Taxes and Candidates?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Oh, I wonder if this will get me banned again?

Get over it.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Nope a conservative.

But my post must have been in error.

Well I guess the vote will tell won't it?

So, I guess pee off will suffice if some do not like my post and that is fine!

Oh, I wonder if this will get me banned again?

If this doesn't, your asking for opinions from "N-land" in the other dumbass thread you started should. You moron.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jon1856

But I do have to wonder,every so often, if your posting style is all an act.

Many have wondered that.

[nittanyalum]

*waving* hey, MC!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

*waving* hey, MC!

You've got nothing else to do this Saturday night either, huh?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You've got nothing else to do this Saturday night either, huh?

LOL. I'm supposed to be sitting here catching up on work while the husband is busy fixing the track on the sliding door, but I can't seem to stop playing on GC... must. work. on. willpower...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

LOL. I'm supposed to be sitting here catching up on work while the husband is busy fixing the track on the sliding door, but I can't seem to stop playing on GC... must. work. on. willpower...

Awww. That's what tomorrow is for!

[DGTess]

Whatever the real numbers are, YES taxes will need to increase in order to level the playing field (including "middle class Americans" who had more income than wealth and are struggling in this recession) and invest in social programs.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there are many of us out here in American who don't believe this is a good thing. Because people are created equal does not mean they do with their lives and assets what they could. If they don't end up equal at the middle or the end of their lives, it's not the government's place to play Robin Hood.

To me, this statement spells socialism, and I want no part of it. Would I be helped by it? Probably. But it feels dishonest.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there are many of us out here in American who don't believe this is a good thing. Because people are created equal does not mean they do with their lives and assets what they could. If they don't end up equal at the middle or the end of their lives, it's not the government's place to play Robin Hood.

To me, this statement spells socialism, and I want no part of it. Would I be helped by it? Probably. But it feels dishonest.

Differing opinions aside, only clueless and socially irresponsible Americans feel this way. People who see capitalism as some self-selection, survival-of-the-fittest giant have completely missed the boat. Safety nets have existed for generations but they were never protested because they benefited a certain segment of the population.

This isn't enough of a redistribution of wealth to be socialism. The goal of these particular tax programs is not to erase the "haves" and "have nots." The goal is not to make the rich and the poor equal so that no one can truly see the fruits of their labor. Higher taxes, even those that tax the rich more, will not level the playing field in that manner.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Differing opinions aside, only clueless and socially irresponsible Americans feel this way. Safety nets have existed for generations but they were never protested because they benefited a certain segment of the population.

This isn't enough of a redistribution of wealth to be socialism.

Which part are you responding to, her first statement, or her comparison to socialism? Because, I agree that comparing "leveling the playing field" to socialism is going overboard.

However, if her first point (if I'm reading it correctly) means that the government can't be everything to everybody, then I'll agree with that.

And I'm fairly well-read on government aid programs and the legislative process as a whole, so I don't consider myself clueless about it, although you may disagree. I'll agree that the vast majority of the U.S. doesn't get it, and argues from a purely personal view (how will this affect my taxes, how will it affect my daily life, etc.)

Also, I disagree that safety nets "were never protested," because I think most every type of safety net, (such as college loan programs, benefits to corporations, lower mortgage rates for those with children, etc.) have been debated and protested over the years.

I think there's misunderstandings on both sides; fiscal conservatives who ignore the safety nets in place for corporations and those with high wealth, and those who want to throw money at social aid programs with no understanding of how they'll get paid for (the old "give money to everyone but don't raise my taxes" argument).

ETA: I'm not an economist, or an econ major, so I won't vouch for the technical truth of my statements (although I read a lot and try to stay educated on the issues). I'm trying to be more general in what I'm saying. Plus, it's tough to go really in depth on these issues over a message board, where you don't have the instant give and take.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Which part are you responding to, her first statement, or her comparison to socialism?

When I mention socialism in my post, I'm responding to her comparison to socialism.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

However, if her first point (if I'm reading it correctly) means that the government can't be everything to everybody, then I'll agree with that.

The fact that the government can't be everything to everybody goes without saying. It just can't be and isn't realistically expected to be.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Also, I disagree that safety nets "were never protested," because I think most every type of safety net, (such as college loan programs, benefits to corporations, lower mortgage rates for those with children, etc.) have been debated and protested over the years.

There are different levels of debate and protest because there are different types of "safety nets" that target a different segment of the population.

I'm talking about the social welfare of the 1920s and 1930s, which many people credit to be the beginnings of the social welfare system as we know it. There were naysayers but there wasn't the same widescale protest that the more recent social welfare/social program models received. People pretty much felt that these programs were helping those who "truly needed/deserved it." There are race, gender, and social class implications in that.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

When I mention socialism in my post, I'm responding to her comparison to socialism.



The fact that the government can't be everything to everybody goes without saying. It just can't be and isn't realistically expected to be.

Ok, fair enough. Also, thanks for the clarification on your earlier point. I had misinterpreted the statement in the context of your post - that was my fault.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Ok, fair enough. Also, thanks for the clarification on your earlier point. I had misinterpreted the statement in the context of your post - that was my fault.

I also want to add that a safety net can't be your everything. This is where it is important to distinguish between the different types of social programs and safety nets. Some are intended to be short term fixes (i.e. you can't live off of unemployment or AFDC forever) and others are meant to be more longterm.

Understanding the purposes, origins, and transformations of the different social welfare programs is important when discussing this issue. It also makes it easier to tell the difference between adjusted-capitalism and pure socialism. One perspective on the longetivity of capitalism is that it will have to adjust to avoid falling apart.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Dude, it was an email forward. It HAS to be accurate.

You have a point there.

[DGTess]

Life is not fair. The playing field is never level, nor should it be.