| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2008 10:30:19 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
I did look it up. I've lived here my whole life so I think I would know how my state works. Also, never said every democrat is on welfare. I said all the welfare abusers ARE DEMOCRATS and Baltimore City is full of WELFARE ABUSERS. Which means that they should not be able to vote because they dont PAY TAXES. If they're not putting anything into society why should they get a vote, when all they do is TAKE TAKE TAKE. They need to get a job, get off drugs, and stop having kids. When that happens then they should have voting rights and if YOU CANT FEEDEM DONT BREEDEM! |
You sound like you're talking about Detroit ... we have the same problems here and would guess that most major cities do also ... I think that there needs to be SERIOUS welfare reform in this country ... by paying them more money for each kid they have, we're only encouraging them to have as many as they can ... ugh, I'm gonna stop now before I really get going on this topic that irritates me to the core! |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:11:16 AM · #52 |
The humanity or rather the total lack of it, of those on the Right is disgusting.
What I don't understand is why you'd rather start and pay trillions of dollars for a war that only serves to line to pockets of the President's rich friends than to help those who can't help themselves.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 11:12:37. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:36:22 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The humanity or rather the total lack of it, of those on the Right is disgusting.
What I don't understand is why you'd rather start and pay trillions of dollars for a war that only serves to line to pockets of the President's rich friends than to help those who can't help themselves. |
Your statement shows that you don't understand a whole lot more.
How has the just, legal, and proper war to liberate Iraq line the pockets of the President's friends? (I know I shouldn't bother with this, but it's just so silly).
How is helping people succeed a lack of humanity? (again, the blind won't see) |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:43:06 AM · #54 |
| Like I have said before.. Teach them to Fish and you have fixed most of the problem. Education is the key. Does anyone disagree that spending money to educate in place of giving a free handout is a bad Idea. You could build a program that funds a persons living expenses and education as long as they maintain a passable GPA and stay on track to graduate. Meaning a 4 year program that you finish in 4 years or your off the dime. In other words you want my money and help then you will learn to help yourself better yourself with education so you can substain a normal free of welfare life. I think that would be fair. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:02:24 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Like I have said before.. Teach them to Fish and you have fixed most of the problem. Education is the key. Does anyone disagree that spending money to educate in place of giving a free handout is a bad Idea. You could build a program that funds a persons living expenses and education as long as they maintain a passable GPA and stay on track to graduate. Meaning a 4 year program that you finish in 4 years or your off the dime. In other words you want my money and help then you will learn to help yourself better yourself with education so you can substain a normal free of welfare life. I think that would be fair. |
That's a good thought. Perhaps a 2 year program would have a higher completion rate? Another factor - how many people that need assistance are single parents? While they're in school, who looks after the kids? Some available jobs by either corporate sponsors or the government could be helpful also in finding a place for the new skills to be applied productively. Of course you're probably talking entry level pay still - and the kids where? Daycare? That's expensive. I know of married couples that found it more financially sound to have one of the parents stay home. By the time they factored in child care, travel expenses, work clothes, etc...it was more cost effective to not work. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:17:35 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The humanity or rather the total lack of it, of those on the Right is disgusting.
What I don't understand is why you'd rather start and pay trillions of dollars for a war that only serves to line to pockets of the President's rich friends than to help those who can't help themselves. |
Your statement shows that you don't understand a whole lot more.
How has the just, legal, and proper war to liberate Iraq line the pockets of the President's friends? (I know I shouldn't bother with this, but it's just so silly).
How is helping people succeed a lack of humanity? (again, the blind won't see) |
No-Bid Contracts. Halliburton/KBR, you know, Cheney's old company where he's heavily invested and has lots of cronies, was handed, by the administration, the government's No Bid contract to provide services to the military in Iraq. This was done despite them having been fired by the Army for overcharging and charging during Bosnia/Kosovo. The contract is worth hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.
That's not to mention the record profits made by the oil companies. Companies in industries where both Bush and Cheney have close friends, companies which receive significant tax breaks from the governemt while we receive price increases.
Aside from the fact that the war was not and is not just, legal or proper, the war that has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Is that what you call "help"? Is the war simply "helping" the people in the crossfire find Allah that much sooner?
