The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

You should have waited to respond until you saw the direction of my next post.

I will happily wait for your last post if it means we'll all finally be free of your sophistry.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

And?

Let's not pretend every charitable contribution is made "to help others in need." I don't pretend my donations to my alma maters are on par with a donation to the red cross, for instance, or a government program like medicaid.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

just read this. spot on.

"A tv ad just said Romney made $20MM in 2011 and paid 14% in taxes. My first thought was $2.8MM is a hell of a lot more than I paid. My 2nd thought was why we would want a president who was stupid and paid a ton in taxes. My 3rd thought was that any "normal" people paying over 14% need TurboTax."

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Let's not pretend every charitable contribution is made "to help others in need." I don't pretend my donations to my alma maters are on par with a donation to the red cross, for instance, or a government program like medicaid.

Typical libtard... supports charity and freedom, so long as it doesn't interfere with his/her convictions.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The status quo is pretty close to what it should be. What many fail to see is that the rich actually use waay more government services than anyone else and esp the poor. Many poor live in one bedroom apartments, without a car, and often work as a line cook or some such. The rich due to big salaries have larger stakes in larger companies (who may not being paying taxes to cover the govt services they use). The rich often have multiple residences, cars, boats and fly between them. Someone with toys all over uses far more govt resources than someone who lives most of their life in the confines of a one bedroom apartment. Are taxes paid on a dollar for dollar basis? I doubt it. But its not nearly of the magnitude that the complaining would have you believe. Likewise many other services that the poor get blamed for such as training and education...are services that are first and foremost in the US' best interest and the long term health of the economy inparticular.

Please. 67% of federal spending is for medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense. Do you really think that the rich people get a disproportionate benefit from those? What about from HUD, Veterans Affairs, or Labor? Looking at the complete breakdown, I can only find perhaps 12% of the budget where rich people might receive a disproportionate amount of benefit (State, Treasury, Transportation, Justice, and "Other"). Even if they took up ALL of that 12%, they're still paying way more than that in taxes - they are most definitely subsidizing us, not the other way around.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Remember that Mayor "Nanny" Bloomberg has repeatedly stated that he could not run the city without the big bucks earned down on Wall Street. They leave, the city dies.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Please. 67% of federal spending is for medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense. Do you really think that the rich people get a disproportionate benefit from those? What about from HUD, Veterans Affairs, or Labor? Looking at the complete breakdown, I can only find perhaps 12% of the budget where rich people might receive a disproportionate amount of benefit (State, Treasury, Transportation, Justice, and "Other"). Even if they took up ALL of that 12%, they're still paying way more than that in taxes - they are most definitely subsidizing us, not the other way around.

So you disagree with my premise that the rich and the poor consume different levels of government services?

Rich drive further, own more cars, boats, fly more often, go overseas more. The extent of infrastructure (from roads to internet), law enforcement, bureaus such as the FAA, environmental funding, and frankly much of the extent of the military and foriegn missions to make the 'world a safer place' for Americans abroad all greatly cost and complicate government services.

Tell you what. I plan out all of the govt services touching a poor person living in an apartment in the city...including possibly even biking to a fast food job. You plan out all the govt services touching someone driving an hour to their CFO job daily, taking the boat to seaside restaurants, taking a personal jet to Chicago for the weekend, with 4 residences that they visit on a regular basis, and that flies to Borneo or African safaris for annual vacations. Remember each of the activities undertaken by the rich requires not just a host of government services to complete...but the production and sale of products/services necessary for these activities require their own host of government services. My analysis won't take long...and yours? Its critical that we have the rich doing that...but no way do the poor and the wealthy consume the same govt services.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Typical libtard...

That's a productive way to start a post.

If the wealthy really have it so bad they should give away all their money and live off the government. I'm pretty sure they'll find plenty of people willing to assume their terrible burden.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So you disagree with my premise that the rich and the poor consume different levels of government services?

Rich drive further, own more cars, boats, fly more often, go overseas more. The extent of infrastructure (from roads to internet), law enforcement, bureaus such as the FAA, environmental funding, and frankly much of the extent of the military and foriegn missions to make the 'world a safer place' for Americans abroad all greatly cost and complicate government services.

Tell you what. I plan out all of the govt services touching a poor person living in an apartment in the city...including possibly even biking to a fast food job. You plan out all the govt services touching someone driving an hour to their CFO job daily, taking the boat to seaside restaurants, taking a personal jet to Chicago for the weekend, with 4 residences that they visit on a regular basis, and that flies to Borneo or African safaris for annual vacations. Remember each of the activities undertaken by the rich requires not just a host of government services to complete...but the production and sale of products/services necessary for these activities require their own host of government services. My analysis won't take long...and yours? Its critical that we have the rich doing that...but no way do the poor and the wealthy consume the same govt services.

