I saw an entire family dumpster diving earlier this week. They were driving a brand new Yukon with gank rims. Pimping is getting tough...Fo' Shizzle.

(04-20-2012 10:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Yes we've all seen how you do near the mandatory minimum recommended amount of pro bono work pushed by your state bar.

It isn't mandatory.

Quote:No, but you can help *THIS* little girl... Think of the story of the star fish on the beach. To many progressives, even the very very rich ones, are waiting for the Government to tell everybody to help (by raising taxes) before they do what they say is right..

It's a serious character flaw of the left. A worse one than the rights obsession with a given tax rate...

I can give up all my income to help a few dozen girls probably, but if I do that I can't live comfortably. I'm not against successful people living better, nor all income inequality. I'm not a communist or even a socialist. Let the Koch Bros and Romneys keep most of the money they earn, but a 13% tax rate is ridiculous, especially when there are destitute people like this.

I'm interested in solving a widespread problem of hunger, homelessness and lack of health care, and the only way to do that is increasing taxes on the rich (and yes probably raise taxes on myself). We can't solve this privately if we wanted to. Publicly, we can, and you're the one standing in the way.

We should all give charitably, but only after the government has guaranteed basic needs are taken care of.

Quote:I fail to see how the government taking money, a situation which skims a little of the top every time it changes hands is better than the vast swath of progressive people walking their talk.

Because the government can solve the problem by guaranteeing basic needs will be met and raising tax levels to whatever is necessary to do so; charity cannot. A poor person cannot rely on charity, they do not have a right to it and can be denied for any arbitrary reason, and the charity has no guarantee that its sources of funds will be there every time a need arises. Government had to step in centuries ago because private charity was allowing people to die on the street. Government is clearly the solution here.

Quote:Right we should *ignore* the debt so that in 15 years there is more debt to pay down, you know because people will keep buying up bonds and lending states money no matter how many times they demonstrate no desire to pay it back.

Well it's different at the state and federal level because the feds can devalue currency. The state may have no other option, but they should be raising taxes to pay off their debt instead of taking out of block grants for welfare recipients.

Quote:Yes, it is. He says he's not concerned about them, not that he doesn't care about them. Big difference.

Not really.

Quote:Actually giving of your own money and time requires personal sacrifice. That is something that liberals are not fond of doing. It is easier to complain about someone else not doing enough than for you to do something yourself. That is why Joe Biden can only find it within himself to give 1.5% of his income to charity. Max is in the same vein. He stands in line behind all the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Feinsteins, the Kerrys, et al.

There also is nothing that prevents you from agitating, as you put it, as well as volunteering/donating to charity.

You could make a difference TODAY and you simply choose not to do so.

First of all Biden has a very low net worth (I think he was the lowest in the Senate before he became VP) so I wouldn't lump him in with the other millionaires/billionaires.

Why should I make hard sacrifices to my lifestyle to give when the Koch Bros get to sit there even though they could very easily give $5 billion of their $30 billion and not flinch? I'll happily pay more taxes when those jokers have to.

(04-20-2012 10:50 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The rich progressive hold the very child like position that "it's not fair sally has to give less than I do"..

Not true. I'm fine with people who make less than me paying a lower rate, or none at all. Seeing billionaires paying lower rates though pisses me off.

And nothing's more selfish than rightwingers wanting lower taxes ostensibly out of concern for the poor, but actually so they can buy another Rolls or throw it on the pile.

Quote:Exactly how does this do good?

Who is better off? How and why? Who is worse off? How and why?

Because poor people have more nutrition, better shelter and health care. In my view, this is good.

The poor and really everyone in the 99%, and a good portion of that 1% too. The poor because their basic needs are taken care of, they live longer and feel less desperation and don't have to make sad difficult choices like trading sex for a room or moving in with an abusive boyfriend, and the rich because they don't have to fear a communist revolution and fewer poor people have to resort to crime (as the article and its interviews demonstrate). The very rich who don't live near the poor are worse off because they have less money to buy Rolls' and their net worth has decreased from $25 billion to $23 billion, oh the horror! But they too have less to fear from a potential backlash.

Remember Max, there are plenty o' rich liberals as well.

So if liberals are so concerned that the federal US government should arrange and pay for these welfare programs, then all liberals should remember that IRS doesn't refuse a little extra something in the tax check to help make things "more fair."

Max - have you ever bothered to look at all those wonderful, overlapping, duplicative programs that are supposed to be fixing this problem? Most of them come from your side - the side that never will realize, much less admit that their wonderful solutions are not working. The % of people poor and dependent on the government is growing, not shrinking but part of that is the recession and the jobless recovery.

All the money in the world spent on this problem will not change it but libs will always argue with this point, ignoring historical reality.

What the left desires, and does not understand is that you can't change human nature through social engineering. The world has always had poor people and always will. Mankind has always had a certain small segment that can not/will not take care of themselves and it always will.

You claim to not be a socialist or a communist but your proposed 'solutions' always sound surprisingly like those advanced by socialists.

Be honest for once, Max - you'd love to see this country fully embrace the European Socialist Welfare State. Never mind that some of Europe is starting to realize that it doesn't work and are starting to make moves away from it. Never mind that the majority of this country does not want to swerve so drastically away from the foundational ideas of freedom and individual responsibility into the realm of cradle to grave 'nanny' government taking care of you.

Here's a Q. for you, Max. Granted, it's hypothetical because the institutional left can't be honest and of course, this would never happen, as we've seen through the years how dishonest they are.

IF democrats and President Obama declared that he and his party wanted to re-create the system that Europe has, and the government would take care of your education, your healthcare, your pension, etc. - in other words, would take care of you in return for much higher taxes, do you think he could sell it to the population?

IOW, if the left was HONEST in telling the country what they wanted to do, would it be embraced or rejected by U.S. citizens? Ask the populace in PLAIN, clear, understandable language and present the option. I think we know the answer. They lie and obfuscate because they have to - they know that the freedom loving people in the U.S. would reject this out of hand. We fought wars for freedom for a reason. There are still a majority of people in this country that haven't been indoctrinated or brainwashed and know a pig even when it is disguised.

(04-20-2012 02:09 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I can give up all my income to help a few dozen girls probably, but if I do that I can't live comfortably.

Comfort is a very relative term max, my wife and I get by with one car when *many* would consider having two parents, with kids in school, and a baby at home a good case for two.

Quote:Let the Koch Bros and Romneys keep most of the money they earn, but a 13% tax rate is ridiculous, especially when there are destitute people like this.

Max if thats your logic why should *anyone* be allowed to keep more than a million?

Quote:I'm interested in solving a widespread problem of hunger, homelessness and lack of health care, and the only way to do that is increasing taxes on the rich (and yes probably raise taxes on myself). We can't solve this privately if we wanted to. Publicly, we can, and you're the one standing in the way.

Any government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have. I am not standing in your way, the history of your type of politics is.

Quote:Because the government can solve the problem by guaranteeing basic needs will be met and raising tax levels to whatever is necessary to do so

These things are *all* relative max, rights to personal property are not

Quote:Well it's different at the state and federal level because the feds can devalue currency.

Max you missed the part where I said "will they keep lending us money if we make no good faith attempt to pay it back"... If I lend you ten dollars and then you pay me back with something valued at 5 I will eventually stop giving you money.

China is already rattling its economic saber regarding out debt and standing as a reserve currency.

Oh please. Look in the mirror. Do you think the Right is always upfront and honest about their intentions? Santorum let some of his slip and look what happened. How well do you think killing Medicare and SS, ending welfare, food stamps, the income tax, child labor laws etc will go over if they were "HONEST" about these? No, instead they propose "reform" and make Orwellian arguments that by not giving food to poor people we help them.

We have freedom. You crazy right wingers have representatives in our government too, remember? If you had the support you could scrap the income tax today, but you don't and you know it, so you look up those crazy websites you posted a couple days ago arguing there is no legal basis for the 16th Amendment to try to weasel out of it when the IRS comes knocking. And you lecture me about being upfront and honest? Ha!

Sure the founders had a much smaller government and less spending, but they also weren't introduced to modern economic theory so none of what we do today (like the stimulus) would have made sense to them, and the corporation was really in its infancy back then. Oh and they also owned slaves-- so much for freedom.

(04-20-2012 02:18 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Remember Max, there are plenty o' rich liberals as well.

So if liberals are so concerned that the federal US government should arrange and pay for these welfare programs, then all liberals should remember that IRS doesn't refuse a little extra something in the tax check to help make things "more fair."

And those are the ones I was talking about. When someone ambushed them asking them to pledge to pay off more debt at a "progressive rich 1%'s event" they all to a man said no.... It's only good if the government makes it "fair"..

(04-20-2012 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sure the founders had a much smaller government and less spending, but they also weren't introduced to modern economic theory so none of what we do today (like the stimulus) would have made sense to them, and the corporation was really in its infancy back then. Oh and they also owned slaves-- so much for freedom.

Those men were far more enlightened, educated, and intelligent than 95% of our elected officials.

Can someone explain to me how the war on poverty has worked? Didn't think so...

(04-20-2012 03:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sure the founders had a much smaller government and less spending, but they also weren't introduced to modern economic theory so none of what we do today (like the stimulus) would have made sense to them, and the corporation was really in its infancy back then. Oh and they also owned slaves-- so much for freedom.

Those men were far more enlightened, educated, and intelligent than 95% of our elected officials.

bull****. Far more educated? Are you serious?

(04-20-2012 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sure the founders had a much smaller government and less spending, but they also weren't introduced to modern economic theory so none of what we do today (like the stimulus) would have made sense to them, and the corporation was really in its infancy back then. Oh and they also owned slaves-- so much for freedom.

Those men were far more enlightened, educated, and intelligent than 95% of our elected officials.

bull****. Far more educated? Are you serious?

Yes.

(04-20-2012 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Sure the founders had a much smaller government and less spending, but they also weren't introduced to modern economic theory so none of what we do today (like the stimulus) would have made sense to them, and the corporation was really in its infancy back then. Oh and they also owned slaves-- so much for freedom.

Those men were far more enlightened, educated, and intelligent than 95% of our elected officials.

bull****. Far more educated? Are you serious?

The founders... hell yes!

(04-20-2012 03:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can someone explain to me how the war on poverty has worked? Didn't think so...

The war on poverty was from the LBJ presidency.

It resulted in two acts. One, the Office of Economic Opportunity, was scrapped by Nixon in 1973. Although the Head Start portion of it was moved to another agency. Its reviews are mixed at best.

The other resulted in Medicare and Medicaid. I think those work pretty well.

(04-20-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can someone explain to me how the war on poverty has worked? Didn't think so...

The war on poverty was from the LBJ presidency.

It resulted in two acts. One, the Office of Economic Opportunity, was scrapped by Nixon in 1973.

The other resulted in Medicare and Medicaid. I think those work pretty well.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant as it relates to the number of people who need assistance as a percentage of our population?

Don't you think the end game should be to help people become more self sufficient?

(04-20-2012 03:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Comfort is a very relative term max, my wife and I get by with one car when *many* would consider having two parents, with kids in school, and a baby at home a good case for two.

Poverty is a relative term too but we've drawn a line.

Quote:Max if thats your logic why should *anyone* be allowed to keep more than a million?

Rarely I think is a million in income truly earned. Say, if a doctor who went to college for 8 years and residency for 4, does brain surgery all day I'd say he earned his million+ salary. (Or a lawyer who goes to college for 7 and pours over medical records into the night, winning justice for the average joe :sly: ). But Mitt Romney who plays golf all day while his capital "earns" him tens of millions of dollars, or the son of a factory owner who comes in, turns on the lights, snorts cocaine in the bathroom while all the blue collar guys on the assembly line earn him millions? Sorry, don't buy it.

Quote:Any government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have. I am not standing in your way, the history of your type of politics is.

If it takes all I have to guarantee basic human needs for everybody, so be it.

Quote:These things are *all* relative max, rights to personal property are not

We can draw a line. And your right to personal property should be relative. Would your income have been as high if there were no government roads for you to travel on, or government police offering protection, or government courts enforcing the law? If you can't say that you've "earned" everything on your own, your whole "property rights are absolute" theory crumbles.

Quote:Max you missed the part where I said "will they keep lending us money if we make no good faith attempt to pay it back"... If I lend you ten dollars and then you pay me back with something valued at 5 I will eventually stop giving you money.

China is already rattling its economic saber regarding out debt and standing as a reserve currency.

What do you mean by "make no good faith attempt to pay it back?" Who is doing that? The loans made to our government have terms, requiring periodic interest payments until the loans mature, at which time they can be paid back on demand or renegotiated (presumably at a higher rate). The US government will always live up to its obligations (so long as the GOP House doesn't drive us off a cliff the next time the debt ceiling debate comes up). I object to your characterization of our electing to simply make interest payments as "bad faith," so unless I misunderstand you I'm not going to answer it because it has a false premise.

To be fair the Founders did find plenty of time for book reading about equality and liberty in between slave raping sessions.

(04-20-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can someone explain to me how the war on poverty has worked? Didn't think so...

The war on poverty was from the LBJ presidency.

It resulted in two acts. One, the Office of Economic Opportunity, was scrapped by Nixon in 1973. Although the Head Start portion of it was moved to another agency. It's reviews are mixed at best.

The other resulted in Medicare and Medicaid. I think those work pretty well.

Yea its sweet!

(04-20-2012 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 03:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can someone explain to me how the war on poverty has worked? Didn't think so...

The other resulted in Medicare and Medicaid. I think those work pretty well.

It worked well? Really? Ever heard of the near $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities from SS, Medicare and Medicaid? Like a good lib, you praise these programs and ignore that despite whatever rosy projections that were made when the programs were proposed and voted on, the costs have been FAR, FAR, FAR higher than even the most pessimistic projections. Not to mention the fact that there never was an SS trust fund because our Congress critters couldn't keep their hands out of the cookie jar and spent all that money year after year on their other pet projects.

The problem is that many decades have gone by and far too many people have been engulfed by the entitlement mentality and now HAVE to depend on them. All by design. You can't expect that people you had promised something (a benefit) and forced them to pay into to a plan to now not expect to get what they were promised, even if the promise was not realistic, then or now. These entitlement programs and their costs are the albatross that will sink this nation yet you have one party in power that has no intention of working in a serious fashion to reign in the spending and get control of the deficit. Instead, they are moving to continue spending like drunken sailors under the guise of "we've got to make these "investments" in all kinds of unworkable schemes and immature technologies.

As far as you, Max and your diatribe, you don't read very well. I never said I endorsed the views, just that they were out there and you should know about them. I certainly wouldn't expect a statist and collectivist such as yourself to agree with a viewpoint that states that the government does not OWN my life and my income. You've made it clear that, in your head, Congress can do whatever they d@mn well please and that a person's life and work do not belong to themselves exclusively.

You and your ilk inside and outside of government are parasites that produce nothing of value and steal from those unable to protect themselves. The very people that you and your propaganda claim to want to help. But we all know that you meant well. As with the majority of liberal policies, the intent is all that matters, it seems. Results are secondary to the aim of dependency for all.

"The road to he!! is paved with good intentions....."

If you're so concerned about the debt I have an idea-- how about no more unpaid for wars and tax cuts for the rich?