Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nutjobs like Michael Savage; Beware of these types
Topic Started: May 6 2004, 09:42 PM (528 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
May 12 2004, 12:17 PM
I'm just saying he's a hypocrite too. Just about everybody is in one way or another.

Maybe his "harsh" audited toward drug addicts was fueled by a underline loathing of him self for being one. Maybe he was asking for help.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^I don't think it is up to us to analyze why. The fact remains that those who claim that hypocracy only exists on one side of the political spectrum are lying to themselves.

Isn't the hypocracy on both the right and the left one of the reasons for the Dandandat party?? ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
I'm pleased that you said that. I have a friend in Taxachusetts who frequently reminds me that we aren't (in his opinion) paying enough in taxes. Whenever I tell him he could send in whatever amount he wishes above and beyond what is required, he whines as well. (BTW, he is neither a Republican or a Democrat.)


I've been saying this for years. I think the first person I said this to was my youngest brother, back in '92. Now that he is out of school and has a job, he thinks differently :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Heck, I don't mind paying my taxes, I just wish I got something out of it. 300 more teachers have been laid off in the Bay Area, schools and libraries are closing down, and taxes are still high. Child care is prohibitively expensive and if were not paying taxes for schools and child care, where is it all going?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
You do. Your taxes defend this country, maintain infrastructure, and enforce the laws. This is not to say that a lot of tax money is wasted, but there are direct tangible benefits to taxes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I know I'm going to get a "liberal bashing" for this, but I just wish more taxes went to support children's growth than bombs and guns. Defense I'm all for, but lately it seems more of an offense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
There is nothing in the Constitution that is for "children's growth." That is the responsibility of parents, not government.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
True, but since most households have both parents working, they need support in child care and education. I suppose a few lucky families can afford to have only one parent working and the other home school their kids, or be home to take care of them while the other works. A few decades ago this wasn't all that unusual, but now? I think parnets can use all the help they can get.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I suppose a few lucky families can afford to have only one parent working and the other home school their kids, or be home to take care of them while the other works.

The Sisko,

We're one of the luckier families. But, it does come with somewhat of a cost. We have rented for all of our marriage (seventeen years), and are only now able to build our home. (I suppose we could have bought a home, but paying for tuition up front [without loans] was another calculated risk. ;)) The decision to have one of us stay home was made about eighteen years ago. It saves on daycare; more importantly, however, is the bond that is developed between parent and child due to at least one parent being there at all times. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^
So how about we return to a 1950s tax schedule with 1950s social spending.
Then one of the parents could afford to stay home and raise the child rather then paying sarogates.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Fes, I am very happy for you. I hope we (my wife and I) can work out a similar solution. Unfortunately, we just bought a house, so we need both incomes for the time being for the mortgage.

ANOVA: I am unfamiliar with that, could you explain it? I would simply prefer to slim down the military budget and spend more on social programs. What do you expect? I'm a damn liberal!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^

The 1950s had some of the highest growth in US history. It was sustainable with a increase in the quality of living whil maintaining a single income family.

The second round of social spending wouldn'r occur until the "Great Society".

Thomas Sowell does a great treatment on the costs of social spending in "Vision of the Annointed: Self congradulation as a basis for socail policy."

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
May 12 2004, 08:29 PM
True, but since most households have both parents working, they need support in child care and education. I suppose a few lucky families can afford to have only one parent working and the other home school their kids, or be home to take care of them while the other works. A few decades ago this wasn't all that unusual, but now? I think parnets can use all the help they can get.

Personal Observation

Census Data

Do most households have children?

Yes, I do know there is a responsibility of all members of society to its children. I just don't think I should have to pay a greater percentage share of societal costs for those children than their own parents do.

Can I designate my share to providing free community college education for them instead? At least I would always have a job. ;) :D

End of Personal Observation
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
The 1950s had some of the highest growth in US history. It was sustainable with a increase in the quality of living whil maintaining a single income family.

Anova et al.,

I've often wondered if this was due in part to our having come out of WWII. True, there was the Korean War to contend with, but why do economies often boom after wartime? Is it because war is 'big business'?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^

I recall no similar boom after WWI. As a matter of fact we had a depression.

One would expect more of a economic decline after a major conflict due to realocation of human material resources from the military/industrial sector to the civilian markets. Soldiers looking for jobs, military contractors shrinking thier labor force. Seems conflict should have the opposite effect.

The one thing that favored the US over other countries was the fact that out industrail infrastructure was untouched. This made America a chief exporter to nations whose industrial capacity was destroyed.

Still, The federal tax burden and a smaller nanny state had some effect on the economy.

ANOVA

I'm not an economist in real life, I just play one on the internet.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus