You're what, nineteen? There was supposed to be this huge change when
the Republicans came in. No change. If a Democratic President is
elected this time around (which seems unlikely--the Democrats seem to
be determined to shoot themselves in the foot and Nader has decided to
stick his nose in it again) you think that there's going to be some
huge change in our society?
They are politicians. They behave like politicians. The party
doesn't matter--the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is
in the lies they tell, not in the actions they take.
So you don't object to NRA-ILA? Why do I find that surprising.
Uh huh. Same old tired rhetoric. Find a way to do it. You can't?
But you think that a bunch of politicans can?
Could I interest you in voting for Barack Obama, then? I mean,
since it doesn't matter, what could it hurt?
I am a member of the NRA. Why would I object to it?
I think that it can be done. But it can't be just the
politicians. It has to be all of us, or at least most of us.
Have you noticed that there is a lot more participation in
politics this year? In some places it has increased 10 fold. I
find that to be a good sign.
Didn't say leaving, said "quitting" As in, those 50-60 hour weeks aren't
worth it; I'm going to work 40 hours like everybody else, the company can
figure out how to deal with the decreased productivity, it's not worth
giving up the family time if 60+% of what I do in that extra effort is
going to taxes anyway.
Yeah, I can't wait.
Yep, voting us the treasury. Good move.
You really are a condescending and arrogant @$$hole, aren't you? I never
said that I don't believe in helping people, you have no idea what I do or
do not contribute to charitable causes. HERE'S A BIG CLUE FOR YOU:
GOVERNMENT IS NOT A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION! It's not charity when you are
using other peoples' money. Since you are making arrogant assumptions
about me, I'll do the same for you, I bet you pay very little in federal
income taxes and you really want the rest of us to pick up your benefits.
Government is not a charitable organization. When laws are established, it
ought to be from a guiding philosophical basis, not because it "feels good"
or seems compassionate at the time.
What makes no sense is your idea that "the people" can pick and choose
among various intrusive statist policies. Here's a clue, statism, at first
is done ostensibly under the guise of improving the lot of the "people",
who could object to that after all? I mean, if you object you are labeled
as someone who doesn't want to help those in need and if people can't
survive on their own they should die. So, the people who object on
principle and philosophically are marginalized as mean and uncaring and
the "compassionate" policies are implemented. Then, after those policies
are implemented and the real costs can no longer be hidden, statism starts
implementing rationing and various policies for the "benefit of the people"
in order to keep costs down so taxes don't incite a revolution. Great
Britain's health care system is approaching that point. Statism starts
extending into what you eat, what you drink, the kinds of activities in
which you can participate. At some point, even that becomes untenable and
you have the state taking even greater control in order to preserve its
Your position sounds good, feels good, and is going to lead us all off the
cliff into totalitarianism. It's been done before, been proven to happen
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Good for you! I wish that I could cut back to just sixty, but I
own my own business and I have to keep at it.
Did you vote for them?
Asshole? You bet! I don't suffer fools gladly. Sorry if that
impinges on your rigid little world. Don't like having your
positions questioned? Don't post them.
The government is a government, not a charity. It has programs
that provide INSURANCE against total deprivation when bad things
happen. Like your auto insurance or your home insurance. That
is not charity. You don't like the programs that provide that
insurance. Tell us why. Don't drag out your arcane concepts
designed to frighten the uninformed. Stop appealing to the baser
instincts and appeal to reason.
Correct, again. It does provide some insurance programs, though.
And how about we guide the government along MY philosophical
basis? Why does it have to be yours?
Statists! Statism! Those are scary terms alright! That is a
scary picture you are painting. Designed, of course, to frighten
the hell out of people. Fortunately, this is the 21st century
and the Berlin Wall has fallen.
We have seen that socialism/communism in all its forms does not
work. We are not heading in that direction and noone in his/her
right mind would want to go there. Capitalism is king. Even
china is becoming a mixed economic system because there is NO WAY
the Chinese can deny that it works. For you to suggest that that
is what I want is the heighth of arrogance and stupidity.
But, is our system perfect? No. It is a system by which there is
only one basis for determining value; profit. So things that
may be good for you, but are not profitable have no value. Do
the National Parks make money? No, in fact they are a burden to
maintain and operate, but they add to our quality of life. How
about clean air or water? Is it profitable to make companies
spend billions of dollars so that they pollute less? No. But it
sure does add to the quality of life for those that live in their
vicinity. These things add to our general welfare.
Does providing an insurance system against starvation, loss of
health, or loss of youth seem to be a profitable enterprise?
Yes! And there are companies out there that provide it. Can
everyone afford that coverage? No. What do we do about them?
Your doom and gloom scenario that says that helping them through
a system where we all give a little to provide a minimum of
coverage is going to lead us all behind the Iron Curtain is just
This is not the 1900s. We have come a long way from the days
where a communist state is inevitable. How many new kingdoms do
you see being set up these days? I think that we are past having
to worry about a king taking control of our country.
You know, this took me aback for a bit and I was about to call
shenanigans; I know of few, scratch that, no independent business people
who would espouse the "tax me more", "I want a government that is free to
write whatever regulations it wants to" views you have put forth in this
thread. Then it struck me, you want the rest of *us* to pay for *your*
health care plan. So it comes down to you wanting your neighbors to pay
for your benefits.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Personal responsibility goes both ways. I pay for my own health
care plans and everything else. I believe that we should help
our fellow man when he is in need and I am willing to pay for
that. (You never know, I may just need it myself one day).
I am also responsible for both the democratic spending in
congress and the MASSIVE republican spending in congress. My
kids had nothing to do with it. It happened on my watch, and I
should be responsible for paying it back. Not them.
What is so hard to understand about that?
It is called personal responsibility. You can't just stop it at
your own front door. It extends farther than that.
What you say would make some sense if we were not paying for billions of
dollars in wasteful projects that are solely for the profit of some
lobbyist's employer. Government spending is out of control on most every
level and every program.
Yes, but we allowed it. Either through apathy or ignorance. We
are responsible for our government. I am all for letting the
ones that benefitted from it the most, pay for it. But I sure
don't want to leave it as my childrens inheritance.
Unfortunately true, and most of the politicians are proud of it. If we
could get wasteful government spending halfway under control, there
would be more than enough money for universal health care without
further taxation. As it is, we're always finding ways to get new money
in taxes because there is constant government theft going on. And,
yeah, it IS theft for someone to arrange for Halliburton to get no-bid
contracts which they then do not fulfil properly, even though they
charge prices six steps above premium. Halliburton comes to mind for
obvious reasons, but the list is thousands of companies long. Buy-a-
politician-week, each month. Special sale.
Uh huh, and then forces people to pay the "insurance". When the Mafia
does that it's illegal. So why should the government be allowed to do
One can opt out of both, car insurance by putting a cash amount in
escrow or just not driving and homeowners by self-insuring. How do
you get out of the government-mandated "health insurance" (as in "if
you don't pay this insurance it will be very bad for your health")?
Because the payments are extorted from people who don't benefit from
Because you favor theft.
What of it? The collapse of the Soviet Union didn't end "statism".
If you think it did then you are a bigger fool than I thought you
And yet you want yet more of it.
Then quit advocating socialist institutions.
Kind of hard to make precision devices with sick workers and dirty air
and water. So these things _are_ good for business. Parks give
workers a way to recharge so that they remain productive, again good
We figure out what's wrong with them that keeps them from getting work
and we fix it so that they become productive members of society. We
don't just throw money at them.
Yeah, it's always "we all give a _little_. But somehow the
politicians can't ever limit themselves to that "little".
A Roman would have said that around 100 BC. A German would have in
the '20s. Looks like you have no more sense of history than you do of
Oh! An insult! Weren't you the guy on the debate team that
tried to win by saying: "Well, FUCK YOU!"
Because we decided as a society that it was the right thing to
do, and gave them permission.
You can do your own medical work.
Are you not a member of this society? Did your side not win the
debate? Maybe you should try putting forth valid debating points
next time instead of insults.
Yes, that applies to me, too.
Then have me arrested.
Another insult. Remember where that got you in your debate
against those programs you hate so much.
Care to show me a place where communism is on the rise?
You have an error in your perception. I want none of it.
How can I quit doing something that I have never done?
Absolutely! A part of that damned old "general welfare"
communist plot. Or do you favor not having to fund those things
And we all pay for a share of doing that.
Then get out there and vote them out of office.
Are the germans being ruled by a king?
And a roman would have been wrong, THEN! I don't think that a
roman saying that today would be considered a fool. Looks like
YOUR sense of history needs a bit of an update.
A republic may take many forms. A representative Democracy
is the form used by the United States.
'Representative Republic' is a term that is new to me.
Doh! The top 50% of income earners are also earning
a lot more than 86% of all income. I'll bet they also use
a lot more than 86% of all government infrastructure and
resources though that would be a LOT tougher to
Even with a flat tax the upper 50% are gong to pay more
income tax than the lower.
I meant Federal Republic; i.e. a republic of states in which the states
are the members of the republic. The founders were rightly concerned that
a representative democracy would lead to the condition we have today where
the "majority" would be able to elect leaders who would take from one
segment of society to give to themselves. i.e., DeTouqueville's concern
with the "people voting themselves the treasury" is becoming a reality.
Need to issue a correction to the above. The top 50% does not pay 86% of
all federal taxes, it pays 97% of all income taxes. I was looking at the
wrong lines in my source document.
Doh yourself! The top 50% earns 87% of all income and pays 96% of all
income taxes (see correction above). From the IRS statistics for 2005
(last year available)
Top % %of Federal Income Tax paid % of Income
1 39.4% 21.2%
5 60.0% 35.8%
10 70.3% 46.4%
50 96.9% 87.1%
So, it is pretty apparent that the upper levels of income are paying
disproportionately larger amounts of the federal burden relative to their
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
And they should. It is the benefits/payment ratio that is most
often overlooked in our tax system. When Halliburton gets a
multibillion dollar contract in Iraq, our tax dollars go to pay
for that. Halliburton, its board of directors, its stock holders
all benefit greatly from this windfall of money from our
government. Yet, the guy that works down at the convenience
store doesn't benefit at all. When we go to war, the military
contractors make a lot of money, we don't. When the government
passed legislation for SS drug benefits, it built in a non
negotiation with the drug companies over drug costs. Who wins?
The drug companies. Since the wealthy are the ones that benefit
the most from these large programs, they should be the ones to
pay for them.
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:52:17 -0700, Mark & Juanita
Doncha love statistics?
According to the IRS, for tax year 2005, the top 50% paid 96.93% of
federal personal income tax whilst having merely 87.17% of the AGI
(adj gross income).
The income threshold to get into that top 50% was -- $30,881.
Boy, I bet Joe Schmoe making his 30 grand is glad to be in the company
of Bill Gates in at least one category!
Go read some James Madison - he spoke quite specifically about
the General Welfare clause - it is NOT and was NOT intended to
be a "get out of jail free" card for government action.
Specifically, Madison pointed out that this clause should NOT
be read as an abrogation of enumerated rights. But ... it doesn't
matter any more. You and the rest of the do-gooders want lots and
lots of government. You got it. Don't whine when they peek in
your bedroom, your boardroom, your wallet, and you life. You're
getting what you asked for.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
I have read:
The Federalist Papers
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
James Madison: A Biography
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by
Do you know of any good ones?
Have you read anything from the writings of those who opposed his
ideas? People like Hamilton, Franklin, Edmund Randolph, George
Mason, George Pinckney, Governor Morris, or Roger Sherman? You
know, some of the other founding fathers?
Or do you just read passages from those with ideas similar to
Tim, did you ever see anywhere that I have supported any of the actions
you mention above? IIRC, my comments have been something along the lines
of "letting Kennedy write his education plan" and some of the other
comments similar to yours. Why do you think the Republicans lost in 2006,
because they had become Democrat Lite. Why would people wanting handouts
vote for fake democrats when they could vote for the real thing?
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.