Are you so ignorant you don't even know what you asked about? No wonder you can't figure out what's going on or answer repies intelligently!!
Are you so ignorant you don't even know what you asked about? No wonder you can't figure out what's going on or answer repies intelligently!!
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars?LOL!!
Obviously the deficit didn't start with Bush, but after 20 years we almost had the budget balanced, that is until Bush came along, and his first oder of business was to cut the taxes on a "projected" surplus. We didn't even have the surplus, it was just projected (and by his team of people). Then he started overspending for a war that he didn't have to start. Can you defend that action?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: tss4
"Also, I'm not sure why you said "why would we take it form them" and "we would be doing is hurting them for no gain". We aren't taking anything from them as the poor don't pay income taxes so I don't know where you think there is some "hurt". "
I was reffering to working poor which do pay taxes, People in the 20k to 30k range. check my posts a little earlier in this thread for their tax burden and my dsicussion on it
"The thing I'll take issue with is the claim of "logic" for a progressive tax-code. The only "logic" that it has is emotional. It doesn't base itself on something that can be measured. Why not a 60% income tax on the "rich" and nothing on the "poor" and assuming you think there is a "middle class" then put them at 10%. Why not that? What are the income levels for those? What is it based on? "
There is a very logical rational for it which I will attempt to explain to you now. I doubt I will convince you but at least we will better understand each other. In economics money has a given utility. That's the maount of value you place on it. Its a fundamental consept in economics that the more of it you have the less utility you place on the individual dollars. Therefore, If we have two people. Joe poor has $10. Joe Rich has $1000. Now if I take only 10% from each man. Clearly, Joe poor has $9 now and Joe rich has $900 now. Over the next month, joe poor will struggle to pay his bills to survive, that $1 he will surely miss and would have spent. Joe rich on the other hand has more than enough to live well, by thing for his amusement, and even save some for the future and to make money with. To exagerate to make sure you get the point, if I the government need to fight in a war for both Joe's an I need $400 to by my tanks, clearly I could take 39.6% of Joe riches money and 39.6% of Joe Poors, giving me the $400. Both will be upset I'm sure, Joe rich still has plenty for his basic needs, and the extras he likes to enjoy. Joe poor will have a tough time and he might not be around next tax season unfortunately.
This whole affect is well studied in the academic realm and is quit interesting if you have the time.
Hope this is enlightening and we can see one another's views a little better now.
I'd like to meet the person who makes $20K and pays that much in income tax. Then I'd give them $30 for a copy of TurboTax or other software(TaxAct is free
) I remember those days and even during the Clinton years my income tax bill was no where near what you posted. But that still doesn't answer the question - how exactly are we "hurting" them? Also, what are we "taking" from them that isn't already taken? If you want to make an argument that the tax brackets need moved/changed to different income levels then fine - make that argument, we might even come close on an income level to have as a "floor". But no, your attempt failed the logic without emotion test. You used "struggle" to pay bills and other emotional triggers in your attempt to contrast and excuse the act of taking a bigger portion of each person's dollar. You based it on your need for emotional gratification - knowing that they may not have to "struggle" as much. This argument may seem "cold" and "uncaring" to some but money is numbers - numbers don't change with your feelings. This notion that you are trying to help joe poor is noble and to an extent I agree but it doesn't make it logical and is still based on your feelings. You said that Joe Rich will buy things for his amusement -which is another attempt to cast a disparaging emotional image on his "fun" contrasting it with the "struggle" as mentioned before. It doesn't pass the test - sorry. I've heard the whole "utility" defense many times before but there is no way of measuring one's personal utility of a dollar, it too bases it's "reasoning"(excuses
) on the arbitrary feelings of the beholder.Now again, I have no problem with setting a floor for tax paying(if we continue to tax labor) because even this cold hearted evil Conservative knows how tough it can be.(that was emotion for those that didn't catch it
) But after that floor - revenue should be spread at an equal rate if we are taxing a labor dollar.CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I read it and in it you are asking how many acers a normal operation has. I answered it and then you turn around and say "I didn't bring it up, I made a comment about someones statement about estate tax." in the next post. So you did bring it up and then say you didn't. Like I said earlier, your shooting from the hip most of the time. Perhaps you should take the reading comprehension class
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars?
Obviously the deficit didn't start with Bush, but after 20 years we almost had the budget balanced, that is until Bush came along, and his first oder of business was to cut the taxes on a "projected" surplus. We didn't even have the surplus, it was just projected (and by his team of people). Then he started overspending for a war that he didn't have to start. Can you defend that action?
