to put people on welfare? Dependance = Power
Originally Posted By gadzuux Money = Power. >> You think that government can, just because they can? << The same could be said for cutting taxes or raising taxes - they can because they can. It works both ways.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy OK, House Republicans have come up with plans on how to make cuts that will cover the $500 billion that is going to Katrina. Once again the GOP is the party of looking forward and solving problems while the other side is well... insert my usual rant here... <a href="http://www2.dailynews.com/news/ci_3047263" target="_blank">http://www2.dailynews.com/news /ci_3047263</a> GOP to unveil $500 billion savings plan By Carl Hulse, The New York Times WASHINGTON - Conservative House Republicans plan to recommend today more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to compensate for the costs of Hurricane Katrina as lawmakers continue to struggle to develop a consensus on the fiscal approach to the disaster. At the top of a partial list of the potential cuts being circulated Tuesday were previously suggested ideas like delaying the start of the new Medicare prescription drug coverage for one year to save $31 billion and eliminating $25 billion in home-state projects from the newly enacted transportation measure. The list also proposed eliminating the moon-Mars initiative that NASA announced Monday, for $44 billion in savings; ending support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $4 billion; cutting taxpayer payments for the national political conventions and the presidential election campaign fund, $600 million; and charging federal employees for parking, $1.54 billion. More..
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'd be fine with outright scrapping the medicare drug program that was passed last year - it was horribly put together, mostly in the pharmaceutical companies' interests. It prohibits even negotiating for lower drug prices, as the VA does for instance. It's very costly, yet with a fairly minimal benefit for the elderly. It only passed with tremendous arm-twisting, and if they scrapped it, I'd be glad. In theory something like that is fine, but in practice that particular bill was awful. And I'd also be fine with restoring the top tax rate to where it was in the 90's. That would only affect the richest Americans, and it's hard to call that "socialism" - it's just restoring things the way they were. And the people in that tax bracket did JUST FINE in the 90's, thank you, as did our economy as a whole.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Hey, Oprah Winfrey just gave $10 million of her own money to help out those displaced by hurricane Katrina. So, we divide that by the number of people in the United States, and we can all deduct .004 cents from what we would normally give. Feel better?
Originally Posted By Shooba >>>And I'd also be fine with restoring the top tax rate to where it was in the 90's. That would only affect the richest Americans, and it's hard to call that "socialism"<<< Exactly. I don't understand where the whole Socialism argument ever came from - unless the USA was a socialist nation under Clinton and the Bush tax cuts are what made the country capitalist. I assume it was a straw-man argument.
Originally Posted By mnsharp What? That's it!! Only 10 million?! What an outrage! I say we clean out all her bank accounts and leave her with only what she needs as determined by the all knowing, never been shown to be corrupt Democrates, since of course all their programs work (well according to Billy Bob's imaginary programs that never existed but worked that the evil Bush came in and cut). That would be the fair thing to do. Why does she deserve any money in the first place? Of course, Oprah is a Black woman and only the Whites deserve to be taxed. I'm sure that we can all agree to just tax the evil rich white republicans, afterall, they are the cause of all bad that happens in the world, including Hurricane Katrina. <<That would only affect the richest Americans>> Great philosophy! Let's take from the rich. As much as the character of Robin Hood is glorified, he is still just as much of a criminal as Prince John. Theft is theft, unless I guess you call it taxation.
Originally Posted By mnsharp <<I don't understand where the whole Socialism argument ever came from>> You don't? Then I will help you. See taxing the rich soley to give that money to the poor is a socialistic ideal. The government redistributing the wealth is socialism. Redistribution is taking the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. By unfairly taxing the rich higher just because you want their money is socialism. It is not capitalism, tax cuts is capitalistic, so to answer your question, yes. Besides that, by raising taxes, even on just the rich, you will ultimately lower tax reciepts, it's been proven, go look it up and stop listen to the rabble from the leftist socialists. Consider what a top socialist leader advocated in 1922: WE DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE THE OBLIGATION ABOVE ALL OF PROVIDING CITIZENS WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND EARNING A LIVING. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLASH WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN ITS CONFINES AND BE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL ... WE DEMAND THE NATIONALIZATION OF ALL BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE BEEN AMALGAMATED (INTO TRUSTS). WE DEMAND THAT THE STATE SHALL SHARE IN THE PFOFITS OF LARGE INDUSTRIES. WE DEMAND THAT PROVISION FOR THE AGED SHALL BE MADE ON A VERY GREATLY INCREASED SCALE. WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND. WE DEMAND AN AGRARIAN REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; THE ENACTMENT OF A LAW TO EXPROPRIATE WITHOUT COMPENSATION THE OWNERS OF ANY LAND THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR NATIONAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF GROUND RENTS; AND THE PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND. ...THE STATE SHALL ORGANIZE THOROUGHLY THE WHOLE CULTURAL SYSTEM OF THE NATION . . . THE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE IDEA (THE SCIENCE OF CITIZENSHIP) SHALL BE TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE DEMAND THAT SPECIALLY TALENTED CHILDREN OF POOR PARENTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATION OR OCCUPATION, SHALL BE EDUCATED AT THE COST OF THE STATE. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO HELP RAISE THE STANDARD OF THE NATION'S HEALTH BY PROVIDING MATERNITY WELFARE CENTRES, BY PROHIBITING JUVENILE LABOUR, BY INCREASING PHYSICAL FITNESS THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY GAMES AND GYMNASTICS. . . . (WE) COMBAT THE MATERIALISTIC SPIRIT WITHIN AND OUTSIDE US, AND ARE CONVINCED THAT A PERMANENT RECOVERY OF OUR PEOPLE CAN ONLY PROCEED WITHIN ON THE FOUNDATION OF "THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD." Sounds to me like the "democratic" position in the US. This probably could have come directly from Billy Bob or Hillary or Ted Kenedy or John Kerry ect. Huge taxes, national healthcare, ensuring jobs for everyone...But do you know where it comes from? -- From the "Twenty-Five Point" Programme of the German National Socialist Workers Party, authored by Adolf Hitler and others on February 24, 1920. (Konrad Heiden's translation in A History of National Socialism) (sorry it's all in caps that's the way it pasted and I didn't want to retype it)
Originally Posted By Beaumandy mnsharp, you sound exactly like me "back in the day" on here. It's nice to have you as I think your are right on target!! France sucks?? LOL
Originally Posted By Beaumandy mnsharp, are you familliar with the ACLU and their socialist roots? Another topic for another day...
Originally Posted By mnsharp To some it up, socialism is making the government the caretakers of the people. That is not the role, or should not be the role of the government. The government has a very defined role, when we step out and give them more power than they should have, we will only have huge problems. Raising taxes of the rich to pay for the poor is stepping out of that role. They have more than enough money, the key is to make them (though voting power) follow a budget. Unfortunately not enough people really pay attention and we end up with the same idiots over and over again (like McCain in AZ by the way that was the first time I voted for a Dem, because he isn't following what I want of him, I figure a true Dem is better than a blow hard Dem in Republican clothes).
Originally Posted By mnsharp the ACLU will take a lot more than just another day. Hitler and the german national socialists would be very proud of the ACLU.
