A gentleman with a grasp of the problem.

The poor pay very little if any tax, the middle class more than the poor, the wealthy should pay more than the middle class and the "ultra rich" should pay more than the wealthy.

Craig, in one post you defend the ultra rich, say that the ultra rich should not pay their fair share, you say take social security and health care from middle class retired folks. but to not touch the ultra wealthy. The need their billions!

Then you use the words "fat lazy, sugar daddy and lazy pricks" to describe the defenders of the middle class.

Talk about not being able to grasp the problem, you are clueless!
Wow Jim Quite the spin you put on my words, almost sounds like something you heard on CNN....... You aint one of them "fat lazy guys" are you jim?
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
What is enough? Anyone can work hard and amass wealth, look at the work ethic of the Mexican Americans, I know a lot of people that started from scratch that are wealthy. Obama talks about when enough is enough, that's not stopping him from getting wealthy. What exactly is enough? If you work 80 hours a week until your 80 years old and have an indoor pool full of cash that you do the backstroke in, God bless you. Or are you supposed to give some of it to someone that sits around partying with his finger up his butt until he is 55 years old and wakes up to find that he has no retirement. Please don't tell me that you get rewarded for being a fuckup! You should be able to help people out, but it's not the government's place to make that decision for you.

Well Al, I don't know about the U.S. but certainly in good old OZ people get rewarded for being fuck ups. And similar to the U.S. hand wringing socialists want to rob from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood has a lot to answer for.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
What is enough? Anyone can work hard and amass wealth, look at the work ethic of the Mexican Americans, I know a lot of people that started from scratch that are wealthy. Obama talks about when enough is enough, that's not stopping him from getting wealthy. What exactly is enough? If you work 80 hours a week until your 80 years old and have an indoor pool full of cash that you do the backstroke in, God bless you. Or are you supposed to give some of it to someone that sits around partying with his finger up his butt until he is 55 years old and wakes up to find that he has no retirement. Please don't tell me that you get rewarded for being a fuckup! You should be able to help people out, but it's not the government's place to make that decision for you.

I've said it before, will say it again:

A bit of compassion for those less fortunate than you is not a character deficit.

However, having said that, I'll repeat another thing that I frequently say:

GREED is one of the 7 deadly sins....

That guy who sat around drinking beer with his finger up his butt until he was 55 is not representative of the average "poor" American, Al, and you know it....any more than Bill Gates' generosity is representative of the average "wealthy" American.

Surely there has to be a middle ground somewhere....without relying on the almost non-existent middle class to bail the entire country out, no?

Cheers from Doug!!
 
Some of my thoughts on the matter, in no particular order.

  • This country is more politically and idealogically polarized than it has been since the civil war. That's not a good historical precedent.
  • Career politicians (and the media) are fostering this ideological divide to their personal benefit and they are ruining this country. The populace is too busy watching American Idol to vote the bums out. We need term limits.
  • The left has been buying votes from the poor and paying them off with what has become an unsustainable welfare state. Currently, 47% of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. I don't care how poor people are, everybody should feel the pain that comes from paying income tax...we need to rewrite the tax code so that everybody pays at least 2%. No exceptions.
  • Big business and the right have been buying votes through lobbyists, and money talks. I respect the ability of people to work hard and succeed and I believe they should keep a large share of what they earn, but I don't think it's fair that hedge fund billionaires effectively pay a 15% tax rate (capital gains) because they are good at gaming the financial markets while I bust my ass running my own business and most other working stiffs pay a marginal tax rate of something like 24% (not sure what my rate actually is, but I know it's higher than the capital gains rate).
  • We need a balanced budget amendment and federal spending should be capped somewhere between 18%-20% of GDP, which is where it has historically been. Our current federal spending rate of almost 25% of GDP, with 42% of our revenues borrowed (much from the Chinese) is clearly not sustainable.
  • One way to fix this mess and get the sheeple to wake the hell up would be to ban the practice of automatic witholding of taxes from paychecks. If all American citizens had to write a check to the IRS every quarter like I do and other small business owners do this ship would be righted in short order.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before, will say it again:

A bit of compassion for those less fortunate than you is not a character deficit.

However, having said that, I'll repeat another thing that I frequently say:

GREED is one of the 7 deadly sins....

That guy who sat around drinking beer with his finger up his butt until he was 55 is not representative of the average "poor" American, Al, and you know it....any more than Bill Gates' generosity is representative of the average "wealthy" American.

Surely there has to be a middle ground somewhere....without relying on the almost non-existent middle class to bail the entire country out, no?

Cheers from Doug!!

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article puts the middle class between 25% and 66% depending on the model used, that's far from non existent. If you are Bill Gates, it's easy to throw a quarter of a billion here and there, it represents about .0042 of his wealth. That's like someone with a million dollar worth giving $4,200 a year. I think Americans for the most part are charitable. I don't think the government should make the choice of how much and when. If I want to burn it to keep warm, it should be my choice.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Mark, You said that 47% of Americans pay no Fereral taxes!

This is from "Fact Check.org:

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 38 percent of "tax units" — which can be singles, couples, or families — are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less.
However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you’re exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

So to say that 47% of Americans pay no Federal income tax is disingenuous at best.
 
Last edited:

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I think Americans for the most part are charitable. I don't think the government should make the choice of how much and when. If I want to burn it to keep warm, it should be my choice.

We're not talking about charitible contributions here, Al....we're talking about funding the operations of our country. I agree, charitible contributions ought to be at the giver's discretion...no doubt.

However, funding the government should not be at the INDIVIDUAL's discretion. Those decisions are a governmental decision, and that's the crux of what our discussion is about.

Politicians are faced every day with decisions that will positively and adversely affect all their constituents....give the poor more "welfare" and the rich, who don't need welfare, suffer. Give the rich more tax breaks and the poor, who can't afford their own corporate jet, suffer. IMHO, what the politicians ought to do is make the choice based on what is best for the MAJORITY of their constituents, not on what their party leadership says they must do. That's no way to budget for the operation of any country....the U.S.A. included.

If, however, we're talking about reducing outlays that have diminishing returns, how about cutting off the "financial aid" we give many 3rd world countries. We did, at one time, need the aliegance of some of those countries, when we were in a "cold war"....now, it's just like "welfare", those who get it think they need it, and need more of it every year. We give $$ to countries and all the wihile we are at a place where our government might not be able to borrow more????? Why are we borrowing when we are giving away a single penny to other countries?

That's just one of the governmental budgetary decisions I take exception with....but helping people who work for minimum wage (or, even less, as in the food service industry....yep, that's the guys and gals who wait on your tables!!) try to put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table, simple survival issues, sure seems to be more important than giving the oil companies tax subsidies that they don't really NEED to survive or giving the rich corporation executives tax breaks so they have $$ to buy their own corporate jets....nope, those don't seem near as important to me.

As for the Mexicans you mentioned....I was married into a Hispanic family for 17 years, found them all to be hard working individuals, but not a one of them (and you know they do tend to have large families) was what I would consider wealthy. Your hispanic friends who made themselves rich are the exception, not the norm, and I sincerely doubt they worked any harder than my former in-laws. You're right....they were in the right place at the right time, got lucky.....hard work was a part of it, but I can't imagine they could have worked harder than my in-laws.

People are important to me, Al.....more important than making sure you or any other wealthy individual gets to keep enough of their money that they can swim in it. Remember "Scrooge" from the comic books.....tossing his money into the air and squealing with ecstasy as it rained down on him? That doesn't appear greedy to you? It sure does to me, especially when I know hard working people who barely make enough to support their families, even with some assistance from those "charitable" organizations like food pantries that are not funded by our government.

Yet we still give "foreign aid" to Pakistan.....even Pakistan said it didn't need the $800M that the POTUS cut out of their "windfall" at the expense of our taxpayers.

It's all priorities, Al....yours seems to be accumilation (not that there is anything exceptionally wrong with that, it's just not exceptionally right, IMHO).

Cheers, and agreement that we can disagree, from Doug!!
 
We're not talking about charitible contributions here, Al....we're talking about funding the operations of our country. I agree, charitible contributions ought to be at the giver's discretion...no doubt.

However, funding the government should not be at the INDIVIDUAL's discretion. Those decisions are a governmental decision, and that's the crux of what our discussion is about.

Politicians are faced every day with decisions that will positively and adversely affect all their constituents....give the poor more "welfare" and the rich, who don't need welfare, suffer. Give the rich more tax breaks and the poor, who can't afford their own corporate jet, suffer. IMHO, what the politicians ought to do is make the choice based on what is best for the MAJORITY of their constituents, not on what their party leadership says they must do. That's no way to budget for the operation of any country....the U.S.A. included.

If, however, we're talking about reducing outlays that have diminishing returns, how about cutting off the "financial aid" we give many 3rd world countries. We did, at one time, need the aliegance of some of those countries, when we were in a "cold war"....now, it's just like "welfare", those who get it think they need it, and need more of it every year. We give $$ to countries and all the wihile we are at a place where our government might not be able to borrow more????? Why are we borrowing when we are giving away a single penny to other countries?

That's just one of the governmental budgetary decisions I take exception with....but helping people who work for minimum wage (or, even less, as in the food service industry....yep, that's the guys and gals who wait on your tables!!) try to put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table, simple survival issues, sure seems to be more important than giving the oil companies tax subsidies that they don't really NEED to survive or giving the rich corporation executives tax breaks so they have $$ to buy their own corporate jets....nope, those don't seem near as important to me.

As for the Mexicans you mentioned....I was married into a Hispanic family for 17 years, found them all to be hard working individuals, but not a one of them (and you know they do tend to have large families) was what I would consider wealthy. Your hispanic friends who made themselves rich are the exception, not the norm, and I sincerely doubt they worked any harder than my former in-laws. You're right....they were in the right place at the right time, got lucky.....hard work was a part of it, but I can't imagine they could have worked harder than my in-laws.

People are important to me, Al.....more important than making sure you or any other wealthy individual gets to keep enough of their money that they can swim in it. Remember "Scrooge" from the comic books.....tossing his money into the air and squealing with ecstasy as it rained down on him? That doesn't appear greedy to you? It sure does to me, especially when I know hard working people who barely make enough to support their families, even with some assistance from those "charitable" organizations like food pantries that are not funded by our government.

Yet we still give "foreign aid" to Pakistan.....even Pakistan said it didn't need the $800M that the POTUS cut out of their "windfall" at the expense of our taxpayers.

It's all priorities, Al....yours seems to be accumilation (not that there is anything exceptionally wrong with that, it's just not exceptionally right, IMHO).

Cheers, and agreement that we can disagree, from Doug!!
Al.. this liberal mind set that Doug has is a destructive liberty crushing way of thinking that you will never be able to penetrate...the only way to defeat this greedy socialistic thinking is at the ballot box;)
 
Jim seeing you're so good at collecting statistics, do me a favor and find out in comparison what kind of $ the "big fat greedy union thugs" are dumping into Wisconsin's recall elections vs us tax payers?? I'm just curious
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Gee Craig,

I Googled "big fat greedy, donations and Wisconsin"' all I found was the Koch billionaire brothers donating big dollars so Republicans can attack teachers.

Craig, you really think that unions could match the Koch brothers in donation and GREED!

You have no idea what is going on!

********

But luckily, big fat greedy donators do not vote, PEOPLE vote, and you are going down!

********

You can fool all the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time........

But Craig, you tried to fool the good folks of Wisconsin and you got caught!
 
Last edited:
We're not talking about charitible contributions here, Al....we're talking about funding the operations of our country. I agree, charitible contributions ought to be at the giver's discretion...no doubt.

However, funding the government should not be at the INDIVIDUAL's discretion. Those decisions are a governmental decision, and that's the crux of what our discussion is about.

Politicians are faced every day with decisions that will positively and adversely affect all their constituents....give the poor more "welfare" and the rich, who don't need welfare, suffer. Give the rich more tax breaks and the poor, who can't afford their own corporate jet, suffer. IMHO, what the politicians ought to do is make the choice based on what is best for the MAJORITY of their constituents, not on what their party leadership says they must do. That's no way to budget for the operation of any country....the U.S.A. included.

If, however, we're talking about reducing outlays that have diminishing returns, how about cutting off the "financial aid" we give many 3rd world countries. We did, at one time, need the aliegance of some of those countries, when we were in a "cold war"....now, it's just like "welfare", those who get it think they need it, and need more of it every year. We give $$ to countries and all the wihile we are at a place where our government might not be able to borrow more????? Why are we borrowing when we are giving away a single penny to other countries?

That's just one of the governmental budgetary decisions I take exception with....but helping people who work for minimum wage (or, even less, as in the food service industry....yep, that's the guys and gals who wait on your tables!!) try to put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table, simple survival issues, sure seems to be more important than giving the oil companies tax subsidies that they don't really NEED to survive or giving the rich corporation executives tax breaks so they have $$ to buy their own corporate jets....nope, those don't seem near as important to me.

As for the Mexicans you mentioned....I was married into a Hispanic family for 17 years, found them all to be hard working individuals, but not a one of them (and you know they do tend to have large families) was what I would consider wealthy. Your hispanic friends who made themselves rich are the exception, not the norm, and I sincerely doubt they worked any harder than my former in-laws. You're right....they were in the right place at the right time, got lucky.....hard work was a part of it, but I can't imagine they could have worked harder than my in-laws.

People are important to me, Al.....more important than making sure you or any other wealthy individual gets to keep enough of their money that they can swim in it. Remember "Scrooge" from the comic books.....tossing his money into the air and squealing with ecstasy as it rained down on him? That doesn't appear greedy to you? It sure does to me, especially when I know hard working people who barely make enough to support their families, even with some assistance from those "charitable" organizations like food pantries that are not funded by our government.

Yet we still give "foreign aid" to Pakistan.....even Pakistan said it didn't need the $800M that the POTUS cut out of their "windfall" at the expense of our taxpayers.

It's all priorities, Al....yours seems to be accumilation (not that there is anything exceptionally wrong with that, it's just not exceptionally right, IMHO).

Cheers, and agreement that we can disagree, from Doug!!

When the government learns how to manage a budget then maybe the rich should give them some. I certainly would not want to give those illegitimate children any of my hard earned cash to piss away if I was wealthy.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Doug,

I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong place, compassion is not part of the modern Republican party. Selfish and greedy are the new words to live by.

Do you remember G W Bush's campaign slogan:

"COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM"

As if he had to explain that conservatives are not inherently compassionate.

Just one more time when BushII miss lead us.
 
Last edited:
Doug,

I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong place, compassion is not part of the modern Republican party. Selfish and greedy are the new words to live by.

Do you remember G W Bush's campaign slogan:

"COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM"

As if he had to explain that conservatives are not inherently compassionate.

Just one more time when BushII miss lead us.
well although I voted for Bush, the lesser of two evils he was far from a conservative, he was a wolf in sheep's clothing......but i did support his war effort..............I'm talking about the war that Obamaa said we would be out of hahahahahaha what a fricking knuckle head:laugh:
 
Jim, I made a mistake on using BHO and didn't clarify my definition as well as I should have. These numbers will prove what I said:
$14.8 T - Total US Economy

$ 3.7 T - Federal Government spending
$ 3.0 T - State and local government
$ 6.7 T - total government cost

$ 8.1 T - private sector

The federal government is 45% of the private sector and that's what I meant.
The total government spending is 83%.

You can go to Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local 2011 - Charts Tables History to verify the numbers.

And I take back you won that one.
 
Doug and Jim, don't worry too much. One would hope that selfish tight arsed twats get their just desserts. Here's the perfect quote from A Christmas Carol:-

Ebenezer: Who are you?
Jacob Marley: Ask me who I was.
Ebenezer: All right, all right, who WERE you then?
Jacob Marley: In life, I was your partner, Jacob Marley.
Ebenezer: Well, in that case, CAN you sit down?
Jacob Marley: I can.

Ebenezer: You see that toothpick?
Jacob Marley: I do.
Ebenezer: But you're not looking at it!
Jacob Marley: Yet I see it, notwithstanding.
Ebenezer: Well, then, I'll just swallow this and be tortured by a legion of hobgoblins, all of my own creation! It's all HUMBUG, I tell you, HUMBUG!


Ebenezer: What do you want with me?
Jacob Marley: Much.

Jacob Marley: It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow men! If it goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death! It is doomed to wander through the world! Oh, woe is me! And witness what it cannot share but MIGHT HAVE SHARED on Earth and turned to happiness!

Jacob Marley: I wear the chain I forged in life! I made it link by link and yard by yard! I gartered it on of my own free will and by my own free will, I wore it!

Jacob Marley: In life, my spirit never rose beyond the limits of our money-changing holes! Now I am doomed to wander without rest or peace, incessant torture and remorse!
Ebenezer: But it was only that you were a good man of business, Jacob!
Jacob Marley: BUSINESS? Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business! And it is at this time of the rolling year that I suffer most!

On a personal note, I earn a resonable amount of money, and would be considered middle class in many respects. However my social conscience dictates that I should pay towards those more needy than me. And no, I don't use crass arguments like "When the government can handle my money, the I'll give it to them gladly", because then you might as well keep it, as ALL governments fuck up most of the time.

Rampant Conservatism is as deadly as rampant Communism and the TEA party seem to me to be extraordinarily selfish. It's interesting to note that no extra taxes have been levied on the rich. Am I right in thinking that this was the ony way that the GOP would sign up to the debt extension?

The Super rich need to pay more taxes. Simple. And that goes for my country as well as yours.
 
Back
Top