Today’s tax filing deadline likely has reminded millions of Americans of the complexity of our nation’s tax system. President Bush said that simplifying the tax code was a priority of his second term, but that isn’t going anywhere — and is unlikely to, given his other political problems. Too bad. There is a grassroots movement in support of a national sales tax, though there are concerns about how that might shift the tax burden and create black markets. A flat tax is another option, though that could mean that some wealthy investors end up paying very little in taxes, if their investment income is no longer taxed. Still, billions of dollars are spent each year on tax preparation and compliance costs. It would be nice to put that money to better use.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
57 Comments
Fifty percent of your income taxes are war taxes.
“Entitlements” have very little to do with it because the two biggest entitlements we have, Social Security and Medicare, both have their own dedicated tax.
The United States will soon spend more on war than all the other countries of the world combined–more than 50 percent of the military spending for less than 5 percent of the world’s population.
If you want to lower taxes, you have to lower the spending for your biggest item–the military.
Lets cut military spending so that we will no longer have the ability to have any influence in the world or have any ability to wage a war any where in the world…
Let’s cut taxes while boosting military spending, creating huge deficits in the process. We did it before, and nobody minded!
Less is more.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Lets cut military spending so that we will no longer have the ability to have any influence in the world or have any ability to wage a war any where in the world…
Posted by: Nathan | April 17, 2006 at 12:51 AMWe no longer have any influence Nathan, military or none. Your President has seen to that. We can not even defeat a bunch of half -azzed, ill trained insurgents. Or so it appear to the world, little alone any one of real importants. On top of that no one would believe Bush&Co. if there were smoke and flames coming from the second floor of the White house and they called the fire department.
Writerdog,
“We no longer have any influence Nathan, military or none.”
Hasty generalization. I would argue we still have plenty of influence in the world. What exactly is it that you think having a military presence in South Korea, Japan, South America, and Africa does?
“We can not even defeat a bunch of half -azzed, ill trained insurgents.”
Sure we can. We have been defeating them left and right for the past several years. You belittle the actions of all those men and women who have honorably served in the war on terror with your statement.
“Or so it appear to the world, little alone any one of real importants.”
I will assume you meant: let instead of little and importance inteaed of importants…
Oh goody! Nathan has learned a new term!
Hasty generalization!
Rush, or Sean?
Bush has made major changes in the tax code for the benefit of the country.
The ultra-rich have received tax cuts.
Oil companies have enjoyed huge profits and tax breaks.
The middle class has seen their tax burden rise.
And all of this has allowed us to move from a budget surplus to the largest ever budget deficit.
Bush tax policy is great – if you’re an ultra rich white man or a business that gives money to the Republican party.
J,
Did you cut and paste that directly from the democratic underground?
“Your president has seen to that”.
Quite the line..it encompasses several thoughts:
1) That GW is not president of anyone who doesn’t support him;2) That people who voted for him are to ‘blame’, and people who did not are completely blameless for the current state of affairs.3) That each person that did vote for GW is personally responsible for the president’s actions since taking office.
Shall we discuss those one at a time? Such as, he is POTUS, regardless of who did/did not vote for him. So, he is not ‘your’ or ‘my’ president.
The people that voted for him could not have foreseen this quagmire, but at the time he appeared to be a better choice, or at least the lesser of two evils. Forecasting the future is not possible, and is not nearly as easy as 20-20 hindsight.
Maybe the people who didn’t vote for him are to ‘blame’ for not working harder to get Kerry elected?
Anyway..this assignment of “your president” just ain’t gonna fly. As long as you live in this country, he is OUR President..something a lot of us are liking less as each day goes on, but it is a current fact.
Washington’s idea of a tax cut: For every twenty five cent of tax on a dollar, the employer only holds out fifteen cent. There by you have the other ten cent in your pocket. Then at the end of the year you have to come up with the other ten cent. Or did they call that a tax break? Gee in the math class I was in it was call robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Entitlement programs are the largest expenditure.
I’m a big supporter of the Fair Tax and what it would do for economic freedom in this country. I believe that the proper role of government is not to get in the way of people’s lives. Sometimes is necessary for that intrusion, but those are limited instances.
The current method of taxation is intrusive, hinders economic development, and is rigged to benefit the politically connected. If I can leave my children anything I hope it is a legacy of no income taxes, never handling a W-4/W-9/W2, nor will they know the disappointment of getting a paycheck minus withholding.
In my book, the most important service the federal government provides its people is a defense against other nations. The reason all of us have a right to contribute to these boards today is that our forefathers fought King George, Adolph Hitler and anyone else who wanted to take our freedoms away. Sometimes diplomacy doesn’t work and you simply have to kick some ass. No one has kicked ass as methodically and overwhelmingly as the United States military. I would like to keep it that way. I would like to keep my freedoms as well. Look someplace else to cut the budget, not the only thing that earned our freedom and maintains it to this day.
