Burgers for all? Or trickle-down grease-o-nomics? I'm worried about those who will be appointed to judge when the burgers are truly done!
I don't disagree with people making their own way, but you make it sound like everybody who needs a hand falls into the same group of lechers just living off of the government. It's like the whole thing with the Welfare queen story that Republicans used yeas ago. A phantom who didn't exist, but somehow they convinced people that there were many others like her, a mother who has children for the soul purpose of recieving more money from the government. Please, somebody show me a person who is proud of being on Welfare, I never met anybody like that and I assume they don't exist. You didn't touch a nerve, I've never been on Welfare, I'm not from the Ghetto, I grew up in Bear Creek and Alief. Still, that doesn't mean I have the cash to pay for A&M, even though the tuition is pretty low. I don't know how you worked full time while being a full time student, but that's commendable. If I didn't take classes in the summer, I might be able to do it, but I want to graduate in 4 years and that has become harder as more 5th years seniors are popping up all over the place. Also, in my situation, 1/3 of my cash goes back to my family to pay bills and my dad's plane tickets for business trips to Mexico. There's a reason I'm telling you personal stuff like this, it's to prove the point that everybody in this country has their own circumstances that are their's and their's alone. My main problem with what you said is that it's a blanket statement and unfair to lots of hard working poeple who are down on their luck. Why are we even talking about welfare, didn't Clinton already reform it? Didn't people say his welfare reform was pretty harsh? I guess since it was a Dem doing it, it doesn't count. Anyways, I don't mean to come off as angry at you, this is just a touchy time right now and I'm pissed at my party. It sucks that the party isn't heading in the direction of Wellstone instead of running head first to the side of the Republicans.
Sure, as long as it can defined as a burger and not some quasi-wonderbread look alike. We will let the moderates decide on that one!
You've got to be kidding. The Republican party isn't more responsive to all Americans and it's certainly no secret that low turnouts traditionally help Republicans. Last night only proved that in the absence of real leadership Americans will follow whoever speaks with conviction, even if he's a witling.
I thank you for your gracious invite. I too am all about the love. However, since my love also extends to animals, I'll be bringing my own meal.
You know without 60 votes in the Senate, a majority does not buy you much. Unfortunately, the common perception will be that the Republicans will be calling all of the shots the next two years. The downside could be huge for the Republicans. Republican control of Congress and White House fails uder the category: Be careful what you wish for ...
For the record the Bush Admin. has cut the discretionary monies for educational programs Clinton had been using, so it is more than rhetoric. They passed one tax cut already, and are proposing more without any specific on the cuts in spending, that is more than rhetoric. As for the “Death Tax”, you can argue whether it is just anyway, but you cannot argue that it doesn’t benefit the wealthy. As far the Pro-life issue—all the major Republican presidential candidates were Pro-life if I recall and Keyes—who has some supporters on this board—said in all cases if I recall (if you are consistent in your logic that abortion is the murder of innocents what does it matter whether it is rape—you don’t wipe out a wrong with another one if indeed abortion is flat wrong). The flat tax (also supported by many on this board) was floated by another candidate. I am sure you could go find plenty of quotes from them if you look. Though the specifics are not always there so you have to read between the lines some (“my inferences” if you will, which I did imply as such with my language like “Republicans are more likely too”)--but I think these sources suggest ample evidence for what I wrote. My comments certainly have a lot more basis than claims the Demos want to raise taxes, wildly increase spending, and are dangerous if “well intentioned” peaceniks—all of which were Republican attacks on them this election season with pretty much zero basis in either bills they have advocated or in their public statements (so Ref to you these must been just as unfair caricatures of Demos, correct? Or are they fair inferences underlying their rhetoric and past history). Anyway….. From Texas’s platform: -We believe that human life is sacred because each person was created in the image of God; that life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the point of natural death; and that all innocent human life must be protected. - We believe that taxes and government spending are out of control, and therefore we support fundamental, immediate tax reform that is simple, fair and visible. -We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a man and a woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational unit of a healthy society and consists of those related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for it’s own welfare, education, moral training, conduct and property. -We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election, and activist judges like them, and support non-activist judges as their opponents. -We believe the environment is best served by individuals working in their own best interest. -The repeal of estate and inheritance taxes -The theory of global warming and the Kyoto Agreement - The Party supports the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America; From Utah’s platform: *We, the Republican Party of the Great State of Utah, affirm our belief in God and declare our support for government based upon a moral and spiritual foundation *We support the individual constitutionally-protected right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes. We encourage personal responsibility for the care and use of these firearms. *We affirm the right to religious expression, including prayer, in both private and public. *We recognize the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society. *We believe in the right to life for both the born and unborn. We strongly oppose abortion, except to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. We believe the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We believe all human life is sacred regardless of age or infirmity, and therefore we oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the public funding of any of these abhorrent practices. *We believe that the primary responsibility for meeting basic human needs rests with the individual, the family, and the voluntary charitable organizations. To end I also hope the Republicans are good stewards of our nation. But if they lead us in the direction of Chance (no offense to him--in fact I wish more conservatives showed his candor) that is less of the nation I want us to be. I want a nation for my future grandchildren with a better health and safety net than they have now and am willing to pay extra now for it--but that is me.
