Thoughts on democrats and republicans.

[undertheice]

that would be a regressive tax. people that live hand to mouth would have even less chance to break the cycle of poverty as they'd be paying at higher percentages of income than the wealthy.

i''m not sure how you figure that. if food remained untaxed and the tax was charged only on new, not used, products, a sensible person could pay no tax at all. the wealthy can and would be able to afford all those bright shiny new things like cars and expensive clothing, but the poor would have an incentive to live within their means, purchasing used cars and perfectly serviceable thrift store bargains. they may not find the most stylish clothes or fashionable housewares, but those are the sort of luxuries that having extra cash around provides and they should be considered as such. what you don't like about it is that the wealthy aren't penalized merely for having wealth.

 

[UncleBuck]

i''m not sure how you figure that. if food remained untaxed and the tax was charged only on new, not used, products, a sensible person could pay no tax at all. the wealthy can and would be able to afford all those bright shiny new things like cars and expensive clothing, but the poor would have an incentive to live within their means, purchasing used cars and perfectly serviceable thrift store bargains. they may not find the most stylish clothes or fashionable housewares, but those are the sort of luxuries that having extra cash around provides and they should be considered as such. what you don't like about it is that the wealthy aren't penalized merely for having wealth.

it is easy to be right when you change the premise and make the rules conform to your reality. in case you didn't notice, this was the original proposal:

Instead of taxing what people earn, tax people in accordance with what they spend, sans food, medical and business expenses.

notice, no mention of not taxing used goods.

but suppose we did play by your rules: what counts as new? does refurbished count as new? does a return count as used? do we have to set up a new government agency to determine what goods are new and what goods are used and tax them accordingly? i'd say we do, which thus makes you in favor of a bigger government.

the rest of what you say, with one exception, is reasonable. it is not a bad idea to provide incentive for someone to live within their means.

what i take issue with is your doltish assertion that my stance is merely a petty attack on the wealthy for simply 'having wealth'. as someone that married WAY up, i can share with you that my wife and her wealthy family feel the same. sadists? nope. empathetic? you bet. taxing consumption hits those who live hand to mouth MUCH harder than the wealthy, thus it is regressive. you know that, i'm sure.

now go ahead, change the rules, change the premise, and make dishonest characterizations of me in long-winded purple prose until you feel validated.

 

[NoDrama]

as someone that married WAY up, i can share with you that my wife and her wealthy family feel the same.

Wait, Wait, Wait. Your wife and her family feel you got where you are today by marrying the right person? That doesn't make sense to me, can you explain it better? And can you do it in dark blue with yellow polka dots prose?

 

[undertheice]

it is easy to be right when you change the premise and make the rules conform to your reality.

i should know better than to play these silly games with you, but i'm so tired of your condescending bullshit. any sensible version of this proposal includes an exemption on used goods as well as the staples necessary for survival. it avoids the multiple taxation of a single item that is one of the many loopholes used by government to suck the population dry and is a major selling point of the entire plan. it is also a detail that is conveniently ignored by its opponents to make it seem less palatable to the poorer segments of the population. the real reason that such a consumption tax is opposed is that it places the control of our tax structure in the hands of the people themselves. it rewards frugality and avoids punishment altogether. without the threat of punishment, government loses a bit more of its control over the people and the statist position has always been one of ever increasing control.

as for my supposed mischaracterization, what do you think the point of a progressive tax system is? whether it is on income or consumption, it is nothing more than a direct assault on those with the capacity to actually have an impact on the economy. placing an ever increasing onus on the capacity to earn or spend by progressively increasing the percentage of any tax shows the lie of the much vaunted liberal concept of fairness and a denial of any but the most perverted sense of justice. it is part and parcel of the old socialist maxim, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". so cut the crap and at least be honest enough to admit the intent of your stance. it is the creed of government enforced redistribution, a penalty placed on wealth.