Okay, so with that being said, I believe Joe mentioned entitlement programs. We have too many people in this country today that use government as a crutch. Generations of Americans in the past were tough, individualistic, self-reliant. Today, we look to government first to bail us out when something goes wrong (lose our job, don’t save enough for retirement, etc). Maybe we need to ditch some of these social programs; give a little tough love to our future generations. Maybe they’d appreciate not having an $8 trillion deficit looming over their heads.
Shocker ‘07, I’d be interested to hear how you reconcile your last post — promoting smaller government and more reliance on individual initiative — with your relentless promoting of the downtown arena and giveaways to downtown developers.
Shockjock–we did indeed beat Hitler and King George, but did we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined?
Uhh, no, we didn’t. I’m not saying, no more military spending. I’m saying, reduce it to 1 or 2 percent of GDP like every other sane country in the world.
Nathan–do I want the U.S. to be less in the world? If it involves needlessly invading third world countries, YES, HELL YES.
Duh . . .
And btw, the military bases in Japan and Germany are idiotic. Close them down now. Keep the money at home.
Raptor–the people that voted for Bush are wholly responsible for the direction he’s taken the country. I thought you people “took responsibility for yourselves!” Oh wait, no, you only ASK OTHERS to take responsibility for THEMSELVES, like poor people or unwed mothers or out-of-work union guys.
Heh, yeah, I see how it works . . . You’re conservative, so that means even when you were wrong, it’s because you had the “right motives.”
Bullsh*t. Grow up and own up to it. You backed him, you voted for him, and we’re all screwed because of you and your kind.
Joe & ShockJock–Entitlements are funded by dedicated taxes (like gas taxes are used to pay roads).
They are not paid for by income taxes. They are not busting the budget.
Social security takes in more than it pays out. It’s the only component of our gov’t that ISN’T in deficit.
What part of this simple observation can that reptilian conservative brain of yourn not understand?
Trumad,
Do you have any concept of our military structure at all?
What it would do to our combat capabilities if we were to cut funding like you suggest?
Our ability to project our military power throughout the world is what maintains our economy and protects many countries and allies around the world.
Rage–
I sent you an e-mail.
PL
PL,The purple chicken held its breath and turned blue.
I think that is the closest I have seen a bush voter come to saying he was sorry.Raptor : “He is OUR President. Something a lot of are liking less as each day goes on”
I’ll take your apology Raptor. I apologize for Kerry.
But Gore did get more. And I think he would have been better than bush. He certainly could not have been worse.
Taxes? No president in history cut taxes and launched a war…..especially an open ended war. bush WILL have that asteric next to his name in the history books. Many others too I bet.
I know I’ll be told in thirteen different ways that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but it’s wearisome to see progressive taxation attacked again and again as if it were some failed social program.
Exactly proportional taxation != exactly proportional burden. The 15 percent that deprives a rich man of a second yacht can translate to an inability to keep utilities on or no car insurance for the poor. Paupers and princes both have to eat, but even Britain’s infamous 95 percent top rate (as immortalized by George Harrison in “Taxman”) didn’t stop the princes from eating, and eating well.
And as to why we have progressive taxation in the first place, well, that goes back ages, but the Gilded Age is probably a good place to start.
Well said Rage!
Progressive taxation does not STIFLE capitalism. It perpetuates it.
Think here of water which is vital for life. A stream with rocks and beaver dams and other “obstructions” delivers its life giving source well……liberally. Now remove those diversions and “obstructions” and that river will get deeper and flow faster as the life giving water runs past to a sea of water.
The same is true for economy. Keep some wealth from flowing to the sea of wealth and you replenish the land along the way. Other sources of wealth spring up.
Nice analogy, JR.
It is true that exactly proportional taxation does not equal a proportional burden. This is one of the reasons I support the Fair Tax. A wise citizen could actually never pay the retail sales tax by not purchasing retail items beyond what is necessary to survive.
Consider that the 15 percent that kept a rich man from buying a yacht also kept the yacht maker from selling a yacht. This meant the manufacturer needed fewer employees and raw materials to build yachts. So those proverbial blue-collar workers are looking at layoffs because fewer yachts are being sold. Also those who sell the materials to build yachts are looking at financial hardships because the demand for their product has diminished. So by increasing the taxes on this rich man you not only create welfare dependence but also create more poor people by putting them out of work.
Progressive taxation does stifle capitalism. It removes capital from the very people who are the best at growing the economy and gives it to the government. Funny thing, people like the government to seize more and more money (always from someone else) and then act surprised at the size of the military budget.
Interesting water analogy, to bad your tax and spend philosophy amounts to building dams so that you can put the water where you want it to go. Leaving some areas arid while others flood.
KCL, I’ve been waiting for that. You leave no stone unturned, do you? :) Good for you, we need more people like you.
Okay, so I see two main priorities for government spending: national defense and economic development. We’ve covered national defense. As far as economic development, you know the old saying, “Catch a man a fish and he eats today. Teach a man how to fish and he eats a lifetime.” Government needs to help us help ourselves, not just give us everything we want. OneShot hit the mark, if the rich guy didn’t buy the yacht, the guys building the boat wouldn’t have a job. True, money circulates “up”, but it has a powerful effect going down. Why do most people in this town have a job? Because huge corporations buy airplanes from other another huge corporation, or really really rich guys buy jets for their business or personal use. The best use of government money for economic development is to provide incentives to business and let it trickle down and multiply from there.
Of course, relying on this theory means that one must cast away the small minded mistrust of anything with an “Inc.” after its name, realize that people put their pants on the same no matter what walk of life they are from, remove jealousy from one’s vocabulary, and recognize that the only person holding one back is one’s own self. There are WAY too many Donald Trumps, Bill Gates, and Dan Carneys in this country to think that anyone, no matter what their background, is not capable of great things in his/her life. The American dream is still alive, it’s just most people are too lazy to want it or too busy thinking someone else is going to do it for them.
“Progressive taxation does stifle capitalism. It removes capital from the very people who are the best at growing the economy and gives it to the government.”
hehe . . . I love that gross oversimplification.
The CONservatives cling to this like an article of faith. But there’s no real evidence for it.
Paris Hilton for instance may have help a few websites when her pornographic video was making the rounds, but how exactly does she help the economy or create jobs?
What about businesses that kill their customers, like unsafe automobiles or cigarette manufactures . . . or worse yet, kill OTHER companies’ customers, like the coal burning electrical plants that poison fish with mercury, fish that people eat?
The millions that their owners make create problems as well as benefits. Taxation should reflect the remediation of those problems.
“The American dream is still alive, it’s just most people are too lazy.”
Yup, that’s it. Society is PERFECT. Government, PERFECT. Equality, PERFECT.
It’s just all those lazy people.
*****
Consider all the “lazy criminals” that England shipped out to Australia in the 19th century. When they got there, they found abundant land. Suddenly these “lazy” people living as parasites off the hard work of others became industrious landowners, growing crops, raising sheep, founding cities.
The people hadn’t changed. But their opportunities sure had.
Rage–
The purple chicken held its breath until it turned blue.
Oh, my gosh, that’s the signal for the commencement of Project X!
I thought we weren’t supposed to talk about Project X on-line.
The white cow detests red shoes. Repeat–the white cow detests red shoes.
Hey Oneshot?
The yacht thing? It doesn’t sound any better from you than it did from Rush. Shocker also comes across as a ditto head. “The only person holding you back is you” That’s another Rushism. I don’t think economic advice from a man who earns his considerable living telling lies to motivate people to vote against their own best interests is gonna be too helpful for the average working guy. May as well say “Work harder at kissing ass”
Real purchasing power for working Americans has decreased steadily as compared with their earnings. In the meantime, management and CEO compensation has skyrocketed.
Let us remember also that government USES the money it collects. It employs a lot of people doing things to better society and civilization. Government employees are well treated. Private people or corporations tend not to do anything that does not get them ever more money. And that does not include any concern for their employees other then how they best can exploit them. The word “productivity” comes to mind here.
The American dream is basically dead as applies to the average American. With the removal of the taxes on super wealth (estate and capital gains taxes) we are headlong down a road to feudalism. A fair or flat tax will accelerate that. The few that have will increasingly have more. And they will use it to better exploit and yes control those who have increasingly less.
If none of this is particularly troubling to you. You might do well to remember the French and Russian revolutions.
I see the lefties have come out with their own oversimplifications.I see the lefties have come out with their own oversimplifications. Holding up Paris Hilton as the typical rich in the U.S. Socialists should be happy she is out there buying sports cars/yachts/whatever. Typically great wealth is squandered within a couple generations of those who first earned it. Give her time and your wealth envy will need a new target.
I’m intrigued how higher taxes make cars safer or stop irresponsible businesses. You certainly have to approach that one from the left to have it make sense. Maybe ask the children on Democratic Underground. I’m sure some of those rocket scientists could help the thought process along. Here’s a hint: You are talking about regulations. Those are expense items. It costs the government money to create and enforce them. Taxes are about income. Figure out the difference between the two and you can begin your journey to financial literacy.
J R, stick to simple analogies. If you actually paid attention you might learn that government only helps the politically connected. Thats why they can find $750,000,000 to move a working, private railroad but only pay lip service to securing the borders. Our government selects which laws they want to enforce. A member of Congress can punch a police officer. You or me? Arrested on the spot. But you go right ahead and put your faith in the almighty government. And don’t forget to treat them with the utmost respect those government employees. You never know which ones are packing heat.
Wow Oneshot you are more cynical than me. We just differ in the target of our cynicism. You are also somewhat paranoid.
“Government of the people by the people and for the people”. Remember that little chestnut? We are the government. (Well the less than 50% of us who bother to vote that is.) We made or allowed the corruption and we aint helpless.
The easy mistake is to see Government (us) as the enemy and surrender to our individual prejudices instead of making the government better.