Well, this thread is way too long to read and I'm sure it has hackneyed and contradictory arguments as well as brilliant and thoughtful ones on both sides of the political spectrum. Some revolution though. Hopefully it will be as awesome as its predecessor (This is where angry conservatives chime in with: blah blah blah, it was successful in the long term, it shifted the frame of reference, blah blah blah. Don't bother. If that's what it takes to get W out of there this time, then I'll take it!)
My view of wealth is very different. In a perfectly competitive economy, a truly wealthy individual is the one who contributes the most to society. In many cases, this has nothing to do with money. Ask Jesus, for example. Or Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King for more recent examples. People can make money doing lots of different things, Jorge. Some of these money-makers or "wage earners" have negative affects on society. They rob, steal, pollute, lie, manipulate and oppress. Granted, money can be used in a lot of good ways. But, don't forget, the love of money can cause many problems, too. Being neither affiliated with the Republicans or the Democrats, the Greens or any other political party, this election changes nothing for me. Many of you feel like winners all the while you're living in a poisonous death zone. You make fun of destroying precious resources and polluting the lives of our children. Don't be so greedy of gain that you forget the important things in life, such as, life itself. So go ahead, be happy and gloat. It changes nothing. Most of us will be dead in 50 years and the majority of the world's population will still be living in poverty without clean water, air and food. This reminds me. A friend of my brother's just recently reported to his new job. He is working for Halliburton Oil and is starting off with a 6 figure salary- $100,000. They sent him to work in a highly secured, enclosed compound in Northern Africa. They will be working on extracting the oil from the African continent in the most economical way possible. In other words, they'll be trying to make as much money as they can. This means a lot of things, none of which are beneficial to society. The African children will not see any of the "wealth" created by this oil venture. In fact, they will probably see more of the same- a huge multi-national company reaping the benefits of the natural resources of their land while leaving an environmental mess. More oil spills, more dirty refineries, more unfit water that they will have to drink, more good farmland going to waste, more devaluation of life. My brother's friend "earns" more money than I do. He MUST contribute more to society. I work for a measly little church, by God.
What smaller government? The government continues to grow. Bush came to power with the government had a budget surplus. The surplus was squandered *before* 9-11 because of this great tax cut that "benefits everybody." Now we are in exploding debt that the Bush Administration *has no plan to reduce.* 40% of the Bush tax cut benefits the upper 1% of the population. That's not just everyday folks, Chance. You can look it up. We did get a $300 check once, though...wooo! I wouldn't even have a problem with across the board tax cuts if they weren't so drastic...aren't we at war, by the way? It is heresy to at least slow down the tax cuts to keep the debt under control? What is conservative about soaking the nation in debt after it took 10 years to clean up the last mess that supply side idiocy got the country into? (One must give credit to Bush 41 for siging the tax increase that helped start the reduction of debt and probably cost him his re-election). By the way, does anyone know the republican domestic agenda besides the tax cut? Privitizing social security? Nice stock market to invest in, eh? You don't really hear that talk anymore. You would think that a tax cut would be concentrated for the middle class if it were going to actually prime the economy while retaining fiscal responsibility. Isn't that, you know, conservative? Notice that the Federal Reserve keeps reducing the inflation rates (now to almost record levels) and still there is no long term investment. Why is that? With all of this money in the hands of the richest investors due to the tax cuts (right?) and stocks continuing to plummet why wouldn't there be more movement, more investment? Trader Jorge, what's your modest theory about this? Has Alan Greenspan given you a call to clear up the economy yet? . I just don't think that in a slumping global economy you can just sit by and do nothing as Bush and the democrats are doing and expect the much vaunted genius of the marketplace to sort everything out. Surely we figured that out in 1929.