I love how you're under the impression that the military should be defending someone not on American soil. You know, let's go through some departments, at least the ones with the largest budgets:

TOTAL BUDGET (3590b)
Department of Defence (688.3b): Defending the United States. You're on US soil, you get defence, and the same amount at that. You're not on American soil, you either ARE the defence by being in the military, or you don't get any at all. That's a wash.
Department of Health and Human Services(872.0b): Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest ones. Medicaid you can only qualify if you're of a low income. Medicare is a requirement if you collect social security due to a 1997 law. The FDA covers everyone. Medicare and FDA are washes, while Medicaid highly benefits the poor.
Social Security Administration (829.2b): The death benefit is only available to those under a certain income level, while the retirement benefit is on a pro-rated level based upon the amount of time the government expects you to live, not to mention if you're under a certain income level, as part of the death benefit, you're able to collect your deceased spouse's social security. Benefits the poor a lot more than the rich.

Not only is that about 2/3 the entire USA budget (2012 numbers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget ), but not a single dime of it overly benefiting the rich. In addition, only 52% of the citizens of this country pay income taxes. You are a greedy ne'er-do-well who just wants to steal from people for your own benefit.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

That's a productive way to start a post.

If the wealthy really have it so bad they should give away all their money and live off the government. I'm pretty sure they'll find plenty of people willing to assume their terrible burden.

I believe there was a quotation, I cannot remember to whom it was attributed, so I have to paraphrase: When the wealthy stop working in order to enjoy the benefits given to the poor, that, my friends, is the end of society.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I believe there was a quotation, I cannot remember to whom it was attributed, so I have to paraphrase: When the wealthy stop working in order to enjoy the benefits given to the poor, that, my friends, is the end of society.

I know the one about "when the poor discover they can vote themselves the public treasury..."

There are plenty of slippery slope arguments and other misdirections employed to stop even the most modest of reforms. The aristocracy used to argue that if we abolished class distinction it would end civilization. Kings argued that without monarchy there would be anarchy. The privileged always shout, and probably even believe, that their privilege is what holds society together.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I know the one about "when the poor discover they can vote themselves the public treasury..."

There are plenty of slippery slope arguments and other misdirections employed to stop even the most modest of reforms. The aristocracy used to argue that if we abolished class distinction it would end civilization. Kings argued that without monarchy there would be anarchy. The privileged always shout, and probably even believe, that their privilege is what holds society together.

You're under the impression, though, that society is inherently not lazy. Based upon the terminology of "sheeple" that is commonly passed, I would say that people would rather enjoy easy street. Why should you have to work for something when it can just be given to you? Sometimes, I wonder why I work when I could just sit on my *** and collect checks for 2 years without having to lift a finger. This is why states like New York are losing population in droves. Because the people see no extra benefit from making money as it just goes off to the government in the form of taxes in order to fund the poor and those in NYC, why should they have to continue to live there when they can get a better standard of living somewhere else? This is also why the rich have threatened to leave France once France's newly elected socialist weasel decided to jack up their taxes to about 70%. Look at how the First Republic fell apart after executing the rich that were subsidising the poor, leaving someone named Napoleon Bonaparte to step up and take dictatorship.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

You're under the impression, though, that society is inherently not lazy. Based upon the terminology of "sheeple" that is commonly passed, I would say that people would rather enjoy easy street. Why should you have to work for something when it can just be given to you? Sometimes, I wonder why I work when I could just sit on my *** and collect checks for 2 years without having to lift a finger. This is why states like New York are losing population in droves. Because the people see no extra benefit from making money as it just goes off to the government in the form of taxes in order to fund the poor and those in NYC, why should they have to continue to live there when they can get a better standard of living somewhere else? This is also why the rich have threatened to leave France once France's newly elected socialist weasel decided to jack up their taxes to about 70%. Look at how the First Republic fell apart after executing the rich that were subsidising the poor, leaving someone named Napoleon Bonaparte to step up and take dictatorship.

What planet are you living on?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

What planet are you living on?

This one. How about you?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

You're under the impression, though, that society is inherently not lazy.

I believe in the 1:8:1 rule of humanity. Out of 10, 1 person will work himself to death off no matter the rewards. Let's call him a saint (or perhaps mentally ill). 1 person will sit on his thumb and allow everybody else to work for him without a qualm. Let's call him a lout (or perhaps a Mitt).

Then there are we 8 in the middle. We have some laziness about us, but also some pride, and some ambition. Mostly we have empathy, so we are not comfortable seeing others work for us while we do nothing but accrue the benefit.

Having a bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter does not make a happy life, and the vast majority will not be satisfied with it. I am absolutely willing to support the 1 lout in order to protect the 8 in the middle from catastrophic failure. The right would have us believe that 8 in 10 of us are louts. That's not only factually wrong but a terrible doctrine for a republic, because it turns us into spiteful, sanctimonious Gollums, believing everybody about us is a thief after our precious.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I believe in the 1:8:1 rule of humanity. Out of 10, 1 person will work himself to death off no matter the rewards. Let's call him a saint (or perhaps mentally ill). 1 person will sit on his thumb and allow everybody else to work for him. Let's call him a lout (or perhaps a Mitt).

Then there are we 8 in the middle. We have some laziness about us, but also some pride, and some ambition. Mostly we have empathy, so we are not comfortable seeing others work for us while we do nothing but accrue the benefit.

Having a bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter does not make a happy life, and the vast majority will not be satisfied with it. I am absolutely willing to support the 1 lout in order to protect the 8 in the middle from catastrophic failure. The right would have us believe that 8 in 10 of us are louts. That's not only factually wrong but a terrible doctrine for a republic, because it turns us all into spiteful, sanctimonious Gollums, believing everybody about us is a thief after our precious.

Based on that scale it's pretty obvious that FlagDUDE08 lives on a different planet from you and I.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Based on that scale it's pretty obvious that FlagDUDE08 lives on a different planet from you and I.

He's just parroting talking points about the welfare state. Clearly, they've gotten to him with their "message."

Coz, you know, being on welfare is THE LIFE!

All those weeks up at the cabin, the trips to Disney, etc, etc, etc...

In fact, I gotta get on welfare so I can sit home and just collect. Of course, my home probably can't be the one I'm currently in, but I'd rather live in a section 8 four-plex anyway. Yeah, that's the life for me. Of course, there will be a crack dealer in 1-B & a registered sex offender in 2-A, but that will be worth me not having to work for my money.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I believe in the 1:8:1 rule of humanity. Out of 10, 1 person will work himself to death off no matter the rewards. Let's call him a saint (or perhaps mentally ill). 1 person will sit on his thumb and allow everybody else to work for him without a qualm. Let's call him a lout (or perhaps a Mitt).

Then there are we 8 in the middle. We have some laziness about us, but also some pride, and some ambition. Mostly we have empathy, so we are not comfortable seeing others work for us while we do nothing but accrue the benefit.

Having a bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter does not make a happy life, and the vast majority will not be satisfied with it. I am absolutely willing to support the 1 lout in order to protect the 8 in the middle from catastrophic failure. The right would have us believe that 8 in 10 of us are louts. That's not only factually wrong but a terrible doctrine for a republic, because it turns us into spiteful, sanctimonious Gollums, believing everybody about us is a thief after our precious.

Interesting way to look at it and I agree to some extent. But it's a bit more complex. Many people don't fall neatly into the 1/8/1 categories, though some do. But, some are, say, half lout, half in the 8 category. So, rather than three clear categories, you have some sort of continuum of folks from crazily hard working to lazy. I'm really not sure how people fall within those three categories, given that many people show a mix of characteristics from more than one category.

Certainly though, with the air of entitlement many Americans carry about with them, which is certainly way higher than 1 in 10 (and again there's a range of how entitled people think they are), I would say the tendency to look for a handout in its many various forms has grown over time.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I love how you're under the impression that the military should be defending someone not on American soil. You know, let's go through some departments, at least the ones with the largest budgets:

You don't have to get far to find that position is wrong. With a populous that lives pretty much 100% in its own county and that have a vastly reduced need for petroleum (many don't have cars)...national security issues have been reduced by several magnitudes. The poor just need protection at the borders...this international control is unnecessary. Its a country full of fry cooks and store sales people...not international travellers and multinational execs. Do we lose the ability to become more rich? Sure, but that's the point...they're poor and don't have those needs. That easily cuts both DOD and Dept of State to a fraction of its current state. And that's spending two minutes with your post.

But I'm not going to repeat myself again if folks refuse to address my point the rich consume more government services than the poor:

"Tell you what. I plan out all of the govt services touching a poor person living in an apartment in the city...including possibly even biking to a fast food job. You plan out all the govt services touching someone driving an hour to their CFO job daily, taking the boat to seaside restaurants, taking a personal jet to Chicago for the weekend, with 4 residences that they visit on a regular basis, and that flies to Borneo or African safaris for annual vacations. Remember each of the activities undertaken by the rich requires not just a host of government services to complete...but the production and sale of products/services necessary for these activities require their own host of government services. My analysis won't take long...and yours?"

 

[mookie1995]

.... Of course, there will be a crack dealer in 1-B & a registered sex offender in 2-A, but that will be worth me not having to work for my money.

With that bubbly personality looks like you are on your way to getting high and blown daily!!