 

[medicineman]

The issue was it was an assumption that had no basis. The population of those 4 states combines is about 15 million - less than half the size of California. Poor people are poor people, regardless of what state, and most of them vote democrat.


as far as your question: what did people do before all these programs (referring to the minimum social safety net)?

they starved. they lived in poverty. before the founding of a minimum social safety net by fdr, grandma lived in poverty more often than not (tough for stats to bear it out back then, but the stats get clearer over time and show beyond any doubt that social safety programs have led to a marked decrease in poverty).

i am not missing the point that what one does in life is their responsibility. i embrace that. and as a member of a greater society, i also understand that 'i am my brother's keeper' and that we should judge ourselves by how we treat the least among us. this is what makes us a great nation, the fact that we care for all our people.
This is very unusual coming from you, Kudos. I am glad to see you have a kind heart, now is the time to vote with it


i am not so sure why you, as a libertarian, are so adamantly opposed to a credit that most often simply allows a person to keep more of the money that they earned in the first place.

I am not opposed to SSI, since you pay into that, you get it back. It is a pretty straight forward system, you pay per month into a retirement fund basically, and you get money back based on your contributions. You should be allowed to leave the system, if you want. The issue with SSI is that it has been poorly managed, not the idea behind it. It isn't any different than saving for retirement, though I am pretty sure me just putting that money in a retirement account that I am not allowed to withdraw money from would be far better for most people, since the government wouldn't have control of it. People did what they had to in order to take care of themselves. I am not a religious person, and I have no obligation to be my 'brothers keeper' other than what I feel inside of myself. What I do on a personal level is what I feel my obligation is. I would be able to do a lot more, and potential better, if the government was not involved in my charitable giving.

I can agree with most of this as long as they keep funding those of us that have already retired. The part about not allowing people to take anything out is good, but will draw lots of flack from libertarians that believe they should be allowed to do what the fuck they want. What would happen to those that raided their funds when retirement came???


It isn't that I am opposed to anyone keeping what they earned. However, I am opposed to anyone being a net drain on the system and causing others to pay more. EIC causes anyone under 50k with kids to not pay any taxes, federally(not meaning SSI). Yet, they are still entitled to the protections and help of the federal government. Wouldn't it be a little fairer if everyone got to keep the same portion of their share? Why would I pay 10k in because I don't have kids, yet someone in the same position have a vastly different tax bill because they have kids? It is because they are punishing others or causing the deficit to go higher by doing this that there is an issue, not so much what the people are getting from it. You cannot give away money that you don't have for long.

It actually cost a hell of a lot of money to raise kids. They have the costs of three-five or more human beings to contend with, Holy crap, just the difference in buying toilet paper when we Had our grandkids living here was atrocious, let alone milk and all the comfort food they consumed.

Being for fairness and against waste isn't the same as not caring about other people. I want everyone to be treated fairly. If rich people didn't have to pay taxes because they are rich, I would feel the same way about it. A fair tax would tax everyone equally. Progressive taxation is wrong - especially when the bottom half are not paying anything. The incentive to work is so you have money, and can pay to live in a house and eat. They should save so they can take care of themselves while they don't have a job. Unemployment isn't a tax, as much as an insurance. It is kind of like a part of your pay/benefits in so far as that. Between savings and unemployment you should have enough to live for a few months, you should be out finding a job, it is not vacation.

The "fair" tax isn't fair. We've had this discussion many times. The only really fair tax is a progressive one. The more one makes, the higher % one pays.

I am also against wasted spending in all areas. We don't need to spend trillions on our military, we can already destroy the world a billion times over. We have enough armed citizens than invading the country would be disaster for anyone, even without our military on the ground. We don't need bases around the world, or to give foreign aid to anyone. Taxes should be lower, and Tariffs raised to pay for things, at a reduced rate. That way the costs of goods bears the cost of the federal government. They should not transfer wealth from one state to another, the state should deal with its matters internally.[/QUOTE]

Agreed with the exception of transferring money between states. I trhink trying to make for a decent living environment in any state should be priority #1, even if we have to take a little from the richest states.

 

[Carthoris]

can agree with most of this as long as they keep funding those of us that have already retired. The part about not allowing people to take anything out is good, but will draw lots of flack from libertarians that believe they should be allowed to do what the fuck they want. What would happen to those that raided their funds when retirement came???

