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
For your information
Topic Started: Aug 21 2004, 06:57 PM (415 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Fesarius
Aug 22 2004, 12:33 PM
Quote:
 
I am a registered Independent.

Gvok,

Same thing. :rotfl: :wave2: ;)

To a Facist. :lol:
| Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Dandandat
Aug 21 2004, 11:38 PM
I think (and I will gladly stand corrected if I am wrong) they are speaking to the idea that generally the left and the Democratic Party hold up the torch of the poor and chastise the rich (for simply being rich). They are trying to point out that the left are made up of "evil" rich people just as much as the right is. And that perhaps the left take advantage of the system, to benefit their richer members, just as much as they criticizes the right for doing.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but if I may add, the statistics show that the DNC and the leftists receive more support from the mega-weathly than the GOP and rightists.

Dig around and you'll find the top 1% in the United States support overwhelmingly the democrats, while the top 50% support the republicans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Interesting that Kerry wants to roll back the tax cuts on the top 1%. Do these major supporters of the Democrat party know that they are supporting a candidate that wants to raise their taxes?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Of course they know, but they all believe in the idea of the nanny state.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 22 2004, 05:04 PM
Of course they know, but they all believe in the idea of the nanny state.

Or perhaps they believe in the idea of balancing the budget.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
So it is the responsibility of the rich to balance the budget?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^
So you'd think.

I guess most leftists believe that those who do the most to advance economies and society are the ones who must bare the burden of all the leftist utopian schemes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 22 2004, 09:25 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 22 2004, 05:04 PM
Of course they know, but they all believe in the idea of the nanny state.

Or perhaps they believe in the idea of balancing the budget.

Oh please... how does a nanny state balance a budget? Excessive taxation. I'm talking UK rates, as opposed to ours. NO THANKS!

By the way, if you don't think you are paying enough in taxes, feel free to donate. I've said that to a number of liberal friends. They hem and they haw, but not one has done this! I've even asked them (after the fact), "So, send in the taxes you feel you should be paying?" I usually hear, "F*** y**, man!" as a response.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 23 2004, 07:03 AM
gvok
Aug 22 2004, 09:25 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 22 2004, 05:04 PM
Of course they know, but they all believe in the idea of the nanny state.

Or perhaps they believe in the idea of balancing the budget.

Oh please... how does a nanny state balance a budget? Excessive taxation. I'm talking UK rates, as opposed to ours. NO THANKS!

By the way, if you don't think you are paying enough in taxes, feel free to donate. I've said that to a number of liberal friends. They hem and they haw, but not one has done this! I've even asked them (after the fact), "So, send in the taxes you feel you should be paying?" I usually hear, "F*** y**, man!" as a response.

I can't really comment on the people you say that you talk to. All I'm saying is that the money we spend should be roughly equivilent to the revenues (not too radical I think). Asking people for donations would not be a reliable way to make up the difference I'm afraid.
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
^^^
we can always cut what we spend to equal our revenue. Instead of increase revenue to equal what we spend.

What a glories world it would be if I could dictated an increase in my revenue to equal the amount I would like to spend :idea: . After I bought my self a new car, a nice house and set up a college fund for my kids, I would set out to end world hunger and poverty by buying every one houses and food, and setting up their children’s college funds. Unfortunately I cant dictate increases in my revenue to suit spending the amount I would like to spend, so I have to settle for decreasing the amount I would like to spend to match my revenue.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Bingo!

Quote:
 
we can always cut what we spend to equal our revenue. Instead of increase revenue to equal what we spend.


I've posted this question several times, and never gotten an answer. What would you folks cut first? Forget a tax increase. It isn't going to happen. This means that a budget can be balanced in three ways... by 1) restricting the rates of increase to less than the revenue rate increase (revenues rise during an expanding economy without a tax increase), 2) by growing our way out of deficits, or 3) by actual budget cuts.

So imagine Congress' unwillingness to reduce the rate of budgetary increase, and imagine that revenues are not growing fast enough to keep pace with budgetary growth, then what do you cut to balance the budget?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 23 2004, 06:57 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 23 2004, 07:03 AM
gvok
Aug 22 2004, 09:25 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 22 2004, 05:04 PM
Of course they know, but they all believe in the idea of the nanny state.

Or perhaps they believe in the idea of balancing the budget.

Oh please... how does a nanny state balance a budget? Excessive taxation. I'm talking UK rates, as opposed to ours. NO THANKS!

By the way, if you don't think you are paying enough in taxes, feel free to donate. I've said that to a number of liberal friends. They hem and they haw, but not one has done this! I've even asked them (after the fact), "So, send in the taxes you feel you should be paying?" I usually hear, "F*** y**, man!" as a response.

I can't really comment on the people you say that you talk to. All I'm saying is that the money we spend should be roughly equivilent to the revenues (not too radical I think). Asking people for donations would not be a reliable way to make up the difference I'm afraid.

So you'd rather they be penalized additionally for being successful? Is this a "better you than me" ideology? We used to call that NIMBYism (not in my back yard), and it was originally used to describe those who was all for something (a new highway, or powerplant, or oil drilling) as long as it didn't affect them personally...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Quote:
 
So you'd rather they be penalized additionally for being successful? Is this a "better you than me" ideology?


No, I would not rather that and no it is not. I only want the budget to be within the ball park of being balanced.


| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Then what would you cut?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I would raise taxes.
| Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus