Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>cmpaley...do you think that we should work more than 1/4 of the year for someone other than ourselves?<< That's a false assumption. Only a third of your dollars can really be seen as going to someone else. You're still paying for transportation, military, courts, jails, law enforcement, agricultural stability, trade, utilities and a hundred other things you benefit from every year.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I'm ready for a flat tax. Everybody pays the same percentage. << Fine, as long as estates and capital gains and other windfalls are included as income.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Tom...how much is enough? I likely won't see my social security withdrawals. I am reserved to that. I do drive on nice roads (for the most part) but the government isn't paying for my housing. The FDA is checking my food but I'm still paying for it. The government didn't purchase any of my vehicles. I visit some nice Federal parks, I will admit as much. And, if Hurricane Wilma heads my way I might actually get some FEMA dollars (although people in Florida who got hit by Cat. 1 Katrina got nothing from FEMA). I'm all for taxes. I don't argue the need. All I am saying is, how much is enough? And, should that be determined by people whose very existence largely relies on how much money they bring back to their constituents regardless if that money is being spent on something legitimate or pork?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Yet studies have shown the average Republican from the South gives much more in per-capita income to charity organizations than your typical Democrat from NY, or California.>> Only because of the greater level of church giving. If you take that out of the equation, the statement is no longer true.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Yet studies have shown the average Republican from the South gives much more in per-capita income to charity organizations than your typical Democrat from NY, or California.<< What about from Democrats in the South? And how do the numbers compare to Republicans from NY and California?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I'm all for taxes. I don't argue the need. All I am saying is, how much is enough?<< Enough to cover outlays. If the GOP had come forward and said, "We are going to reduce this spending by $50 billion AND we are going to eliminate the $70 billion in tax cuts that we are asking for in order to come up with the money to pay for recovery efforts in New Orleans", I wouldn't be talking about how reprehensible they are being. But they are cutting important services while they are also cutting taxes which means this budget puts us even deeper into debt. And the tax cuts aren't going to help the people who are losing services. I can understand cutting services during times of emergency like we are facing now. But cutting taxes as well, especially when those tax cuts aren't going to help a poor family eat or a poor child to get immunizations, is evil.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Evil is one way to look at it. Some economists would also call it a means by which to stimulate the economy. Here's how I do my budget. I see how much money I have coming in every year and then I purchases a house, car, necessities in a manner that would fit into that budget. If I want to buy a pool for the backyard and I don't have enough money...I don't ask my neighbor for a loan. I don't get the pool. The problems with the American budget would be vastly improved if the pork were cut out...but that isn't going to happen. Well, you can't have it both ways. My wife can't tell me she has no money for groceries and go out and buy 20 pairs of shoes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My wife can't tell me she has no money for groceries and go out and buy 20 pairs of shoes.<< So then there must be waste that could be cut without attacking the "groceries" -- in this case, food stamps and Medicaid. Although wasn't it Tom DeLay who said not long ago that there is simply no fat left in the budget?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If your wife says you don't have money for groceries, do you ask your boss for a pay cut?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper No, Tom...I don't ask for a pay cut...I tell her to stop shopping at Bath and Body Works, The Gap, The Limited, Ebay, the Disney store, etc. (However, I do let her continue to buy at Victoria Secret.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Sounds like you're not cutting the pork out of your marriage. I think things like the $200 million bridge to nowhere in Alaska doesn't need to be there. But I don't consider food stamps and Medicaid to be pork.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Sounds like you're not cutting the pork out of your marriage.<< LOL! I'd say he's just supporting vital infrastructure. ; )
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yet studies have shown the average Republican from the South gives much more in per-capita income to charity organizations than your typical Democrat from NY, or California.<< <What about from Democrats in the South? And how do the numbers compare to Republicans from NY and California?> I can't find the link, but a remember a study that showed that poor black Americans (who tend to vote Democrat overwhelmingly, of course) are the most generous of all as a percentage of income.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't consider food stamps and Medicaid pork either...but until they can get rid of the $200 million bridges to nowhere (and there are countless "bridges")....they have enough of my money. If this were another site I would have plenty of other funny things to add...but...I'm not looking for an admin today.
Originally Posted By basas <<What about from Democrats in the South? And how do the numbers compare to Republicans from NY and California?>> I would have to go back to find the survey to figure this out. But if a state is mostly Republican (or Democrat), and the per-capita money given to charity is higher (or lower), it is safe to assume that the majority of the states voting population is playing the large role in the giving of their money. <<Only because of the greater level of church giving. If you take that out of the equation, the statement is no longer true.>> You mean...those evil churches that people attend in the South? *Gasp*! Who cares how they give their money? The fact is that they give it, and that proves whoever said that they have no consideration for the poor wrong.
Originally Posted By woody "Only because of the greater level of church giving. If you take that out of the equation, the statement is no longer true." What's true is the Democrats are keeping their money for their own desires. Also, they are obviously GODLESS. Why are Democrats wasting time in analyzing their election defeats? They don't relate to most people.
Originally Posted By woody "I can't find the link, but a remember a study that showed that poor black Americans (who tend to vote Democrat overwhelmingly, of course) are the most generous of all as a percentage of income." A bit of a stretch. What are you really saying? Let the poor Black folks pick up the slack for rich White Democrats.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Lets get back to talking about how immoral and reprehensible this budget is.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "What's true is the Democrats are keeping their money for their own desires. Also, they are obviously GODLESS. Why are Democrats wasting time in analyzing their election defeats? They don't relate to most people." Neither, apparently, do you.