Right1, We differ on our philosophy towards wealth. I live in the real world, where entertainers make more than teachers, while you live in a fantasy world, where philosophers are rich. Well I'm assuming by "Halliburton Oil" you mean Halliburton Company. Since you don't even know the name of the company, I tend to question the validity of your other 'facts'. Halliburton makes equipment and provides oilfield services, which they sell to major oil companies. They aren't an actual exploration and production company. Anyhow, now that we have who your brother's friend works for out of the way, let me now challenge your argument. Simply because African children will 'allegedly' not see any of the wealth created by the oil, does that necessarily make it bad? If this oil increases the world supply and thereby drives down oil prices, benefitting all consumers of oil, is that not a good thing? Of course it is. In terms of your wild pollution accusations, you seem to forget that the bulk of the oil drilled in Africa is actually drilled off the coast of Africa, not on the continent itself. How much of Africa's drinking water supply comes from the ocean? Last time I checked it had salt in it. How much farmland is located in the ocean? How many double-hulled oil tankers have spilled oil in the last 5 years? Your argument is truly representative of classic liberal scare tactics. The days of these wild arguments working are over. Last night should have taught you that.
Ahh, you have demonstrated the amazing real-world ability to look up Halliburton's parent company name from their 10-k filings. Therefore, anything Right1 says is stupid as he clearly doesn not have the comprehensive grasp of Halliburton's corporate structure that you have. You should give that b*stard the "game set match" routine.
I'm waiting for Trader Jorge to write his own BBS version of Sun Tsu's "The Art of War." Game, Set, Match!: The Art of Being a Dick to Win a Meaningless Discussion by Trader Jorge Chapter one: Disorient opponent by acting like a two year old Chapter two: Proclaiming own genius- the new revolution Chapter three: Recycling tired ideas- the new conservation Chapter four: Living in the Real World- the SUV, "little buddy" and me Chapter five: "I know you are, but what am I?" The brave new face of rhetoric in the Age of Conservatism. Forward by Newt Gingrich. I'd buy this book, man.
Chapter one: Disorient opponent by acting like a two year old Chapter two: Proclaiming own genius- the new revolution Chapter three: Recycling tired ideas- the new conservation Chapter four: Living in the Real World- the SUV, "little buddy" and me Chapter five: "I know you are, but what am I?" The brave new face of rhetoric in the Age of Conservatism. Don't forget Chapter Six: Distorting statistics to draw incorrect conclusions to support arguments.
Originally posted by Trader_Jorge ... Simply because African children will 'allegedly' not see any of the wealth created by the oil, does that necessarily make it bad? If this oil increases the world supply and thereby drives down oil prices, benefitting all consumers of oil, is that not a good thing? Of course it is. A tad selfish? In terms of your wild pollution accusations, you seem to forget that the bulk of the oil drilled in Africa is actually drilled off the coast of Africa, not on the continent itself. How much of Africa's drinking water supply comes from the ocean? Last time I checked it had salt in it. How much farmland is located in the ocean? How many refineries are located in the Ocean? doh!
People don't get paid according to their defined "need." We do not live in a Marxist state (no matter how much the Dems might like us to). The rich guy EARNED his money and deserves to keep as much of it as he can. I'm not rich...I've never been rich. I grew up middle class and am struggling at the moment as one of those guys who got laid off by a big company. I have a tremendous student loan to pay...so does Mrs. Ref. We struggle CONSTANTLY. I guess it all comes down to how you view the fruits of one's labor. I believe that one works hard and pays a REASONABLE percentage to the government and keeps the rest. NOBODY should be close to equal partners with the government. Successful entrepreneurs are...they pay 33% income tax and 15% self employment tax. Damn...48%. Should they REALLY work from January to mid-June just to pay Uncle Sam? Tell me how THAT'S "fair?" To me...this Robin Hood **** isn't going to cut it.
No, Jorge, some teachers make more than some entertainers. Some entertainers don't make much money at all. What's your point? If you want to make it certain to everyone that it's Halliburton Company go ahead. Who cares? They own a lot of companies known by many different names. It's Halliburton Oil to me. Wild pollution accusations? Liberal scare tactics? Huh, I'm a conservative. Last night should have taught me something? Huh, I'm no Democrat. Fantasy world? I live here in Houston, Tx. with my wife and kids. Fantasy world? I've done humanitarian work in places you wouldn't visit in your nightmares. I've seen children living in landfills, young girls trading their bodies for food, entire villages with no clean water due to polluted water sources. I've seen cancer and disease due to exposure to toxic waste. Your telling me none of this exists? I've seen it with my own eyes. Fantasy world? You live in a comfy house, drive your SUV and play with your stocks. Fantasy world? I know where most of the oil comes from, Jorge. Save your explanation. There is oil in the mountains too, Jorge. Ask Gore about Occidental. Jorge, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth. O.k., there is no pollution, there is no toxic waste, the state of Texas is lying about it's emissions, our air and water are pristine and everything is just fine and dandy. You seem to be in some sort of denial. You say, "Simply because African children will not see any wealth created by oil, does that make it bad?" Hmmm. Just because none of the Colombian children see any wealth created by the oil does that make it bad? Hmmm. Just because their water, land and air are contaminated, does that make it bad? Well, Jorge, according to you none of the drinking water comes from the ocean so it's no problem if we pollute the oceans. Why do U.S. doctors warn pregnant women not to eat certain fish because of possible birth defects and mercury poisoning? Do you like to swim in polluted water? Do you like to drink it? Do you like toxic waste? Do you like to eat it? Or just breath it? Don't worry, it's a good thing. The consumers of oil won't have to spend so much on gasoline. Don't worry, children don't really NEED clean air, food and water. Children don't really NEED to go outside. The lucky ones can just grow up like me, trade stocks and save on gas. Fantasy world? Come with me my friend. I'll show you how the other 3/4ths live. Oh, and Jorge, you can call me a REPUBLICAN if it makes you feel better. I'd be happy to help. Oh, and Jorge, we do differ in what we value as wealth. Your's is monetary. Mine is spiritual. One seems to last longer. Good night. Happy trading .
NOBODY should be close to equal partners with the government. Successful entrepreneurs are...they pay 33% income tax and 15% self employment tax. Damn...48%. Just to clarify, entrepreneur's taxes are really no different than anyone else. Since we don't pay ourselves wages, that 15% is just the Social Security & Medicare taxes that is normally taken straight out of a paycheck. Since the majority of that (SS tax - ~13) is only paid on the first chunk of income, those tax rates are actually regressive for the rich. As you get more income after about $100,000 or so, your net total tax rate drops. And of course, since the SS Tax rate rose slightly last year, we got a nice little hidden tax rate increase for the poor and middle classes last year (anyone making about $80k or less). Since it wasn't technically "income tax", no one talks about that.
OK...that's still 7.5% that the entrepreneurs pay that those working for companies do not. I really don't want to argue the semantics...48% is 48%...I could give a damn how they calculate that number. If you'd like to talk about the substantive merit of somebody forking over 48% of their income I welcome it. Personally, I believe that the only thing missing from that scenario is Tony Soprano collecting the checks.
OK...that's still 7.5% that the entrepreneurs pay that those working for companies do not. No, as an employee, you pay that other 7% - it's just "hidden" to make it look better. When looking at how much to pay an employee, an employer looks at the total costs to them - that includes the 7% they pay on SS. That money would be yours if there was no SS tax. If we suddenly changed to a system of the company paying all 15% of that, your salary would drop by 7%. It sounds better by saying the company is paying half of it, but they really aren't - they pass the costs onto you in lower salaries. You're worth the same total dollar amount to the company. If the taxes are higher, you'll just get less of that total. I really don't want to argue the semantics...48% is 48%...I could give a damn how they calculate that number. If you'd like to talk about the substantive merit of somebody forking over 48% of their income I welcome it. Personally, I believe that the only thing missing from that scenario is Tony Soprano collecting the checks. No, it's really not semantics. First, entrepreneurs pay exactly the same net taxes as any other wage earner - they are not penalized in any way, although it may sound that way since they pay the employer side of the SS tax. Second, no one pays 48% of their money. The tax rates don't work out that way. Pick any total income amount, calculate the taxes owed, and you'll never get near 48%, because SS taxes are only paid on the first $80,000 and the top tax rate isn't reached until well past that. In fact, that highest net tax rate (income and SS tax) is paid by middle class wage earners.