Sure, the war became necessary in a post 9/11 era because Saddam failed to comply to years and years of resolutions and attempt after attempt at diplomacy.(Infact I supported Clinton's actions against Saddam and wish something more had been done long ago) But you'll fall way short if you were trying to make up the deficit by claiming the war wasn't needed.
The tax-cuts were to put money into the economy as necessitated by the various things that cause the recession. Infact if you take the so-called "cost" of the tax-cuts PLUS the cost of the war you still aren't close to closing the deficit gap. We've been over this on here many times - you don't seem to have been present for those discussions though...
Got something else to try?
CkG
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars?
Obviously the deficit didn't start with Bush, but after 20 years we almost had the budget balanced, that is until Bush came along, and his first oder of business was to cut the taxes on a "projected" surplus. We didn't even have the surplus, it was just projected (and by his team of people). Then he started overspending for a war that he didn't have to start. Can you defend that action?
Please answer the question Cad.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I read it and in it you are asking how many acers a normal operation has. I answered it and then you turn around and say "I didn't bring it up, I made a comment about someones statement about estate tax." in the next post. So you did bring it up and then say you didn't. Like I said earlier, your shooting from the hip most of the time. Perhaps you should take the reading comprehension class
Buahahaha - You might want to follow along here. My comments on the estate tax and farming stemmed from someone who brought up the estate tax. You then proceeded to take issue with the farmer comment. So like I said, you should try reading comprehension sometime. They make books to help people like you understand how to follow the flow.
And for your edification - the acre question was rhetorical. You'd understand that if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend what I posted.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars?
Obviously the deficit didn't start with Bush, but after 20 years we almost had the budget balanced, that is until Bush came along, and his first oder of business was to cut the taxes on a "projected" surplus. We didn't even have the surplus, it was just projected (and by his team of people). Then he started overspending for a war that he didn't have to start. Can you defend that action?
Please answer the question Cad.
Already did.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars?
Obviously the deficit didn't start with Bush, but after 20 years we almost had the budget balanced, that is until Bush came along, and his first oder of business was to cut the taxes on a "projected" surplus. We didn't even have the surplus, it was just projected (and by his team of people). Then he started overspending for a war that he didn't have to start. Can you defend that action?
Sure, the war became necessary in a post 9/11 era because Saddam failed to comply to years and years of resolutions and attempt after attempt at diplomacy.(Infact I supported Clinton's actions against Saddam and wish something more had been done long ago) But you'll fall way short if you were trying to make up the deficit by claiming the war wasn't needed.
The tax-cuts were to put money into the economy as necessitated by the various things that cause the recession. Infact if you take the so-called "cost" of the tax-cuts PLUS the cost of the war you still aren't close to closing the deficit gap. We've been over this on here many times - you don't seem to have been present for those discussions though...
Got something else to try?
CkG
So how is it resposible for the goverment to cut taxes, then turn around and start overspending without a PLAN on how to make up the budget shortfall??? I have to pay my bills, by God the goverment should have to also. Then you whine and cry about needing more tax cuts!! You're just too stupid to argue with on an intelligent basis.
"Infact if you take the so-called "cost" of the tax-cuts PLUS the cost of the war you still aren't close to closing the deficit gap. We've been over this on here many times - you don't seem to have been present for those discussions though... "
Then there shouldn't have been a tax cut in the first palce and there should have been a tax increase to fund the war. the Republicans just don't practice what they preach, do they.
And for your edification - the acre question was rhetorical. You'd understand that if you would actually read and attempt to comprehend what I posted.
How would I know it was rhetorical, read your mind? It looks like a valid question to me. Of course, half the stuff you say makes no sense to me anyway, so I guess maybe I didn't read it the way you intended it.
How would I know it was rhetorical, read your mind? It looks like a valid question to me. Of course, half the stuff you say makes no sense to me anyway, so I guess maybe I didn't read it the way you intended it.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If your so worried about funding the goverment then you must be a little upset by the huge goverment deficet that Bush has started up with the tax cuts and the wars?
Obviously the deficit didn't start with Bush, but after 20 years we almost had the budget balanced, that is until Bush came along, and his first oder of business was to cut the taxes on a "projected" surplus. We didn't even have the surplus, it was just projected (and by his team of people). Then he started overspending for a war that he didn't have to start. Can you defend that action?