I’m for the latter Oneshot. How about you?
Lefthook, it’s really easy to point out the few instances where business screws the rest of us, isn’t it? It’s just as easy to ignore times business does good things. From what I’ve just seen you appear to excel at both those. Refer to my previous post when I say everyone from any background puts their pants on the same way everyday. There is not a person alive on this planet who has not done one wrong thing in their lives. Do not presume the worker bees are any less corrupt than the queen bee, and vice versa. We are all corrupt, my friend–none of us are immune from our own humanity. There are many people on these blogs who are quick to generalize or stereotype business owners, industrialists, capitalists, executives, etc, as corrupt, but I say he without sin cast the first stone…
The lazy Australian criminals had to make their own opportunities. They were virtually abandoned. They could have just given up, declared themselves dead, whined and moaned that the English had oppressed them. Instead, they got off their ass and did something. Bill Gates, a college dropout with a modest background, figured that out. Many young entrepreneurs with good ideas also figured that out during the tech revolution in the late ’90s and are now some of those evil rich oppressors you speak of. Too bad, if they had only sat around and complained that the welfare line was too long they’d be soooo much better off now.
Tell you what. You keep complaining. Meanwhile, I’ll graduate, get a good job, work hard, stay motivated, try some innovative ideas, believe in myself, and we’ll get together in 30 years and see how we’re doing. I’d like to have a condo in Aspen by then, you are more than welcome for dinner.
JR, I don’t listen to Rush, I don’t really care for him. If you say that’s his platform then I believe you. The capital gains tax was never removed, in fact nothing has changed with it for awhile. Maybe you’re referring to the tax on dividends, it was reduced a few years ago. But I don’t mean to split hairs. I totally disagree that the American Dream is dead. Refer to the above mentioned tech revolution entrepreneurs.
My question is, how can one lament the “death” of the American Dream in one breath then ridicule its result (wealth) in the next? Seems hypocritical, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Shocker ‘07, I don’t see how any of what you said applies to the downtown arena and giveaways to downtown developers.
The attitude that “government needs to help us help ourselves” implies that without government, we are helpless to provide for ourselves. And it appears that you yourself don’t really believe that is the role of government, as later on in your same post you provide some stirring admonitions to individuals – not government — that they should strive for greatness.
You used the term “government money.” I would ask you, from where does the government get its money? The answer, of course, is from people. It is true, as we learned in an earlier post, that businesses pay taxes to the government, but who in turn owns the businesses and corporations?
So the government gets its money from the people though taxes. Now, if people didn’t have to pay these taxes, they would have more money to spend or invest on their own. They would spend it on what they want, or invest it in the way they believe suits them best. When government spends or “invests,” we have politicians spending other people’s money, motivated by things different than what motivates individuals. These motivations can be very different.
In the case of local government handouts to businesses in the form of industrial revenue bonds, tax abatements, etc., we have local government substituting its judgment for that of our capital markets. These markets represent the collective wisdom of individual and institutional investors, both local and worldwide, as to the relative merit of projects in which to invest. Now if all these people pass on an investment opportunity, but the Wichita City Council (or some other government) decides to fund it with taxpayer money, we might conclude one of two things: Either our city council is smarter than these capital markets and is able to sniff out desirable investments that no one else can see, or, the city council doesn’t value our money as much as investors value their own, and is willing to spend it on projects when no one else will. Which of these do you think applies?
The best economic incentive plan for business is low taxes and less meddlesome government regulation and intervention. That leaves entrepreneurs free to invest capital where they see it can best be used. Any other system requires relying on the judgment of politicians, and, worst of all, coercive taxation to pay for these expenditures.
About those layoffs:
Autos: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=auto+layoffs&btnG=Search+News
Aircraft: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=aircraft+layoffs&btnG=Search+News
*******************************
Yachts: http://news.google.com/news?q=yacht+layoffs&btnG=Search+News&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8
Watercraft: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=watercraft+layoffs&btnG=Search+News
Boats: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=boat++layoffs&btnG=Search+News
It can be said that every dollar, whether publicly or privately spent, that does not go toward the purchase of some good or service, may potentially produce layoffs. What was it that someone was saying about liberal oversimplication?
But then, people SHOULD be buying more submarines!
I also note that the meme that “support for progressive taxation” = “support for high taxes” is alive and well, despite its bewildering illogic.
Read the Declaration of Independence, and the Preamble to our Constitution, and think about why we have a government in the first place.
KCL, I am all for the free market, I think that’s obvious. However, sometimes I think the free market misses the mark–sometimes. SOMETIMES. The nature of people is to look out for themselves–that’s not a complaint, that’s just how things are. Businesses almost always do things that bring it the greatest profit.
Here’s where the argument against the downtown arena breaks down. Some people say if it was such a great thing, private development would build it. Well, that’s wrong, because private development wants profit, and arenas don’t generate profit. This is where government comes in, to provide things in which the utility cannot be measured in direct financial return. One of the greatest concerns that I have for an entirely free market is that it assumes that financial returns are the only worthwhile returns. Well, they are not. You are exactly right when you say “When government spends or “invests,” we have politicians spending other people’s money, motivated by things different than what motivates individuals. These motivations can be very different.” I say, thank God for that, because profit should not be the motivation for each and every decision ever made by man. We have greater concerns.
You have to understand I do not believe things should be entirely one way or another on virtually any issue. An entirely open free-market system is just as bad as communism.
In other situations, private business is unable to capture returns from an investment. Using the downtown arena as an example again, most of its return will be from increased property values (ie increased property tax collections) from the redeveloped area around it. It’s not that local government was smarter than the market or able to “sniff out desirable investments.” Local government is simply the only entity that would be able to collect at least the financial returns on this particular investment.
What would I do with the money taken out of my pocket for the arena sales tax? I dunno. Maybe I would have eaten a lot more at Taco Bell. Yeah, that’s really helping the economy and my fellow man. Sometimes, KCL–not all the time but just sometimes–we make better judgements as a society when dollar signs aren’t the only things that motivate us.
I count on individuals to help themselves, to strive for greatness. But SOMETIMES government can create opportunities where they would not have otherwise existed, and SOMETIMES these opportunities cannot be quantified in JUST profits.
“The lazy Australian criminals had to make their own opportunities. They were virtually abandoned. They could have just given up, declared themselves dead, whined and moaned that the English had oppressed them. Instead, they got off their ass and did something.”
ShockJock, you totally avoided the question. Why did the Australians “get off their asses” in Australia but not in England?
click, clock, click, clock, click, clock
DING DING DING DING, Time’s up.
Answer–Because they had opportunities in Australia that they didn’t have in England. All the land was taken in England already by the wealthy.
Duh.
People everywhere work about as hard as everybody else. They are all about as intelligent.
What is different is how society chooses to allocate resources.
As for who will die richer, you or me, I don’t care because I’ll be dead.
“Typically great wealth is squandered within a couple generations of those who first earned it. Give her time and your wealth envy will need a new target.”
I love it. One tries to get the right wingers who worship Mammon to think about the inherent fairness of society, and one is instantly “envious.”
I’m not envious because I’m already about as wealthy as I want to be. I’m not talking about MY needs.
I’m concerned for my fellow Americans who aren’t getting help because of all the bastards who tell them to “just work harder.”
As far as great wealth being squandered, do you have any evidence for that? The Rockefellers have gone for generation after generation based on the one founder that robbed people blind.
The tax breaks for the rich that were supposed to stimulate the economy seem to be having the opposite effect. Small business is what stimulates the economy, and most small business owners are not in the top ten percent of wealth in the US.
“Because they had opportunities in Australia that they didn’t have in England. All the land was taken in England already by the wealthy.”
Oh boy, here we again with this “the rich are oppressing the poor” crap. That’s all it is, crap. Complete crap. Crap. Tell your sob stories to the tech boom entrepreneurs who had good ideas, worked hard and have lived the American Dream.
Work hard, get an education, spend less, save more, just do the best you can and stop complaining. Not everyone is going to be rich, that’s not what I’m trying to say. And if you want everyone to be the same, the Soviet Union tried that and you know how that turned out.
The real answer to your question about the Australians is that they got off their asses because they had to. They were virtually abandoned where they were. No one was going to do anything for them. Your attempts to compare the 18th and 19th century British Empire to present day United States neglects a hell of a lot of facts about how our two economic, political and social systems are set up. But nevermind that, “don’t confuse me with the facts,” as they say.
“People everywhere work about as hard as everybody else. They are all about as intelligent.” Puhleeeaaassseee. Whatever. Wake up, man. Are you trying to say your average Arkansas backwoods hillbilly is about as intelligent as Albert Einstein???? Lefty, you make me laugh. Seriously, thank you I needed that, it’s been a long day.
“Are you trying to say your average Arkansas backwoods hillbilly is about as intelligent as Albert Einstein?”
Yes, I am saying exactly that. The hillbilly doesn’t know anything about space-time. On the other hand, Einstein doesn’t know how to gut a pig, build a log cabin or distill corn liquor.
Einstein was as much a product of his society as he was a product of his own genius. He wasn’t terribly hard-working either, btw.
The hardest working people I know are poor people. “They take the early bus,” as Jesse Jackson says.You never see them fooling around on a golf course on a weekday afternoon, do you.
But your quasi-religious faith in “the free market” means you don’t have to concern yourself with the poor or feel at all grateful to society about being rich. You earned it!
Nevermind that the college degree you’re “earning” is paid for more by taxpayers than your tuition. A lot of poor people who can’t afford college are paying taxes so that people like you can go.
But you don’t owe them a damn thing . . . those lazy bastards.
Convenient, isn’t it?
BTW, I’m not saying that we should make everyone the same. That idea is detestable.
I just think that the richest country in the world shouldn’t be letting a kid walk around lame for the rest of his life because his mom couldn’t afford to take him to the doctor when he broke his leg falling out of a tree.
I know of a case in which that happened.
Damn lazy ass kid . . . born to a poor mom. White trash.
Gutting a pig? Distilling corn liquor? Building a log cabin?? Those are some real worthwhile skills you speak of. Practical prerequisites for Mensa. Yeah, too bad Einstein didn’t know how to do those things or he could have changed the course of humanity, altered our view of physics, and predicted the existence of black holes.
We just have to disagree on this one, True. Doctors are sooo lazy–they work like 16 hours a day. Some of those union workers, though, boy they have it rough, work six hours until they meet their quota, then they go home and still get paid for the other 2 hours. Tough life. And executives have it so easy–practically no responsibility and stress for their jobs. The fortunes and livelihoods of thousands of people don’t lie in their hands, and they’re not in the office from 6am to 8pm at night. You’re looking at life through blinders, man. I am not trying to say only poor people are lazy–I’m just saying I dislike people who complain about things that they can control but decide not to do anything about it.
By the way, I know SOME of my schooling is paid for with taxes, but a lot of it is paid for with my loans as well. Which, btw, are provided generously to the economically disadvantaged. So much for the “can’t afford to go to school” hooey.
Too bad about the kid, that’s a rough story, man. An unfortunate situation like that is a lot different from a poor person complaining they are being oppressed by “The Man,” but not taking steps to correct the situation.
There’s a guy in one of my classes who is in his ’50s–’50s!!–who lost his farm and decided to go to school to better his life. He has initiative, he has a can-do spirit, he has guts (he even has loans because, being a former farmer, of course, he can’t “afford” school). He’s going to do well in the rest of his life. He is rebuilding his life, making something out of himself, not complaining and sure isn’t spending time on the pitty pot. I admire a guy like that.
I hear a lot from right-wingers about poor people who sit around in self-pity.
Funny thing. I don’t KNOW any.
“By the way, I know SOME of my schooling is paid for with taxes, but a lot of it is paid for with my loans as well. Which, btw, are provided generously to the economically disadvantaged. So much for the “can’t afford to go to school” hooey.”
Wrong on both counts, ShockJock.
ONE, your tuition doesn’t even pay half the costs to educate you. If you don’t believe it, compare the tuition at WSU with Friends or Newman, colleges that aren’t supported with tax money. You’ll see the tuition is more than twice as much.
A lot of that tax money that pays for you to go to college is collected from people who can’t afford to go because
TWO, yes, poor people can get loans for college too, but you’re forgetting one thing–they have to eat. The loans pay for tuition. What do poor people do to survive while they’re NOT WORKING because they’re going to school full-time?
Lastly, college loans are exactly what I’m talking about. While you’re all puffed up with pride about working hard and earning an education, you’re forgetting that when I went to college 25 years ago, I paid only 365 dollars a semester in tuition. Granted, inflation would increase that roughly three times to a thousand a semester, but even at a community college a normal load is going to run you 1500 dollars.
Why was college education so much cheaper back then? Because colleges received a higher percentage of their costs from states and the federal gov’t.
The Reagan administration shifted costs to the states who then shifted costs to the students.
Student loans is the gov’t’s way of screwing people like you so that the rich can have more. Young students who have the least purchasing power while having the greatest need for housing, cars, etc. since they’re just starting out are bearing a staggering debt load so that Dick Cheney gets to keep more of the 9 million dollars he made last year.
If you think that’s fair, keep voting Republican.
I went to Friends U before attending WSU. I know the price of private vs public education, so I am well aware of how much I am paying out of my own pockets. Comparing my tuition at Friends with my tuition at WSU, it is split roughly 70-30 public funds and student funds, respectively.
Do you know anything about college loans? Obviously not, because if you did you would know loans pay for more than just the tuition itself. College loans are often distributed in amounts much greater than the actual tuition costs so the students have some source of disposable income. Most students, in my experience, and myself included, supplement income from part time jobs with excess student loan money. A few students live ENTIRELY off excess student loan money. A full load at WSU will cost somewhere around $2500–not chump change by any means. But what’s the statistic, someone with a college degree earns about twice as much in a lifetime as someone with just a highschool diploma? In the long run, college pays for itself and then some. Again, I say, so much for this “can’t afford to go to school” crap. My inspiration is my 50 year old farmer friend, not some guy sitting around complaining he is getting screwed by the system or some proverbial “Man.” In the end, the only thing screwing him is his bad attitude and lack of initiative.
You so much WANT to believe that you can do whatever you want to do, don’t you? Yeah, I read all that Ayn Rand shit when I was your age too, and almost believed it for awhile . . .
However, you, like George Bush, will find out that reality is not what you say it is or what you want it to be.
Your 50 year old farmer friend is not an example of someone who is making a success out of his life. He’s a good example of someone that our society has FAILED. Here’s a man who worked hard all his life, played by the rules, and got crushed.
If gov’t subsidies weren’t going to the big agri-business concerns (i.e., welfare for the rich), if gov’t didn’t allow a few giant multinationals like Tyson and Archer-Daniels-Midland to control commodity prices, your farmer friend would have been able to compete and thrive.
Why don’t you talk to him about how fair the system is before you hold him up as an example? You might get an education from someone who knows how things really work, as opposed to the free-market religion you’ve been worshipping.
Also, you still didn’t address my point about loans. We didn’t have to take loans out years ago. They were an invention of the same people who cut taxes so that poor schmos like you would pay more.
The thing about loans, as you will quickly discover, is that they have to get paid back WITH INTEREST. It’s a suckers’ game. I myself have never taken out a loan in my life. I paid for my house with cash. I paid for my car with cash. I EARN interest, I don’t pay it.
But you will do it and at the same time defend to the death Paris Hilton’s right to a tax cut.
“How long does someone have to hit you over the head before you figure out who’s hitting you?” Harry S Truman
It seems little spiteful lefthook is none other than Galahad/ProudLiberal. So of course he hates the rich. Of course you can’t get ahead no matter what you do. Of course he offers examples of people falling short at one point in their life as proof that they will never make it.
The last thing you should ever talk about is paying the cost of college. Your children are being supported by someone else for their ENTIRE education. From the public school babysitter all the way to college. Since you don’t know anything about paying your own way or being a provider you need to leave these issues to the adults.
It’s really a shame that people like you vote. You’re just smart enough to know that you can vote yourself benefits from the public treasury, but just dumb enough to be unable to contribute to that treasury.
Here here, OneShot.
The old ad homenim, how I’ve missed thee.
It never works but the radical conservatives can’t . . . stop . . . using . . . it.
Uh, One Shot, there’s one little problem with your theory. I PAID MY OWN WAY TO COLLEGE, you asshole. I could do that thanks to the great UNION job I had at the time.
Also, you keep straw manning me with that “hate the rich” crap. How many times do I have to say it: I don’t hate the rich, in fact I’m well on my way to being one.
What I hate are the structural impediments that keep the poor poor and help the rich get richer. Bush’s tax cuts–actually tax shifts to later generations–are a good example of that.
“Also, you keep straw manning me with that ‘hate the rich’ crap.”
It’s the standard meme, PL. Anyone who objects to the ladder being pulled up must just be jealous that they weren’t given have access to the stairs.
It’s a way of producing a meta-subject to avoid dealing with the first one.
Gosh, Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins sure hate the rich. . .
Thanks, Rage. Ditto that.
Let me take a few more of your “points” one by one.
I’m “too dumb” to contribute to the treasury. Wrong as usual, OneShit. I pay several hundred dollars a month for property taxes, most of which goes to fund the education of other people’s kids (since mine are no longer in public school).
I’m happy to do it, because I can think of no better use of my tax money.
It’s true my kids got a lot of scholarships in college (merit, not need), but I contributed too, so I don’t know where you got the idea that I didn’t help. Looks like you’re wrong about everything you said, doesn’t it?
Lastly, even though you attack me with mean-spirited and unsubstantiated vitriole, and I vehemently disagree with your political positions, I would never say that “it’s a shame that people like you vote,” for voting in my opinion (despite what Kennedy-Scalia wrote in Bush v Gore) is an inalienable Constitutional right in a democracy.
The Constitution doesn’t say you have to be smart to vote, that you have to be rich, or well educated or a certain religion or race. It doesn’t say you have to be a conservative or a liberal.
Since I believe in The Constitution above all, I would defend to the death the right of people like you to vote.
I guess that’s one big difference between a liberal like me and a conservative like you.
It’s not a shame that you vote. It’s a shame that you’re such a colossal jerk.
Come back again when you want your ass handed to you on a platter.
I’ll be here to kick it, once again as needed.
Shocker–
Don’t think that OneShit in any way settled this argument in your favor. He was nothing but an annoying distraction as usual.
Print off the relevant sections, take it to your farmer “hero” friend and see which one he agrees with more, you or me.
I’d like to hear about it myself.
P.S. “It seems little spiteful lefthook is none other than Galahad/ProudLiberal.”
Gee, sharp guy, huh? I believe the purple chicken had something to say about that!
Yeah, it’s like if they catch you using another alias, they “win.”
The only reason I keep changing mine are the conservative trolls, one of whom may be OneShit.
Let me get this straight. You go around calling me ‘OneShit’ and I’m the jerk.
You can claim success in life all you want. If you earned it you would most likely protect it.
So if your one of those mystically rich liberals, how does it fall in with your philosophy to be able to pay for your child’s education but let a scholarship take care of it? Isn’t there someone ‘needy/poor/more deserving’ than a ‘rich’ man like yourself and your family? Oh wait, thats good for other people, not you. Typical of left/right-wing totalitarian, do as I say not as I do.
Finally, look at your posts. Don’t think for a minute you are some kind of higher man than the rest of us. You devolved into vulgarities at the drop of an opposing viewpoint.
I suppose I should thank you however. You remind me know why I changed my alias from ProudMan to OneShot. It is just not worth it to deal with the hate and spite put forth by most bloggers here. I’m sure now you’ll proclaim “He’s a wuss!”, “I’m to much for him”. And if that is all it takes for you to feel better about yourself, you’re welcome.
Okay, ProudMan / OneShot, thanks for the response.
Now that you’ve confirmed that you’re irrational, I won’t bother to respond to you as much.
“You can claim success in life all you want. If you earned it you would most likely protect it.”
One, I don’t claim success. By many people’s standards, I’m not that successful. By other’s, I pretty solidly successful. So what? I’m about as comfortable as I want to be, so that’s successful in my mind.
Two, I don’t think I’m better or higher than anybody else. Silly me, I thought that’s what America is all about–everybody matters, everybody counts, rich and poor, we’re all equal as Americans.
Why do you keep giving me positions (like I “hate” the rich) that I don’t hold?
Three, if I had “earned” my wealth, I’d want to protect it. I DO want to protect it. Since my income taxes and everybody else’s mainly go for war expenses, that is the first place we should cut back, IMHO.
Four, the scholarship mainly helped my son at his private college. They have a billion dollar endowment there. They can afford it. The other two partly pay their own way and are partly supported by their parents. Next question?
Five, “You devolved into vulgarities at the drop of an opposing viewpoint.” Wrong as usual, ProudMan / OneShot. I only fired both barrels when you blindsided me with a bunch of irrelevent crap and ad-homenim attack.
Reap what you sow, jerk. Shocker and I, although we disagree, did not trade insults, did we.
Finally, “if you earned it you would most likely protect it.” Yup, that’s the essence of it, isn’t it. You can’t believe that somebody who is part of the wealth-holding class (such as it is) isn’t a selfish bastard like so many of them are.
Well, too bad that my concern for society disappoints you. But is that my problem or yours?
One: Don’t claim to be successful but then say you are successful in your own mind.
Two: I’ve read your posts on here for months now. On more than one occasion you have proclaimed yourself one of the most intelligent people here. It’s like you think you’re better than the rest of us. You’ve also shown your hatred/disgust for the wealthy. Choose to ignore your words all you want.
Three: The concept of protecting your wealth by reducing certain government expenses is naive at best. Once government gets their hands on the money it goes somewhere. Sometimes you agree with the destination, sometimes you don’t.
Four: Just because other people can afford it doesn’t mean they should have to pay someone else’s expenses. Left/progressive doctrine says that a ’successful’ person like yourself who could afford to send their kid to college is effectively stealing from the poor kid who doesn’t have that opportunity.
Five: I’m hardly the only person to upset you enough for such treatment from you.
Your concern for society doesn’t disappoint me. In fact it is very likely we have the same basic goals for society. The key difference is that leftists would use the police power of government to create their vision while a libertarian like me wants to let people find their own way. Your positions on taxation and expense by government put you solidly in the by the gun/sword crowd. Since you (knowingly or not) advocate taking from me by force, you are my problem.
Finally, we are both reaping what we sow. By claiming to be only ‘reacting’ is just another little rationalization to let you feel like you are superior to me. How could it be a surprise when someone calls you out for it?
“On more than one occasion you have proclaimed yourself one of the most intelligent people here.”
Not only have I not said that, I don’t even think it.
“also shown your hatred/disgust for the wealthy.” What I have disgust for is not the wealthy–as I’ve said many, many times–what I have disgust for is “welfare for the rich” of which I have provided abundant examples.
Both of these are examples of your and other’s attempt to discredit my argument by changing it and attacking the distortion. It’s called a straw man. Don’t give me positions I don’t hold.
“Left/progressive doctrine says that a ’successful’ person like yourself who could afford to send their kid to college is effectively stealing from the poor kid who doesn’t have that opportunity.” Ah, you know all about “left/progressive doctrine” do you? Well, you’re ahead of me there. I didn’t know they HAD a doctrine.
You’re also the first libertarian I’ve ever met who called the ivy-league college where my son went “too conservative.” Look, there’re a lot of things wrong with our society. I can’t change all of them. My SON got the scholarship, not me.
“The key difference is that leftists would use the police power of government to create their vision while a libertarian like me wants to let people find their own way.” Right, and we’ve had a test of your plan and a test of my plan. Your plan led to child labor, the robber barons, the Great Depression, off shore corporations, and sending our manufacturing base overseas. My plan looks more like modern Europe.
The latter looks a helluva lot better to me than the former.
I wish ProudLib would hold to his promise to post less here, since he had found something “better” to do. I knew that was too good to believe.
Sorry, Steve-troll. It was just another left-wing LIE.
But thank goodness YOU’RE still around trying to irritate me.
Ever think about just not trolling me anymore?
It’s really getting embarrassing for you . . .