Maybe it's a good thing you don't want to bring your flavor of "help" to your fellow, but less fortunate, countrymen. Is it really better to just let them suffer and die than to blast them into the next life with a so-called "smart" weapon.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:29:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The humanity or rather the total lack of it, of those on the Right is disgusting.
What I don't understand is why you'd rather start and pay trillions of dollars for a war that only serves to line to pockets of the President's rich friends than to help those who can't help themselves. |
Your statement shows that you don't understand a whole lot more.
How has the just, legal, and proper war to liberate Iraq line the pockets of the President's friends? (I know I shouldn't bother with this, but it's just so silly).
How is helping people succeed a lack of humanity? (again, the blind won't see) |
No-Bid Contracts. Halliburton/KBR, you know, Cheney's old company where he's heavily invested and has lots of cronies, was handed, by the administration, the government's No Bid contract to provide services to the military in Iraq. This was done despite them having been fired by the Army for overcharging and charging during Bosnia/Kosovo. The contract is worth hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.
That's not to mention the record profits made by the oil companies. Companies in industries where both Bush and Cheney have close friends, companies which receive significant tax breaks from the governemt while we receive price increases.
Aside from the fact that the war was not and is not just, legal or proper, the war that has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Is that what you call "help"? Is the war simply "helping" the people in the crossfire find Allah that much sooner?
Maybe it's a good thing you don't want to bring your flavor of "help" to your fellow, but less fortunate, countrymen. Is it really better to just let them suffer and die than to blast them into the next life with a so-called "smart" weapon. |
Blah blah blah blah blah -- excuse did you something I left out?
War in Iraq
Whine all you want... the war as just and was legal and no amount of crybabying will change that. Yes, people die in war, but sometimes war is necessary. Less people have died in Iraq than at the hands of liberal abortionists... [Edited to remove personal attack]
Haliburton
per Factcheck.org (//www.factcheck.org/anti-bush_ad_overstates_case_against_halliburton.html)
But in fact, investigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.
Record Oil profits
In $ amount, yes. In percentage? No. You lose there too. Strike 3 and you're out. They are making the same low profit margin as they always have. I think it's around 8%. 8% of 1,000,000,000 is more than 8% of 100,000,000. But it's still just 8%. Sell more, make more, but the percetage is the same.
QUIT listening to the liberal malarky and think.
Message edited by L2 - Edited to remove personal attack. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:38:30 PM · #58 |
I agree that education will help fix a multitude of problems, but the delivery system must be able to reach the consumer (children and their parents) without a plethora of governmental unfunded mandates. While it is true that local school boards govern much of the day to day policies and procedures, they are required to work within a framework of governmental mandates. I served on my local school board for over 8 years. We were the lowest per-pupil funded district in the state, yet we had to adhere to the same mandates as the richest districts in the state. Our tax base wasn't that great either as much of the land in this county belongs to BLM or State Corrections - neither of whom contribute money to the school district. We were lucky to have so many creative, dedicated individuals within our district who came up with truly innovative ideas to enable us to provide the kids in our charge with a good and relevant education. It took doing things like taking elementary science textbooks apart and rebinding them in-house in separate unit and round-robining those chapters throughout the schools to make sure every kid had a book to study during that unit. It probably wouldn't meet some standards, but every child got through every unit (although not in the same order as their neighboring school), and we were able to provide current information.
I agree that educational funding should be a priority..... Maybe if some of the ideas here were followed, there would be more money available for education, and the taxpayers would not have to take such a big hit.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:45:57 PM · #59 |
The original poster was asking about TAXES.
Perhaps the other inflamatory subjects should be removed from the thread?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:47:57 PM · #60 |
| I appreciate the concerns over thread jacking, but I'm alarmed at the ready insistence of participants continually calling for removal of posts. Particularly in Rant. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:02:30 PM · #61 |
Well there would be some details to work out, but you have to see it would be better on the tax payer and the individual to take advantage of creating a more productive member of society than let them just squander off welfare.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Like I have said before.. Teach them to Fish and you have fixed most of the problem. Education is the key. Does anyone disagree that spending money to educate in place of giving a free handout is a bad Idea. You could build a program that funds a persons living expenses and education as long as they maintain a passable GPA and stay on track to graduate. Meaning a 4 year program that you finish in 4 years or your off the dime. In other words you want my money and help then you will learn to help yourself better yourself with education so you can substain a normal free of welfare life. I think that would be fair. |
That's a good thought. Perhaps a 2 year program would have a higher completion rate? Another factor - how many people that need assistance are single parents? While they're in school, who looks after the kids? Some available jobs by either corporate sponsors or the government could be helpful also in finding a place for the new skills to be applied productively. Of course you're probably talking entry level pay still - and the kids where? Daycare? That's expensive. I know of married couples that found it more financially sound to have one of the parents stay home. By the time they factored in child care, travel expenses, work clothes, etc...it was more cost effective to not work. |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:07:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by chesire:
The original poster was asking about TAXES.
Perhaps the other inflamatory subjects should be removed from the thread? |
no i dont mind. i like reading this kinda of stuff, it all fits together in a way |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:08:10 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well there would be some details to work out, but you have to see it would be better on the tax payer and the individual to take advantage of creating a more productive member of society than let them just squander off welfare. |
You know what's interesting about this last statement of yours? It sounds nearly identical to what some would say about educating inmates. Not agreeing/disagreeing - just an observation. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:09:11 PM · #64 |
Not sure if Daves plan would work, but agree $700 billion would be better spent education our population. Funding would have to come from a federal level and take it out of the states control on education. this "should" divide it up more evenly.
Originally posted by ancientimages:
I agree that education will help fix a multitude of problems, but the delivery system must be able to reach the consumer (children and their parents) without a plethora of governmental unfunded mandates. While it is true that local school boards govern much of the day to day policies and procedures, they are required to work within a framework of governmental mandates. I served on my local school board for over 8 years. We were the lowest per-pupil funded district in the state, yet we had to adhere to the same mandates as the richest districts in the state. Our tax base wasn't that great either as much of the land in this county belongs to BLM or State Corrections - neither of whom contribute money to the school district. We were lucky to have so many creative, dedicated individuals within our district who came up with truly innovative ideas to enable us to provide the kids in our charge with a good and relevant education. It took doing things like taking elementary science textbooks apart and rebinding them in-house in separate unit and round-robining those chapters throughout the schools to make sure every kid had a book to study during that unit. It probably wouldn't meet some standards, but every child got through every unit (although not in the same order as their neighboring school), and we were able to provide current information.
I agree that educational funding should be a priority..... Maybe if some of the ideas here were followed, there would be more money available for education, and the taxpayers would not have to take such a big hit. |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:11:53 PM · #65 |
Education is the key to reforming our whole system. Yes there will still be criminals and yes there will still be people who do not provide for theirselves and family. The only difference is accountability. Become a productive member of society or essentially you will one way or another remover your self from society..
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well there would be some details to work out, but you have to see it would be better on the tax payer and the individual to take advantage of creating a more productive member of society than let them just squander off welfare. |
You know what's interesting about this last statement of yours? It sounds nearly identical to what some would say about educating inmates. Not agreeing/disagreeing - just an observation. |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:56:23 PM · #66 |
Question for Hawkeye: 1:Do you feel that the pre-war intel was incorrect and overblown, and if not, why so?
ETA: Kudos to  Jdubsgirl for still having interest in where this has gone, good to see some youth take interest in what will SURELY effect their life regardless of their political stance.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 13:57:49. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 02:05:14 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Question for Hawkeye: 1:Do you feel that the pre-war intel was incorrect and overblown, and if not, why so?
ETA: Kudos to Jdubsgirl for still having interest in where this has gone, good to see some youth take interest in what will SURELY effect their life regardless of their political stance. |
The pre-war intel (not the only justification for the war) was perceived correct at the time it was used. It later turned out to be untrue. But that clearly does not mean "Bush lied". If he'd known it was false, then it's a lie. If he was misled (like the rest of the world) by bad information, then that is not a lie.
But regardless, we've found components of WMD all over Iraq.
Additionally, Iraq was in clear violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. So action until those UN Resolutions was still justified. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:48:21 PM · #68 |
I am not implying that Bush lied. I am implying that Congress was mislead, which is how appropriates funding, as relates to your earlier post. Although Congress approates war powers, if they were seemingly mislead with inaccurate intel by the President of the US, it would seem that accounatability falls to Bush. The issue I take is that the intel was ridiculous, and how the excecutive branch didn't realize it was obviously fake. The "attempt to gain plutonium" from Africa was proven to be an inconclusive report and the Bush administration itself admitted that "These sixteen words should never have been included." referring to "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -President Bush. If his own administration backpedaled on intel, my question is why do you still stand by it? Arguably, the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam is laughable at best, after reading a brief history of Muslim politics there is no reason why fundamentalists would be in cahoots with the Baath party.. Also, the purported "viable anthrax" threat excuse, specifically regarding the shelf life of weapons grade anthrax and also the deployment of any such toxin was WIDELY overblown. To expect Iraq to launch a Silkworm missile to the US is laughable, and since it is obvious that Al-Qaeda and Saddam wouldn't cooperate (citing significant religious differnces) I find this a laughable excuse for war.
As  cheshire the Congress pulls the strings, but if this is the case, they were quite obviously mislead, as were the American public.
Rebuttal? |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:36:09 PM · #69 |
The Republican Party per se will NOT be the undoing of our country...
The Democratic Party per se will NOT be the undoing of our country...
EXTREMISM in any of its forms, however, very well could be.
I am so fed up with the incessant blathering at both tips of the ideological spectrum. It seems anymore that it\'s far more important to BE \"right\" than to DO \"right\".
There is no moderating force anymore, especially in the US House of Representatives, because the legislative districts have all been drawn favor one party or another so much that there is no need for a congressman to appeal to a broad spectrum of sentiment anymore.
The far right goal of a laissez-faire, pseudotheocracy is not going to happen
The far left goal of an increasingly socialistic government trying to \"protect\" citizens from any and all bad things that could possibly happen to them is not going to happen.
Oh yeah, this is supposed to be a thread about taxes...
Since everybody is so concerned about making sure they get what\'s coming to them from their tax money, we get useless pork projects so that Senator Smith from New CaliDakota can go home and show his constituents that they are getting \"their fair share\" from Uncle Sam.
I thought I lived in the UNITED States of America. The idea is supposed to be that monies are delivered to the places and for the purposes that will provide the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole. I don\'t expect every cent of the tax money I pay to directly benefit the 6th district of Washington State every year (where I live). I consider it more like paying premiums to an insurance company, maybe this year the money is best spent more in Missouri and Pennsylvania, but when it\'s REALLY needed, Uncle Sam will be there for me. I may never visit Mississippi or Maine in my lifetime but in the end it is just as much in my interest to make sure those parts of the country are healthy as my own.
The problem is, altruism is not an innate quality in human beings. As long as human beings have governments, the tendency will be to feed the parts at the expense of the whole. It\'s too easy for people where I live to screw over a West Virginia coal miner because it\'s so divorced from our day to day lifestyle, just like the plight of a Pacific Coast salmon fisherman is not near and dear to the hearts of most Kansans I would expect.
Hope nobody\'s looking for answers here, wish I was that smart, but a little more selflessness would go a long way (I\'ll spare you the JFK quote here)
BTW if there\'s any political ideological group or special interest I have failed to piss off yet, send me a private message, I\'ll try to catch you with my next post ;-) |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:11:16 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Just a question to everyone out there. Why do everyone complain and moan and groan about taxes? |
Just one example from me - a small one - but one that ilustrates the larger problem.
My example is my AT&T phone bill. The basic service is roughly $13/month. First they tac on a federal fee. Then comes a service fee. Then we have a 911 fee and then another 911 fee as it crosses into city/county etc. Then we get a Federal tax and then a state tax not on the $13 but the $13 plus the fees. So I not only pay the fees but am taxed on the fees charged. By the time I get done with the fees and taxes my $13 bill is now over $26.00. That is double the price of the service. Paying 2x the service just aggravates the hell out of me. I make maybe 5 phone calls a month and so with service costs plus fees and taxes each call costs me about $5. Insane in my opinion.
So when someone asks me to support higher taxes - I say - NO THANKS. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:37:37 PM · #71 |
This topic of this thread is "Taxes." We appear to have gotten way off track with personal attacks and insults and off-topic posts.
While it's true that some wandering will occur in a natural conversation, because the digression immediately led to personal attacks -- those posts (and the posts of those who quoted or referenced them) have been hidden in an effort to keep this thread on topic and civil.
Please, let's try to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks and baiting.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2008 05:29:56 PM · #72 |
I do think.
You're the one in the compound drinking the right wing Kool-Aid.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The humanity or rather the total lack of it, of those on the Right is disgusting.
What I don't understand is why you'd rather start and pay trillions of dollars for a war that only serves to line to pockets of the President's rich friends than to help those who can't help themselves. |
Your statement shows that you don't understand a whole lot more.
How has the just, legal, and proper war to liberate Iraq line the pockets of the President's friends? (I know I shouldn't bother with this, but it's just so silly).
How is helping people succeed a lack of humanity? (again, the blind won't see) |
No-Bid Contracts. Halliburton/KBR, you know, Cheney's old company where he's heavily invested and has lots of cronies, was handed, by the administration, the government's No Bid contract to provide services to the military in Iraq. This was done despite them having been fired by the Army for overcharging and charging during Bosnia/Kosovo. The contract is worth hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.
That's not to mention the record profits made by the oil companies. Companies in industries where both Bush and Cheney have close friends, companies which receive significant tax breaks from the governemt while we receive price increases.
Aside from the fact that the war was not and is not just, legal or proper, the war that has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Is that what you call "help"? Is the war simply "helping" the people in the crossfire find Allah that much sooner?
Maybe it's a good thing you don't want to bring your flavor of "help" to your fellow, but less fortunate, countrymen. Is it really better to just let them suffer and die than to blast them into the next life with a so-called "smart" weapon. |
Blah blah blah blah blah -- excuse did you something I left out?
War in Iraq
Whine all you want... the war as just and was legal and no amount of crybabying will change that. Yes, people die in war, but sometimes war is necessary. Less people have died in Iraq than at the hands of liberal abortionists... [Edited to remove personal attack]
Haliburton
per Factcheck.org (//www.factcheck.org/anti-bush_ad_overstates_case_against_halliburton.html)
But in fact, investigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.
Record Oil profits
In $ amount, yes. In percentage? No. You lose there too. Strike 3 and you're out. They are making the same low profit margin as they always have. I think it's around 8%. 8% of 1,000,000,000 is more than 8% of 100,000,000. But it's still just 8%. Sell more, make more, but the percetage is the same.
QUIT listening to the liberal malarky and think. |
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 02:41:01 AM · #73 |
The fact is that no one likes to pay taxes. Both the left and the right seem to grow the federal obligations, it is only the choice of where the money is spent that varies from administration to administration. The primary question is, are we willing to tax ourselves enough to pay for the programs our elected officials enact, or are we going to make our children foot the bill for our spending?
Family of four shares $130,864 in federal debt responsibility - - including those still in diapers - $11,572 more than last year. Every year servicing that debt, which we sell to other countries we are competing with in the global marketplace, eats a bigger and bigger share of our gross domestic product.
If you want to tax high and spend high like Denmark (38-68% income tax with cradle to grave benefits) Thats fine. Or you might think to follow Macedonia or Georgia and keep tax rates low, with little of the way in any social support, or military for that matter, go ahead and pick a model.
As we now run our government, we enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in the world, with social services that are in the to 60% and a military second to none, and we are enjoying the best of both worlds by stealing from our children.
Numbers culled from Forbes "mysery index" where taxes are seen as a miserable thing, but take a look at the list, and with a very few exceptions (USA being the most glaring) I'd rather live in the "Miserable" countries than those free of such crushing taxation. The countries at the bottom of the list with high spending are all awash in either oil money or red ink.
Message edited by scalvert - Politics thread is here: //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=834029. |
|