Sure, the war became necessary in a post 9/11 era because Saddam failed to comply to years and years of resolutions and attempt after attempt at diplomacy.(Infact I supported Clinton's actions against Saddam and wish something more had been done long ago) But you'll fall way short if you were trying to make up the deficit by claiming the war wasn't needed.
The tax-cuts were to put money into the economy as necessitated by the various things that cause the recession. Infact if you take the so-called "cost" of the tax-cuts PLUS the cost of the war you still aren't close to closing the deficit gap. We've been over this on here many times - you don't seem to have been present for those discussions though...
Got something else to try?
CkG
So how is it resposible for the goverment to cut taxes, then turn around and start overspending without a PLAN on how to make up the budget shortfall??? I have to pay my bills, by God the goverment should have to also. Then you whine and cry about needing more tax cuts!! You're just too stupid to argue with on an intelligent basis.
"Infact if you take the so-called "cost" of the tax-cuts PLUS the cost of the war you still aren't close to closing the deficit gap. We've been over this on here many times - you don't seem to have been present for those discussions though... "
Then there shouldn't have been a tax cut in the first palce and there should have been a tax increase to fund the war. the Republicans just don't practice what they preach, do they.
Again, you might want to ask an honest question or atleast frame it in a more honest way. I try to answer your dishonest question though.
It isn't responsible for the gov't to overspend at all - which if you'd have actually read what I've said, you'd understand I have been against any gov'ts overspending - including <gasp> Bush's. You might want to educate yourself before trying to make accusations in your questions to me next time.
Now where exactly did I say we need more tax-cuts? Oh that's right....I didn't So yeah, stupid fits one of us but it continues to look like you wear that tag.Maybe, maybe not. Some might claim there should have been a tax-increase to fund that war but don't you think the risks to the economy might make that a poor choice? Also there is the issue about emergency funding - do we need to increase taxes every time there is Security issue? It isn't as cut and dry as you seem to thing, but as a general rule I'd agree that new spending needs to have an increase in taxes to match it(or we need to cut spending
). We have had deficits before and this current one is not out of whack when put in the proper light of the size of our economy. However, you and I agree that the gov't should spend only the money it takes in, and likewise only take in the money it needs to run. I'm sure we will disagree on what number that is though...All in all your rhetoric and finger pointing is silly though. You try to blame "the Republicans" but I could equally point out similar issues your democrats preach about but don't do. Do you have a point? Are you a democrat who suddenly values fiscal restraint? What about their precious programs? Will you cut them because of this newfound "fiscal responsibility"? Keep trying though...and I hope you continue with this issue of fiscal responsibility in the future because it's high time the Federal gov't get back to doing what it was charged with doing.
*****
Now as for your other post - I see comprehension still isn't your strong suit so we'll try one more time. Reading it again might help you realize that the exact number in "question" really isn't the issue but is supportive of the argument being made- in this case that farm size in SD is quite large which takes alot of expensive equipment to maintain.
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Well I just deleted a long response to our CKG as I screwed up the formatting.
Bottom line. Only an idiot can't see how it is wrong that people get laid off because business is bad, and the CEO gets a bonus for laying off thousands because HE screwed up. I suppose those out of a job workers are guilty of class envy.
People ought to get their head out of Rushes drug addicted ass with his invented class envy. He is laughing at you all the way to the bank, and you swallow it.
Bottom line. Only an idiot can't see how it is wrong that people get laid off because business is bad, and the CEO gets a bonus for laying off thousands because HE screwed up. I suppose those out of a job workers are guilty of class envy.
People ought to get their head out of Rushes drug addicted ass with his invented class envy. He is laughing at you all the way to the bank, and you swallow it.
Interesting, CkG, that you'd drag forth the "farming family" emotional argument wrt the estate tax, then accuse the other side of using emotional arguments...
Also that you reject the utility of money aspects of tax policy, but offer that a flat tax scenario above a certain income level would be desirable, which seems contradictory. If said utility varies sharply across some arbitrary line, as you seem to suggest, why then would it not continue to vary as income increases to astronomical levels?
And you seem to imply that income from sources other than labor should be taxed at a different, apparently lower, rate. Which is, in the classic supply-side scenario, supposed to increase investment. OTOH, I ask you, what else does a person with income in the tens of millions of dollars actually do with any income left over from living large? Throw it away?