I didn't think I would ever agree with you, but there it is. Well, those people would eat a big pile of shit I guess. If you stick your hand in the fire, how can you not be responsible for the burns? People who payed in should get their SSI. It is insurance, if you pay the premiums, you get the payment. People who opt out are saying they don't want it and understand what will happen if they don't do it on their own. Or, as a middle of the road gesture, allow you to control your own SSI funds yet not allow you to take them out of the account. Being Libertarian is like being Democrat or Republican - each of us is different. Libertarians knows they have to have a government, and that it has to be in charge of certain things - each one has a slightly different idea of what that is. A lot of people go Libertarian as an idealist stance more than as a practice. It is because the left and right seem to be trying to control a huge portion of our lives - not as much as a love of anarchy like a lot might assume. I look at it like this... If a car is ice cold and I get in it, I might turn the heat on extra high, it isn't that I want the heat that high or I want it to be that hot. The goal is to get it comfortable again.

It actually cost a hell of a lot of money to raise kids. They have the costs of three-five or more human beings to contend with, Holy crap, just the difference in buying toilet paper when we Had our grandkids living here was atrocious, let alone milk and all the comfort food they consumed.

I know it costs money to take care of kids. My issue is that the children are the responsibility of the parents, not the government or their fellow citizens. The fact that we subsidize the having of children only encourages having them. When my wife and I talk about having kids, I calculate that in when I am weighing it in my mind. If it matters to me - I can only assume it matters to everyone $$ wise. If I get those tax break for having kids more or less, then that is $400-500 a month altogether. That is my electric and one of my car payments.

the "fair" tax isn't fair. We've had this discussion many times. The only really fair tax is a progressive one. The more one makes, the higher % one pays.

I don't know that any taxes are completely fair. However, taxes are a must. The government has to exist in some form for the world to work. Progressive taxes are not fair in any form. That is like me saying my neighbor should mow part of my yard against his will for me because he is in better shape than I am or has more time. It would be great to have someone mow my yard for me, but I wouldn't call that fair. Taxes that tax usage of things are fair in so much as they charge for use. Is it fair that people who make 200k+ pay most of the taxes and really reap none of the federal benefits? No. Also, keep in mind that personal income taxes only make up about a 1.25 trillion dollars a year of the 2.75 we take in a year. It would only take trimming 500 billion a year from our budget to really make a dent in everybodies tax bill. Keep in mind 140,000,000 people file returns. Probably the bottom 25% are getting a refund over what they payed in, the 25-50% is about breaking even and the 50+ are paying. That means 70,000,000 people are a loss or paying nothing. If those people payed just 10 bucks a month(or got 10 less a month back) that would be 8,400,000,000. Granted, with our trillion a year in income taxes 8.4 billion doesn't seem like a lot, but its close to 1%. It isn't just that the rich should have the same tax treatment as the poor - it is the more important point that if we continue to spend as much money as we do we would have to tax the rich more and more at some point.

Agreed with the exception of transferring money between states. I think trying to make for a decent living environment in any state should be priority #1, even if we have to take a little from the richest states.

If the federal government weren't so bloated the states could tax on their own and take care of it themselves. Some states have a better and more streamlined budget. As it is the federal government takes a huge portion of money, and gives back whatever it wants. If you live in a state that sucks you should probably move to a better one. I should not have to pay for someone living in Kentucky anymore than someone living India should have to pay for someone living in Mongolia. The states have plenty of money to pay for themselves - except that the federal government usurped their powers and took the money themselves. With stronger state governments and weaker federal governments it would happen that states who did the smart and correct things prospered and the states that did wrong would fail. Between the state, federal, and county/city governments taking their share you end up with the government getting more of your labor than you. This is a very wrong and perhaps evil thing.

 

[UncleBuck]

i should know better than to play these silly games with you, but i'm so tired of your condescending bullshit. any sensible version of this proposal includes an exemption on used goods as well as the staples necessary for survival.

i agree. but your sensible version was not the one i originally responded to, now was it?

as for my supposed mischaracterization, what do you think the point of a progressive tax system is... it is part and parcel of the old socialist maxim, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". so cut the crap and at least be honest enough to admit the intent of your stance. it is the creed of government enforced redistribution, a penalty placed on wealth.

no, not a penalty on wealth. and no, it is not marxism.

it is a fundamental sense of fairness. for someone earning 20K a year, an income tax of equal percentage to what the wealthy pay stings a lot more. i am unable to admit that the intent of my stance is to punish the wealthy, because the intent of my stance is to give a better chance to the poor to break the cycle of poverty.

again, taking 20% of 20K *HURTS*. taking 20% of 200K does not hurt as much. even a flat tax is regressive in the sense that it hurts the poor much more than anyone else.

believe me, as someone who has never broken the 30K per year mark, i am not opposed to paying my fair share and frankly could stand to pay more. but to put a greater burden on the hard working schmoe and make them choose between paying the heat and buying toiletries is wrong and goes against everything i was taught was part of the american dream.

the american dream, as i know it, is the ability to break the cycle of poverty and become something more. not everyone will do it, but anyone who spends wisely and spins the right idea can do it with enough hard work.

only a complete buffoon would try to equate my average vision of the american dream with marxism. but as i have said before, your words are hyperbolic purple prose and deserve to be treated as such.

 

[Carthoris]

i agree. but your sensible version was not the one i originally responded to, now was it?



no, not a penalty on wealth. and no, it is not marxism.

it is a fundamental sense of fairness. for someone earning 20K a year, an income tax of equal percentage to what the wealthy pay stings a lot more. i am unable to admit that the intent of my stance is to punish the wealthy, because the intent of my stance is to give a better chance to the poor to break the cycle of poverty.

again, taking 20% of 20K *HURTS*. taking 20% of 200K does not hurt as much. even a flat tax is regressive in the sense that it hurts the poor much more than anyone else.

believe me, as someone who has never broken the 30K per year mark, i am not opposed to paying my fair share and frankly could stand to pay more. but to put a greater burden on the hard working schmoe and make them choose between paying the heat and buying toiletries is wrong and goes against everything i was taught was part of the american dream.

the american dream, as i know it, is the ability to break the cycle of poverty and become something more. not everyone will do it, but anyone who spends wisely and spins the right idea can do it with enough hard work.

only a complete buffoon would try to equate my average vision of the american dream with marxism. but as i have said before, your words are hyperbolic purple prose and deserve to be treated as such.

"The real democratic American idea is, not that every man shall be on a level with every other man, but that every man shall have liberty to be what God made him, without hindrance."





The reason I use that quote as frequently as I do is because it is dead on with what the American dream is.

If you were taught that the American Dream was wealth redistribution then whoever was teaching you definitely had some issues. There are very few Americans who cannot afford food and toilet paper. The issue is they want a new car, cigarettes, and new nikes at the same time. Maybe it is just common sense, which obviously isn't that common. If you took 100 of those 'poor' families you talk about and dissected their lives, you would find a couple things. Irresponsibility, laziness, defeatism, acceptance of situation. I grew up in one of those families and around those families. I know why they are like they are, giving them all the money in the world won't fix their problems. There are very very few intelligent, motivated, and hard working poor people. Poor people who get educations move up from being poor.

My wife has family in Mexico who live in a concrete hut with no windows. I go and visit them and stay with them while I am there, they gave me a bed to sleep on, and it was completely ragged. Our homeless sleep on better beds. They live in poverty. The last time I visited them was during the recession, and they lived the same way. They live that way because they are indifferent to it. They could easily improve their lives there just as the poor can here. I saw them waste money on alcohol/tobacco and they had cell phones. They were happy enough how they lived, and granted, I did buy things to improve their lives - but nothing they could not have bought themselves if they tried.

My mother is disabled, she gets about 1800 a month from the government. My mother and father piss most of that money away being irresponsible. They get by, but they don't do what they should. I go over and fix their roof, fix their electrical, ect. My dad is capable of fixing things himself, but he is self defeated by his attitude towards things he has never done. My mothers bills in all are something under 1000 or so not including food. She can't make it on 1800 a month, and I end up supplementing them regularly. The issue is not that they cannot do it on 1800 - it is that they choose to make irresponsible choices. For the last 5 years, one of my siblings and their child have been living there also - without working. The level of support I give them has not changed. To believe that anyone in American cannot live better with what they already get if they do so smartly is idiotic. The simple fact is people will live how they want to live regardless of how much money you give them - they will just spend more on BS.

 

[Rob Roy]

Uncle Buck, I've read some of your posts and have to say they rely on rationalizations. Your arguments DO rely on forced redistribution, which IS a Marxist platform. Your not wanting to be called that doesn't change that or make somebody a buffoon for calling you on it.
What it DOES do, is offer proof that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

The American Dream is not a "one size fits all" concept. Government doesn't help break the cycle of poverty, it enables it and reinforces it. Government inhibits the creation of wealth.

You speak of "fundmental fairness" yet you build your entire premise of "redistribution" on the justification of the use of force. You can obscure the argument, name call or throw walls of charts out there, but you never address that you endorse the initiation of force and want government to be your strongman.

Why do you endorse the initiation of force? If it isn't right for you or me to confiscate each others goods or money ,why do you endorse a third party doing it? What "magic" occurs to make that justifiable?

 

[undertheice]

no, not a penalty on wealth. and no, it is not marxism.
it is a fundamental sense of fairness.

by only the most twisted logic does a "fundamental sense of fairness" advocate the direct use of force for anything but opposing the use of direct force. where is the force in merely attaining wealth? all of your rationalizations merely attempt to cover up the desire to forcibly redistribute wealth. all of this compassionate nonsense and attempting to gain the moral high ground by empathizing with the poor does not negate the fact that you advocate the unwarranted use of force to attain social equality. though it's laudable that you may wish to give more than is required of you, that virtue is all but washed away by your insistence that others be forced to maintain your standards.

my writing style aside, what you insist is the "average vision of the american dream" is a sad perversion of that ideal. the american dream consists of laboring for what you earn, not insisting others pay more so that you can advance. it is the dream of individual accomplishment, not the mundane buzzing of the hive. it is the dream of attaining success so that you can choose to aid those around you. you and your ilk would prefer to take choice out of that equation, replacing it with the violence of governmental force.

we all see the cycle of poverty that plagues many in america and most of us would do something about it if we could. many of us willingly give what we can to aid those in distress. this is "choice", this is the american way. your way, the way of forced redistribution, is the authoritarian answer to poverty and has never worked. it has increasingly been the law of the land here for decades and still poverty grows. always there is the excuse given that we merely need to give more, to have more taken from us. it never will work. this scheme denies that there is an element of choice even in poverty. we make choices, to remain in the relative security of an impoverished neighborhood, to start a family without adequate financial planning, to abandon education and settle for that low paying job, to accept handouts instead of sacrificing for the future, and we must take responsibility for those choices. the welfare state solution, demanding the rich support the poor, only perpetuates the cycle of poverty by creating a dependent class and depletes the resources of those who do succeed.

that "the rich can afford it" is beside the point. your solution denies the freedom of choice that must be upheld to advance the concept of liberty. i know, i know, words like "liberty", "choice" and "freedom" are just buzz words to you, rhetorical tricks that are meaningless to the starving. what you fail to admit or maybe fail to grasp is that those buzz words represent the values that have allowed the wealth you wish to steal to be accumulated in the first place.

 

[NoDrama]

it is a fundamental sense of fairness. for someone earning 20K a year, an income tax of equal percentage to what the wealthy pay stings a lot more. i am unable to admit that the intent of my stance is to punish the wealthy, because the intent of my stance is to give a better chance to the poor to break the cycle of poverty.

again, taking 20% of 20K *HURTS*. taking 20% of 200K does not hurt as much. even a flat tax is regressive in the sense that it hurts the poor much more than anyone else.

Last time I tried math, it told me that 10% of 20k is 2k, and that 10% of 200k is 20k, now as far as I have been taught and as far as I know, 20k is a shit load more than 2k. The rich person is paying 10 times as much as the less well off person. How is that fair? if you really want fair, every one should pay the exact same amount. Why don't rich people pay more to get their drivers license, why don't they have to pay more for their food, how come they pay the same to register their Mercedes as the fellow who registers his YUGO? Its not about how much it "Hurts".


Then you go on to contradict yourself immensely when you add

the american dream, as i know it, is the ability to break the cycle of poverty and become something more. not everyone will do it, but anyone who spends wisely and spins the right idea can do it with enough hard work.

So which do you advocate to bring oneself out of poverty? Wise choices and hard work, or someone elses hard earned dollar?



The big kicker to me was the fact that you have never earned more than 30K in a year. WTF you do have a college degree don't you? I have had many many years of 50K + and I don't even have a degree. I think you kind of ride your wife's coat tails if you ask me.

 

[undertheice]

Its not about how much it "Hurts".

but that is what it's all about, at least to the liberal mind. it's about punishing those who dare to flourish as their neighbors fail. how many times have we heard these sheep bleating about the "unfairness" of wealth in the hands of the few? it doesn't matter how much those few may give or how much they may add to the community in terms of employment and charitable contributions. too much will never be enough until those few are brought down to the same level as everyone else. excepting, of course, the movers and shakers of the liberal community.

So which do you advocate to bring oneself out of poverty? Wise choices and hard work, or someone else's hard earned dollar?

this is but one of the hypocrisies of the left, that they pay lip service to the work ethic while undermining it. individual accomplishment is applauded only to the point at which it can be considered success. after that it is seen as the sin of excess. the individual himself is important only as a part of the larger society and only so long as he remains subservient to it. they repeat the lie over and over again, that success is unattainable for most without the aid of society, denying the worth of the individual. the struggles of the common man are only of value to the cause until they actually begin to pay off, only up to the point at which he is unable to claim victimhood. after that he has no further use for the jealousy upon which the creed is based and he begins to see through its machinations.

the few at the top of the liberal ladder rely on this so-called common man's dilemma for their power. they hang the carrot in front of the masses and claim it is the accumulation of wealth by the few that keeps it out of reach. they point to instances of avarice as the proof of this conspiracy against the poor, all the while exempting the products of their own greed from the pool of ill-gotten wealth. after all, they need all that wealth to continue the good fight.

 

[MrDank007]

but that is what it's all about, at least to the liberal mind. it's about punishing those who dare to flourish as their neighbors fail. how many times have we heard these sheep bleating about the "unfairness" of wealth in the hands of the few? it doesn't matter how much those few may give or how much they may add to the community in terms of employment and charitable contributions. too much will never be enough until those few are brought down to the same level as everyone else. excepting, of course, the movers and shakers of the liberal community.

this is but one of the hypocrisies of the left, that they pay lip service to the work ethic while undermining it. individual accomplishment is applauded only to the point at which it can be considered success. after that it is seen as the sin of excess. the individual himself is important only as a part of the larger society and only so long as he remains subservient to it. they repeat the lie over and over again, that success is unattainable for most without the aid of society, denying the worth of the individual. the struggles of the common man are only of value to the cause until they actually begin to pay off, only up to the point at which he is unable to claim victimhood. after that he has no further use for the jealousy upon which the creed is based and he begins to see through its machinations.

the few at the top of the liberal ladder rely on this so-called common man's dilemma for their power. they hang the carrot in front of the masses and claim it is the accumulation of wealth by the few that keeps it out of reach. they point to instances of avarice as the proof of this conspiracy against the poor, all the while exempting the products of their own greed from the pool of ill-gotten wealth. after all, they need all that wealth to continue the good fight.

As long as you depend on the man...you will never be free of him. It's to the benifit of the liberal elite to keep their constituency at bay in terms of success...otherwise noone would vote for them. As much as they squawk, they have never turned the poor into middle class and never will. It's the illusion of caring for the little guy and pulling votes based on "hope" rather than common sense.

 

[undertheice]

...otherwise no one would vote for them.

there will always be folks who will vote for the liberal agenda. even if every last person in the country were to attain enough wealth to easily support themselves and their families, the call of its authoritarian roots is just too tempting. it is a philosophy of statism that appeals to those who lust for power and those that feel mankind is too immoral to exist without chains. the mere possibility that there might be someone somewhere who might be downtrodden is enough to engender the call to over-regulation that is the liberal philosophy's main mechanism. modern liberalism depends on the victimhood and scapegoating that makes our jealousies seem justified.

 

[redivider]

you seem to be confused.

liberalism is concerned with helping the ones in society which need the most help, the poor. it is a fiscal idea which believes, truly, that more people with less wealth is better for the economy than few people with most of it.

conservatism believes the opposite. few people should be allowed to hoard as much money as they can, without regulation or accountability for illegal activity, even though their higher purchasing power gives them a completely unfair competitive advantage. all the while regulating every aspect of social life that does not have much to do with money. sexuality, habits, and general way of life has to fit into a certain mold, in the US, the Christian mold...... and if it doesn't they will legislate accordingly to FORCE you into that mold... so not only don't you stand a chance at competing in the world b/c the ones with the money already have a HUGE advantage, controlling the government AND the purchasing power... you also have to live your life according to how THEY believe you should live your life, or be considered a criminal......

 

[undertheice]

liberalism is concerned with helping the ones in society which need the most help, the poor.

no, i think you're the one who's confused. liberalism has become concerned only with forcing others to help the poor. it's all about the force. what you consider hording, rational people consider keeping what you earn. you are right about the liberal desire to see more people with less money though. it is the only way to ensure the creation of the homogeneous hive existence that seems to be the desired result. the accumulation of wealth enables a person to exert his individuality and this is to be avoided at all costs in this brave new world.

while your post shows all the usual jealousy that we have come to expect from the left, it also attributes the all too human desire to force one's opinion on those around them exclusively to conservatism. that is what we do, we try to shape the world in our own image. the more power we gain, the more we are able to impress our opinions on the world around us. you can easily see this tendency in every group and institution, even your beloved left wing lunacies. i'd suggest you get off the cross and take a good look at your fellow human beings.

 

[BudMcLovin]

No redivider liberalism isn't just a fiscal idea. To me it seems liberalism is the idea that you personally attack anyone you don't agree with. It’s about shutting down the debate before it even gets started. So let me try thing your way.

If a person thinks welfare programs do nothing for society but keep those they are trying to help poor, you call them a hate monger. If a someone believes a man should be able to keep more than 50% of his income, you say they are greedy and hording their money. If a person doesn't want the government controlling their health care, you accuse them of wanting to let poor people die in the street. It's you and people like you on the right and left that are destroying this country from within.

You cocksuckers don’t like the fact that someone may have more than you, may have worked harder, Oh but here’s the real kicker may be more deserving than a lazy piece of shit that just wants someone else’s stuff. I don’t give a fuck if a bum dies in the street every 5 sec. it is not the role of government to steal my money under the false pretense of helping people to lazy to help themselves. Now you say I’m not compassionate because I don’t think it’s the government’s job. If I saw the a dying bum would I help him, you bet your ass I would.

Uncle buck I’ve noticed you telling people if they don’t like paying taxes they can move. Well guess what asshole the same applies to you. If you don’t like the fact you have to pay for your own health care move somewhere that does it for you. You don’t like the fact the rich aren’t sucked dry, move somewhere that does. You don’t like the fact people are able to think freely for themselves move to somewhere that regulates thought already. If you don’t like the fact someone is complaining about wanting to keep more of what they already owned don’t go complaining about the fact you don’t think they take enough.

You want to know why a lot of libertarians tend to vote republican? Because it’s easier to get away with breaking laws that try to regulate personal morality than it is to break laws that regulate a fiscal morality.

Have a nice day you thieving bastards.

 

[MrDank007]

you seem to be confused.

liberalism is concerned with helping the ones in society which need the most help, the poor. it is a fiscal idea which believes, truly, that more people with less wealth is better for the economy than few people with most of it.

conservatism believes the opposite. few people should be allowed to hoard as much money as they can, without regulation or accountability for illegal activity, even though their higher purchasing power gives them a completely unfair competitive advantage. all the while regulating every aspect of social life that does not have much to do with money. sexuality, habits, and general way of life has to fit into a certain mold, in the US, the Christian mold...... and if it doesn't they will legislate accordingly to FORCE you into that mold... so not only don't you stand a chance at competing in the world b/c the ones with the money already have a HUGE advantage, controlling the government AND the purchasing power... you also have to live your life according to how THEY believe you should live your life, or be considered a criminal......

Your bizarre conspiracy driven characterization is called economies of scale in the real world and will always exist in a capitalist system. The world needs ditch diggers too. It's who you are and the choices you make that determine where you will end up, not the government. The goverment has the abilty to drag people down it does not have the ability to boost them up.

 

[medicineman]

No redivider liberalism isn't just a fiscal idea. To me it seems liberalism is the idea that you personally attack anyone you don't agree with. It’s about shutting down the debate before it even gets started. So let me try thing your way.

If a person thinks welfare programs do nothing for society but keep those they are trying to help poor, you call them a hate monger. If a someone believes a man should be able to keep more than 50% of his income, you say they are greedy and hording their money. If a person doesn't want the government controlling their health care, you accuse them of wanting to let poor people die in the street. It's you and people like you on the right and left that are destroying this country from within.

You cocksuckers don’t like the fact that someone may have more than you, may have worked harder, Oh but here’s the real kicker may be more deserving than a lazy piece of shit that just wants someone else’s stuff. I don’t give a fuck if a bum dies in the street every 5 sec. it is not the role of government to steal my money under the false pretense of helping people to lazy to help themselves. Now you say I’m not compassionate because I don’t think it’s the government’s job. If I saw the a dying bum would I help him, you bet your ass I would.

Uncle buck I’ve noticed you telling people if they don’t like paying taxes they can move. Well guess what asshole the same applies to you. If you don’t like the fact you have to pay for your own health care move somewhere that does it for you. You don’t like the fact the rich aren’t sucked dry, move somewhere that does. You don’t like the fact people are able to think freely for themselves move to somewhere that regulates thought already. If you don’t like the fact someone is complaining about wanting to keep more of what they already owned don’t go complaining about the fact you don’t think they take enough.

You want to know why a lot of libertarians tend to vote republican? Because it’s easier to get away with breaking laws that try to regulate personal morality than it is to break laws that regulate a fiscal morality.

Have a nice day you thieving bastards.

Geeze, why don't you tell us how you really feel. I think rich "cocksuckers" are the real thieves. They control the "hated" government and pretty much have things their way. You call those poor that recieve any compensation from government thieves, I call rich assholes that take money out of circulation to pass on to their spoiled offspring, thieven bastards. Rhetoric, which is all this arguement is, will solve nothing. Untill people like you pull your selfish head out and start tolerating those that need help as human beings, and people like me start seeing people like you as all right, there will be no progress in this world. So why don't you start, LOL. Now we can proceed to mouth frothing and name calling.

 

[undertheice]

I think rich "cocksuckers" are the real thieves. They control the "hated" government and pretty much have things their way.

I call rich assholes that take money out of circulation to pass on to their spoiled offspring, thieven bastards.

so just how does that work, how do the wealthy control government? do they make them an offer they can't refuse? do the rich threaten our representative's families? maybe they just walk into congress, put a gun to each senator's head and demand they legislate in their favor. in case you haven't noticed, the wealthy have nothing to offer these political animals because they're already rich. our government isn't run by the wealthy, our government IS the wealthy and the ignorant voters keep re-electing the bastards time after time after time. not only are they re-elected after buying and then abusing their power, but we have a whole bunch of idiots out there who just can't wait to hand them even more power on a silver platter. sound like anyone you know?

so we've got a bunch of rich assholes installed in the highest offices in the land and you're worried about these other rich assholes, the ones who aren't actively involved in bending government to their will from the inside, just because they want to leave the proceeds of their life's work to their progeny? it looks like you've got your priorities really screwed up. i think i'd be more concerned if these folks didn't care enough about their children to want to leave them in a bit of comfort. i'd wonder what sort of sociopath would deny their own flesh and blood that inheritance. sure, i'd like it better if those trust fund babies used their wealth to do something better than party, but it's really none of my business and it certainly isn't any of yours. it's not society's business what anyone chooses to do with their wealth and it isn't the government's business either. so go ahead and pass judgment on people you don't even know based on their social standing. that's what liberal tolerance is all about, now isn't it?