Also that you reject the utility of money aspects of tax policy, but offer that a flat tax scenario above a certain income level would be desirable, which seems contradictory. If said utility varies sharply across some arbitrary line, as you seem to suggest, why then would it not continue to vary as income increases to astronomical levels?
And you seem to imply that income from sources other than labor should be taxed at a different, apparently lower, rate. Which is, in the classic supply-side scenario, supposed to increase investment. OTOH, I ask you, what else does a person with income in the tens of millions of dollars actually do with any income left over from living large? Throw it away?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I read it before you edited it( I almost quoted it to tell you to reformat it). You seemed to have flipped out there for a moment
But anyway - I don't see how your little lay off story has anything to do with this discussion. Isn't that an employment discussion? Why would anger or whatever from being laid off be "class envy"? I don't think I ever said it was. *shrugs*
Rush didn't invent class envy - it's been around for ages - some of you fail to recognize it though and try to make excuses for your hate.
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I read it before you edited it( I almost quoted it to tell you to reformat it). You seemed to have flipped out there for a moment
But anyway - I don't see how your little lay off story has anything to do with this discussion. Isn't that an employment discussion? Why would anger or whatever from being laid off be "class envy"? I don't think I ever said it was. *shrugs*
Rush didn't invent class envy - it's been around for ages - some of you fail to recognize it though and try to make excuses for your hate.
CkG
Funny, because I thought that being envious was defined as seeing what another had, and wanting it for oneself.
That is why it's BS. It' just envy. No more, no less. When people are concerned that OTHERS are getting screwed, it isn't envy by definition. This thread is about the widening income gap. If you look at senior level business management compensation, it's through the roof.
If you look at what someone who works three jobs already has to do to get their kids in school, it's getting harder.
Then there are those who bitch because the ones who get pay raises that many engineer for themselves have to pay more taxes in order for those at the bottom to have a real chance.
You defend the rich, and make sure they have food on the table, and I will do so for those who try but are less fortunate.
BTW, I make more money than you, so kiss my ring
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No, it wasn't an emotional argument bringing them up. It is a real issue because they are affected by a change in that policy. I happen to have lived in farming stated my whole life and have made farming an issue I tune into. I've talked about it many times here but not in great detail - like subsidies for instance. I'd love to see them go away...but it can't be done with the drop of a hat - there needs to be a sustainable market for what farmers produce otherwise there won't be anyone to grow your food
Anyway - it was a real issue and one I'd bring up in any estate tax debate - along with the double taxation issuesYou don't seem to understand the difference in "utility". Again, one is based on the perceived feelings of an individual which aren't measurable and the other in a flat tax or consumption tax you'd be able to measure the utility. His argument using utility has been tried but doesn't work because the utility in his scenario can't be quantified.
Well, sure taxes on things other than labor can be taxed differently - it's done that way now. However, I don't believe we should be taxing labor but I didn't say we should tax other things at a lower rate. It was a valiant try Jhhnn but a swing and a miss.
Now, I'm not sure what you are fishing for with your hypothetical but I presume a person with that size of income would invest it so the economy goes round and roung - don't you think? Now since I answered - please get to the point.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I read it before you edited it( I almost quoted it to tell you to reformat it). You seemed to have flipped out there for a moment
But anyway - I don't see how your little lay off story has anything to do with this discussion. Isn't that an employment discussion? Why would anger or whatever from being laid off be "class envy"? I don't think I ever said it was. *shrugs*
Rush didn't invent class envy - it's been around for ages - some of you fail to recognize it though and try to make excuses for your hate.
CkG
Funny, because I thought that being envious was defined as seeing what another had, and wanting it for oneself.
That is why it's BS. It' just envy. No more, no less. When people are concerned that OTHERS are getting screwed, it isn't envy by definition. This thread is about the widening income gap. If you look at senior level business management compensation, it's through the roof.
If you look at what someone who works three jobs already has to do to get their kids in school, it's getting harder.
Then there are those who bitch because the ones who get pay raises that many engineer for themselves have to pay more taxes in order for those at the bottom to have a real chance.
You defend the rich, and make sure they have food on the table, and I will do so for those who try but are less fortunate.
BTW, I make more money than you, so kiss my ring
I could care less that YOU make more money than I. I don't want to be like you, nor do I think you should have to pay more of your dollar to the gov't because I have less income. I seriously don't understand why some of you don't grasp the concept because it's quite evident in today's society that class envy is alive. Who do people oogle over? "the rich" They want to be "rich" so they have X or can do Y. This poor vs rich argument is classic class envy and it is shown on a daily basis, not only on here but in people's everyday lives.
This isn't about defending the rich either. I don't really care as I said - it's just that the argument for taking more of a dollar from the "rich" isn't based on logic nor is people's hatred of those who command higher positions in the corporate structure. We have people here who constantly whine about the "rich" hurting the "poor" - or can't you see that gramps?
This "concern" for the poor is great from an emotional stand point and a noble cause but for people to constantly whine about how they don't have what the "rich" have as far as opportunity or wealth in life is silly. In your edit you claimed it as asinine(or something like that) to think that people could rise from nothing to millionaires - but you are dead wrong and your boy edwards is living proof. Ofcourse some don't approve of the way he did it, but he did it none the less and there are many others like him. There is a millionaire made everyday and some of the greatest American Dream stories are of people who started from nothing. But to each their own I guess - we can all believe in what we wish...
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I read it before you edited it( I almost quoted it to tell you to reformat it). You seemed to have flipped out there for a moment
But anyway - I don't see how your little lay off story has anything to do with this discussion. Isn't that an employment discussion? Why would anger or whatever from being laid off be "class envy"? I don't think I ever said it was. *shrugs*
Rush didn't invent class envy - it's been around for ages - some of you fail to recognize it though and try to make excuses for your hate.
CkG
Funny, because I thought that being envious was defined as seeing what another had, and wanting it for oneself.
That is why it's BS. It' just envy. No more, no less. When people are concerned that OTHERS are getting screwed, it isn't envy by definition. This thread is about the widening income gap. If you look at senior level business management compensation, it's through the roof.
If you look at what someone who works three jobs already has to do to get their kids in school, it's getting harder.
Then there are those who bitch because the ones who get pay raises that many engineer for themselves have to pay more taxes in order for those at the bottom to have a real chance.
You defend the rich, and make sure they have food on the table, and I will do so for those who try but are less fortunate.
BTW, I make more money than you, so kiss my ring
I could care less that YOU make more money than I. I don't want to be like you, nor do I think you should have to pay more of your dollar to the gov't because I have less income. I seriously don't understand why some of you don't grasp the concept because it's quite evident in today's society that class envy is alive. Who do people oogle over? "the rich" They want to be "rich" so they have X or can do Y. This poor vs rich argument is classic class envy and it is shown on a daily basis, not only on here but in people's everyday lives.
This isn't about defending the rich either. I don't really care as I said - it's just that the argument for taking more of a dollar from the "rich" isn't based on logic nor is people's hatred of those who command higher positions in the corporate structure. We have people here who constantly whine about the "rich" hurting the "poor" - or can't you see that gramps?
This "concern" for the poor is great from an emotional stand point and a noble cause but for people to constantly whine about how they don't have what the "rich" have as far as opportunity or wealth in life is silly. In your edit you claimed it as asinine(or something like that) to think that people could rise from nothing to millionaires - but you are dead wrong and your boy edwards is living proof. Ofcourse some don't approve of the way he did it, but he did it none the less and there are many others like him. There is a millionaire made everyday and some of the greatest American Dream stories are of people who started from nothing. But to each their own I guess - we can all believe in what we wish...
CkG
What I said is that everyone can't be a millionare. It isnt economically possible and you know it.
One of the greatest Americans I know was a woman who worked two jobs. 14 hours a day. She was uneducated, and had NO chance of becoming an Edwards. She had a couple kids and she worked to get them in college with every cent she earned. It wasnt enough, but with public aid, her kids got a college education. You may call her a failure, but she was as great a sucess as Sam Walton or anyone you care to mention. She could NOT have done it without people paying the taxes to make up the difference. When costs are escalating, wages stagnant, and pressure coming to eliminate the help she got because it isn't "fair" then the effort of people like her becomes futile.
It is THESE kinds of people who will get hurt if they don't get a break. It is these I worry about, not someone who sits on their behind looking for a check every month to play the lotto with.
PS although I am your senior, I am not so elderly that I could not kick your ass
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What I said is that everyone can't be a millionare. It isnt economically possible and you know it.
One of the greatest Americans I know was a woman who worked two jobs. 14 hours a day. She was uneducated, and had NO chance of becoming an Edwards. She had a couple kids and she worked to get them in college with every cent she earned. It wasnt enough, but with public aid, her kids got a college education. You may call her a failure, but she was as great a sucess as Sam Walton or anyone you care to mention. She could NOT have done it without people paying the taxes to make up the difference. When costs are escalating, wages stagnant, and pressure coming to eliminate the help she got because it isn't "fair" then the effort of people like her becomes futile.
It is THESE kinds of people who will get hurt if they don't get a break. It is these I worry about, not someone who sits on their behind looking for a check every month to play the lotto with.
PS although I am your senior, I am not so elderly that I could not kick your ass
While your statement might seem true enough, it doesn't mean any single person can't be one, or rise up from poverty to become one.
No, I wouldn't consider her a failure and if she succeeded in her goal then I'd consider her successful. You see old-timer - money isn't everything to everyone as you know. Some desire monetary wealth and others desire other "wealth". That fact doesn't change things though and doesn't help the argument about the "gap", nor does it change the fact that taking more of one person's earned dollar isn't correct.
While it is an wildly entertaining thought to have you flailing about trying to kick my ass, I think such a confrontation is unnecessary(unless we make it a pay per view for the P&N folks).
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What I said is that everyone can't be a millionare. It isnt economically possible and you know it.
One of the greatest Americans I know was a woman who worked two jobs. 14 hours a day. She was uneducated, and had NO chance of becoming an Edwards. She had a couple kids and she worked to get them in college with every cent she earned. It wasnt enough, but with public aid, her kids got a college education. You may call her a failure, but she was as great a sucess as Sam Walton or anyone you care to mention. She could NOT have done it without people paying the taxes to make up the difference. When costs are escalating, wages stagnant, and pressure coming to eliminate the help she got because it isn't "fair" then the effort of people like her becomes futile.
It is THESE kinds of people who will get hurt if they don't get a break. It is these I worry about, not someone who sits on their behind looking for a check every month to play the lotto with.
PS although I am your senior, I am not so elderly that I could not kick your ass
While your statement might seem true enough, it doesn't mean any single person can't be one, or rise up from poverty to become one.
No, I wouldn't consider her a failure and if she succeeded in her goal then I'd consider her successful. You see old-timer - money isn't everything to everyone as you know. Some desire monetary wealth and others desire other "wealth". That fact doesn't change things though and doesn't help the argument about the "gap", nor does it change the fact that taking more of one person's earned dollar isn't correct.
While it is an wildly entertaining thought to have you flailing about trying to kick my ass, I think such a confrontation is unnecessary(unless we make it a pay per view for the P&N folks).
CkG
Hmm, it certainly seems amusing to consider the event. The till might be respectable too.
One word of warning though. I carried a 400 lb jointer up my basement stairs by myself the other day.
Yeah, I hurt
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Hmm, it certainly seems amusing to consider the event. The till might be respectable too.
One word of warning though. I carried a 400 lb jointer up my basement stairs by myself the other day.
Yeah, I hurt
Well, in that case it's off - I wouldn't want some injury or preexisting "hurt" to be used as an excuse ...wuss
CkG
Cad, your arguments aren't even worth the time to answer them. You are so brainwashed that I give up on talking to you about this. It's quite simple, I'm right and your wrong, but you just don't want to see it.
Luckily for the American people, we have elections every so often so we can get rid of pinheads like Bush. Once he gets ousted you will have plenty of time to reflect and wonder exactly why. Maybe then you will aquire the insight into human nature that you seem to be lacking at this point. Or not, I guess I have other things to worry about.
I just think it's a shame that the Republican Party has deteriorated to what it now represents. I used to be a Republican and proud of it, but now I'm ashamed to admit having ever been one. It isn't me that changed either, it was the Party that changed. It just got greedy and corrupt until I could no longer stand it.
I sure wish we had a better choice then Kerry, but he will have to do because everything that Bush has done so far is obviously slanted to favor the rich and powerful. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.
Luckily for the American people, we have elections every so often so we can get rid of pinheads like Bush. Once he gets ousted you will have plenty of time to reflect and wonder exactly why. Maybe then you will aquire the insight into human nature that you seem to be lacking at this point. Or not, I guess I have other things to worry about.
I just think it's a shame that the Republican Party has deteriorated to what it now represents. I used to be a Republican and proud of it, but now I'm ashamed to admit having ever been one. It isn't me that changed either, it was the Party that changed. It just got greedy and corrupt until I could no longer stand it.
I sure wish we had a better choice then Kerry, but he will have to do because everything that Bush has done so far is obviously slanted to favor the rich and powerful. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.
think of it as incentive for those who do poorly in life to try and achieve a bit more. they can only be victims of circumstance for so long.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter