Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Schadenfreude
Author Message
Paul Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 133
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
 
His Screen Name is Schandenfreude...

His road thru life has been filled with Liberal thoughts
and Liberal beliefs...

As he prepares to venture into the real world...

The road he is traveling will make a dramatic turn...

The sign post up ahead tells it all...

Schandenfreude...

Your next stop is...

THE TWILIGHT ZONE!
08-27-2003 03:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #22
 
Quote:We all know that far-left, Shad-like, near socialist economies DO NOT WORK. Need examples? Try Cuba for one.

Does the fact that Argentina has failed negate all the virtues of capitalism?

Quote:I remain firm on eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax. That limits government spending, it forces the gov't to spend money more wisely, and middle-class families who are trying to save $$ aren't punished for doing so.

You should be clear about what you want. It appears you want an even more massive tax cut for the wealthy than President Bush has yet proposed -- along with a corresponding reduction in services to pay for it.

I say this because your proposal would punish the middle class, particularly if you tried to raise the same amount of money now raised through the income tax with a sales tax.

Sales taxes are hardest on the poor. Despite exemptions for necessities such as food, the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on sales taxes than do the middle class. Further, the mdidle class spend a greater proportion of their income toward sales taxes than the wealthy.

As we know, the income tax has the opposite effect -- an effect, I should add, that better fits my idea of fairness

So, if your proposal for a national sales tax is revenue neutral, the burden on the middle class is likely to go way, way up in order to pay for the savings wealthy families would see. Sales taxes, by their nature, are assessed at a flat rate.

On the other hand, if your proposal is structured in a way so that no one's tax burden goes up (and this strikes me as unrealistic considering the fact that, if we leave FICA aside, many poor families pay no income tax at all right now), then you are talking about a massive, massive giveaway to the rich and a massive, massive cut in services.

I'd like to hear more about which services you would cut in order to balance the budget that would be produced through replacement of the income tax with the sales tax. What services do you plan to cut?

And how do you propose explaining to poor families that they'll need to pay more on everything from school supplies to light bulbs so that our nation's upper crust can be free of this odious, unfair income tax?
08-27-2003 06:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
 
I'll just say this. John Linder's plan would credit back all tax money to the poverty line (Depending on family size). After that, we are ALL discretionary spenders. No one has a "Right" to have a Hummer and no one has a "Right" to expect someone else to pay the tab when they live above their means. We ALL have a responsibility to pay the debts of the country. Democrats want to tax and tax and tax the wealthy or successful, the wealthy and successful will soon leave. It is already happening. Take a look at California. Hell, look at overseas jobs, for that matter. Leftists want to blame Bush for the exodus of jobs from this country and I say BS. The Democrats are the MAIN reason FOR this exodus as they are the ones trying to impose draconian taxes on them. Of course to you guys, Bush is to blame for everything besides the crucifixion of Jesus, so we'll just have to consider the source.

This plan WILL work as it takes ALL taxes and diverts them to ALL individuals, more specifically, all consumers. That IS the way it should be. People like you, Schad, believe we aren't taxing the corporations enough. People like me, Schad, believe that ANY tax on a corporation is STILL going to be paid for by the consumer. Eliminate the corporate taxes, and you allow them to have more operational capital, I.e. it allows them to drop the prices of their goods and STILL make more of a profit. It also allows them to hire more people. Businesses are IN business to make money.


CANNOT BE DEBATED:

Businesses have said there is NO NEGATIVE in relocating businesses here if the Fair Tax is passed.
08-27-2003 08:17 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
 
By the way, I see you STILL have failed to answer the first post in this thread.

Yeah, those evil rich. If it wasn't FOR those evil rich, your ****** wouldn't have a job and this country wouldn't be what it is today. I know you don't think this country was made great by the less-successful, do you? It was the sheer genious of the big wigs.
08-27-2003 08:19 AM
Quote this message in a reply
calling_the_hogs Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,096
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 5
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
 
How does a national sales tax in any way hurt the middle class?

Just some simple logic here...but

The rich are gonna spend the most $$$, so they're STILL going to be the main contributors of the tax. With the elimination of the income tax, the rich will spend MORE, which only sparks job growth, national sales, and progress. So you're ranting about a break for the rich doesn't work.

Secondly, and I know this is tough for you Shad, because it is for most far-left radicals...but with a national sales tax...people can decide for their own how much to give. If a middle class family is trying to save $$$, they can do so...become only wealthier, and prosper because of it. The poor can save too. You don't like this bill because...oh no...people have to be RESPONSIBLE for something! That's not the way you and the far left like it Shad. You'd rather put all the problems of the world in the hands of the government.

Also, if Argentina fails... that's because of bad leadership on their part. Name ONE country that follows your beliefs on socialistic economics that is a prosperous one. Name ONE. And don't even think of saying China, who is relying on Hong Kong's ability to not be government run to get all the recent prosperity it has. Cuba? Nope. Vietnam? Nope. Better yet, ask eastern europeans, who are tasting a free market for just the last decade, about their feelings toward your economic policies.

You fail on this. Socialism doesn't work because man is naturally greedy. He doesn't want to be equal with everyone else; he has goals and ambitions. That's why Capatalism DOES work.

Go to Cuba though Shad, maybe you can lead em to unseen glory, since you think you're that brilliant.

WPS
08-27-2003 10:00 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #26
 
I'm going to oversimplify this post in persuit of a point and mathematical simplicity.

In the nation of Fredonia, we have 16 citizens.

Persons A through E earn $10,000 per year. Persons F through O earn $100,000 per year. Person P earns $1 million per year.

In Freedonia's progressive income tax system, Persons A through E pay no income tax at all. * They don't earn enough.

Persons F through O might pay 20 percent of their income toward the income tax. That's $20,000 each.

Person K pays 39 percent toward the income tax.** That's $390,000.

So Fredonia is able to raise $590,000 annually to operate its society. Part of that includes helping out Persons A through E. They don't have much dough, and life is hard for them. Their thatch rooves are collapsing. Two just don't earn enough money to feed their kids. A couple are old and sickly and can't work. One is the village idiot.

Some of that tax money money also goes to post a citizen as a guard at the border. Fredonia wants to keep safe from its neighbors.

Well, one day, Person P gets some mail from the Cato Institute or something like that, and starts bugging his fellow citizens to junk the progressive income tax. "It punishes success," he argues.

So the people of Fredonia sit down and try to figure out what the new sales tax rate ought to be. This is a big deal. The whole country comes out to discuss it.

"We know we need $590,000 to keep this country going," argues Person D.

Person E agrees. So they set the national sales tax rate at 28.8 percent.

But, soon, almost everyone on the island is getting cranky.

Persons A through E, who formerly paid nothing, now pay $2,800 each. Persons C and D are cutting pills in half and eating cat food. The kids of persons A and B are getting the rickets.

So, Fredonians have another national meeting. They agree that Persons A through E shouldn't have to pay anything. They bump up the sales tax rate to 29.5 percent.

But now, Persons F through O, who were already pissed, are beside themselves. They already got socked with an $8,800 tax increase when the sales tax was imposed. Now they are going to face another $700 tax increase.

"This is horseshit," Person J says. "I'm sick of government pissing away my money."

So they knock on the door of Person P. Once they get the work crews to take a break -- he's been hard at "work" expanding his mansion with the $100,000 or so he saved through national tax reform -- they explain the problem.

Person P agrees: "You are right. This isn't fair. Success shouldn't be punished."

So, Fredonians set another sales tax rate: 20 percent. Most Fredonians are relieved. They are still paying taxes, but at least they are back to the bill they are used to.

Of course, someone has to pay -- and in this case, it's the poor Fredonians. The Fredonian national government is only raising $400,000 a year. They still need a guard at the border, after all.

"You're just going to have to tighten your belts," Person H tells Persons A through E. "Get a job, or something. Don't bother us with your problems."

The poor Fredonians go looking for Person P, but no one can find him. That first $100,000 tax cut paid for the expansion of his mansion. Rumor is he used the $80,000 he saved in the second tax cut to buy a yacht. But some say he bought a summer home, instead.

------

* If they lived in America, they would pay about 7 percent of their income toward FICA. But let's leave that aside.
** I've exaggerated the bill to keep my math simple. The top marginal rate under President Clinton was 39 percent, but it only applied to income over $250,000. Also, we need to keep in mind that Person E will not pay a nickel more toward FICA than persons C and D.
08-28-2003 07:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
 
Damn, a nation of 16 people and they can't live on anything less than $590,000?

[Image: eib1.gif] [Image: music1.gif]



....again, it is not MY damn place to "fund" these under-achievers. If they want charity, fine. The government, however, has NO DAMN RIGHT to confiscate my wages and redistribute them to someone that doesn't at least try to better themselves. Like I said, ALL people will be given a check every month to reimburse them up to the non-taxable poverty line. It's fair. No one has a "Right" to buy anything they want and when they DO, it is THEIR responsibility to ensure they can afford it. Not mine.

It's called personal responsibility Schad. Look into it.
08-28-2003 07:47 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #28
 
I should add that a sales tax would be even more brutal than I've explained. A greater share of items bought by poor people have sales tax applied to them then for middle class people. And middle class people tend to get hit by the sales tax more than wealthy people.

The sales tax doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't apply to most services -- accountants, lawyers, beauty parlors. It doesn't apply to money that is put in savings. It doesn't apply to money put into retirement accounts, college savings accounts and the like.

Poor people dont' tend to spend a lot of money on these sort of things..
08-28-2003 07:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #29
 
If you take away one point, take away this:

For all the talk about hte supposed advantages of a sales tax over an income tax, the heart of it is either:

(a) a shifting of the tax burden away away from people who can most afford to pay

or

(b) Cuts to services.


That's the heart of it. If savings are so important, it can be promoted through the existing tax code. But the "savings crisis" isn't really the issue. The issue is giving wealthy people a big fat tax break or cutting government services.
08-28-2003 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
 
Do you actually think that I DON'T want to see the size of the federal government decreased? I think of a LOT of organizations that are on the federal level that should have never left the state. A National Sales Tax turns us ALL into voluntary tax payers. That's the way a free nation should be. You continue to make the successful pay the brunt of the operating costs of government, I.e. punishing them for succeeding in life, then they will soon just say to hell with it and live off their wealth. Remember, wealth isn't taxed. I could have a million dollars sitting in the bank right now and, aside from interest, not pay one cent of tax on it.
08-28-2003 08:14 AM
Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #31
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:
Quote:We all know that far-left, Shad-like, near socialist economies DO NOT WORK. Need examples? Try Cuba for one.

Does the fact that Argentina has failed negate all the virtues of capitalism?
This proves one thing. SHAD IS A DAMN COMMIE! No one that's in their right mind would say this.
08-28-2003 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #32
 
Quote:Do you actually think that I DON'T want to see the size of the federal government decreased?

I think you do.

I (cough) respect your intellectual honesting in being up front about it.

I believe George Bush's tax cuts are more subversive. By running the largest deficits in the history of our nation, he is going to put our federal government in a position where it has to cut federal programs.

People support these programs -- programs like Social Security and Medicare. Bush's tax cuts fit the right wing against by setting the stage to starve them.

Quote:A National Sales Tax turns us ALL into voluntary tax payers.

No. It simply shifts the burden away from rich people toward other people.

Is the purchase of a car truly a voluntary purchase? In New York City maybe -- but not in the America I live. Without a car, one can't work.

Is

Quote:That's the way a free nation should be.

You left out "in your opinion."

Quote:You continue to make the successful pay the brunt of the operating costs of government, I.e. punishing them for succeeding in life,

Let us get one thing straight: The progressive income tax does not punish success. Bill Gates is free to earn as much money as he would like.

If the federal government wanted to punish wealthy people, it could design a tax code to do that.

Punishing wealthy people would go along the lines of this scenario: Anyone who earns more than $5 million in a year will have to pay a $100 fine for every $1 earned over $5 million.

That would be punishing success.

America doesn't do that.

Quote:success, it would then they will soon just say to hell with it and live off their wealth.

And, I'm certain, continue to lobby to exempt capital gains -- the kind of income earned without getting off your duff -- from taxes.
09-01-2003 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:No. It simply shifts the burden away from rich people toward other people.

Is the purchase of a car truly a voluntary purchase? In New York City maybe -- but not in the America I live. Without a car, one can't work.
This is patently false. It shifts the tax burden to EVERY citizen that's a consumer. ...the way it should be.

...and about the "largest deficits in the history of our nation"

Read this...again:

The latest estimate is that it could be just under $500 billion dollars.

Give me an honest answer here. Considering your own household budget, which would you rather have: A deficit equal to 5% of your annual budget, or one equal to 3% of that budget?

Now, another question. Which deficit would you rather have: A $3000 annual deficit or one equal to $5000? You're going to take the $3000 deficit, right? So far, so good.

Now ... the third question. Just a little more complicated. Which would you rather have: A $3,000 deficit with an annual operating budget of $10,000; or a $5,000 deficit with an annual operating budget of $50,000. Whoops! Now you're going to take the larger dollar amount, right? If you chose the smaller deficit amount they there is a strong probability that you were educated in government schools. The $3,000 deficit in our example represents a 30% budget deficit, while the $5,000 deficit equals a 10% deficit. It would be a lot easier to increase your productivity by 10% to cover that $5,000 deficit than it would be to boost your personal economy by 30% to take care of that smaller $3,000 total.

Now, what did we learn here. We earned that the important figure regarding budget relates to it's percentage of the total budget rather than its dollar amount.

Don't you wish your kid had someone like me teaching them basic economics?~~~~~Neal Boortz
09-01-2003 06:13 PM
Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #34
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:Is the purchase of a car truly a voluntary purchase? In New York City maybe -- but not in the America I live. Without a car, one can't work.
Heard of a bike, dipshit? Or how about the bus, or car pooling?
09-01-2003 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #35
 
Or the train.
09-01-2003 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #36
 
Shad is the only guy I know who can oppose tax cuts and tax increases and think he's right.
09-01-2003 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #37
 
RebelKev Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:No. It simply shifts the burden away from rich people toward other people.

Is the purchase of a car truly a voluntary purchase? In New York City maybe -- but not in the America I live. Without a car, one can't work.
This is patently false. It shifts the tax burden to EVERY citizen that's a consumer. ...the way it should be.
In other words, it shifts the burden away from rich people toward people who are not rich.
09-02-2003 05:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:No. It simply shifts the burden away from rich people toward other people.

Is the purchase of a car truly a voluntary purchase? In New York City maybe -- but not in the America I live. Without a car, one can't work.
This is patently false. It shifts the tax burden to EVERY citizen that's a consumer. ...the way it should be.
In other words, it shifts the burden away from rich people toward people who are not rich.
As I said, it shifts the burden EQUALLY to every damn consumer. Should I write it on Blue Horse Paper with a crayon for you? No one has a "right to" live a comfortable life. The government's job is to PROMOTE the general welfare, not to offer it. What does that mean? That it's job is to remove as many barriers as possible so that YOU can make your own way. If you aren't living the lifestyle you want, it's your fault and your fault alone. NOT the people that HAVE made it as THEY are the ones that MADE their own.
09-02-2003 07:47 AM
Quote this message in a reply
calling_the_hogs Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,096
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 5
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #39
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:I'm going to oversimplify this post in persuit of a point and mathematical simplicity.

In the nation of Fredonia, we have 16 citizens.

Persons A through E earn $10,000 per year. Persons F through O earn $100,000 per year. Person P earns $1 million per year.

In Freedonia's progressive income tax system, Persons A through E pay no income tax at all. * They don't earn enough.

Persons F through O might pay 20 percent of their income toward the income tax. That's $20,000 each.

Person K pays 39 percent toward the income tax.** That's $390,000.

So Fredonia is able to raise $590,000 annually to operate its society. Part of that includes helping out Persons A through E. They don't have much dough, and life is hard for them. Their thatch rooves are collapsing. Two just don't earn enough money to feed their kids. A couple are old and sickly and can't work. One is the village idiot.

Some of that tax money money also goes to post a citizen as a guard at the border. Fredonia wants to keep safe from its neighbors.

Well, one day, Person P gets some mail from the Cato Institute or something like that, and starts bugging his fellow citizens to junk the progressive income tax. "It punishes success," he argues.

So the people of Fredonia sit down and try to figure out what the new sales tax rate ought to be. This is a big deal. The whole country comes out to discuss it.

"We know we need $590,000 to keep this country going," argues Person D.

Person E agrees. So they set the national sales tax rate at 28.8 percent.

But, soon, almost everyone on the island is getting cranky.

Persons A through E, who formerly paid nothing, now pay $2,800 each. Persons C and D are cutting pills in half and eating cat food. The kids of persons A and B are getting the rickets.

So, Fredonians have another national meeting. They agree that Persons A through E shouldn't have to pay anything. They bump up the sales tax rate to 29.5 percent.

But now, Persons F through O, who were already pissed, are beside themselves. They already got socked with an $8,800 tax increase when the sales tax was imposed. Now they are going to face another $700 tax increase.

"This is horseshit," Person J says. "I'm sick of government pissing away my money."

So they knock on the door of Person P. Once they get the work crews to take a break -- he's been hard at "work" expanding his mansion with the $100,000 or so he saved through national tax reform -- they explain the problem.

Person P agrees: "You are right. This isn't fair. Success shouldn't be punished."

So, Fredonians set another sales tax rate: 20 percent. Most Fredonians are relieved. They are still paying taxes, but at least they are back to the bill they are used to.

Of course, someone has to pay -- and in this case, it's the poor Fredonians. The Fredonian national government is only raising $400,000 a year. They still need a guard at the border, after all.

"You're just going to have to tighten your belts," Person H tells Persons A through E. "Get a job, or something. Don't bother us with your problems."

The poor Fredonians go looking for Person P, but no one can find him. That first $100,000 tax cut paid for the expansion of his mansion. Rumor is he used the $80,000 he saved in the second tax cut to buy a yacht. But some say he bought a summer home, instead.

------

* If they lived in America, they would pay about 7 percent of their income toward FICA. But let's leave that aside.
** I've exaggerated the bill to keep my math simple. The top marginal rate under President Clinton was 39 percent, but it only applied to income over $250,000. Also, we need to keep in mind that Person E will not pay a nickel more toward FICA than persons C and D.
Nice try here...but let's go to a more realistic scenario...

Let's keep the 16 citizens in Fredonia.

Persons A through E make $10,000 a year. Persons A,B,and C are on a government welfare program, something you "oops'', forgot to mention. They sit on their butt all day and don't work at all. D is an elderly couple on retirement. E is the village drunk.

Persons F through O earn $100,000 a year. Person P earns $1 million a year.

Assume your income tax, giving Fredonia the $590k and all that crap.

The income tax is replaced by a national sales tax...at 25%. Food is exempt from taxation.

Persons A through C suddenly realize... "damn, I can't sit on my ****** all day and let the government pay for all my needs like the Shad party said I could. I actually have to take responsibility for my actions". They realize that suddenly, they need to earn more, so they pick up new jobs. At $6.50./hr, they are able to make $13,520 a year. The $3,520 extra is more than enough to cover the sales tax on goods needed, because poor people do not spend much on luxuries, with something left over. This gives them extra money in the pocket, and a new sense of pride in the fact they are now benefitting society. They spend roughly $10,000 of their money. Unlike their welfare years though, the $2,500 in taxes still leaves them with $1,020 they didn't have before when they spent their whole welfare check.

D and E are frugal and tight, spending only $7800 of their check. That's $1,950 in taxes. But more to come on those two.

F,G,H, and I are families making $100k, but are wanting to save up. They're trying to buy bigger houses and bigger yards. H wants a new swimming pool. I wants a new Mercedes. All of them decide, like many middle-class families in America today, to save their money and spend frugally to get the $$ they need for what they want later. They save $25,000 and only spend $75,000 of their money. This is $18,750 they give in taxes roughly. J,K,L,M,N, and O save only $15000 of their savings, and spend $85,000, giving $21,250 in taxes to Fredonia.

P says hell, because prices are cheaper, and the government won't tax my income, I'll be glad to spend more and buy more. P buys a new Jaguar. He buys more watches and more luxury items then he did before. He used to only spend about $500,000 of his annual salary, now he spends $800,000. He gives $200,000 in taxes to Fredonia.

So now Fredonia has a government running at $413,490. It's less then the income tax, so the people get together and decide what they need to do. Easily helping out D and E is one item. Keeping the guard at post is another. Of course, $30,000 is saved off welfare because of the success of A,B, and C. The solution becomes simple.

"Say, why do we need a program for this orchard?" says Person G. "It's on Person P's soil..no one else uses it. Isn't that pork?"

"That's right" says Person I, "and look at all these other projects on the budget. Why does Fredonia need to pay $60,000 to research more on the Clinton study "Why do prisoners not like prison?" Don't we know why already? These shouldn't be paid by the populace. We don't need them."

The pork projects are hence cut. Therefore, Fredonia now has a more efficient government; they've cut 60% off their welfare, only needing to help D and E. Everyone has more money in their banks, and unemployment, which was at 26.7% at the 'progressive' income tax (Elderly who do not wish to work do not count in the unemployment figures) is now at 6.7% aka the village drunk.

And Shad's economic policy, again, is wrong. It's about personal responsibility. The far left doesn't think people need it. I say we do.

WPS
09-02-2003 08:38 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #40
 
I like your analogy better CAH. Of course,

"because poor people do not spend much on luxuries, with something left over."

They actually do and THAT is why so many people resent where how their money is taxed and where it goes. My mother works at Hinds General, err. Methodist Medical, err. well, I think it's Central Mississippi Medical Center now, in the ER and gets REALLY fired up at the people that come in on Medicaid, etc. that wear ALL designer clothes, rings on every finger, gold chains that could be used by a wrecker, etc. When "I" was a kid, my parents didn't HAVE that much money, but they never, EVER received government assistance. Of course, my clothes were probably some of the cheapest that one could buy. Hell, I remember wearing "Tough Skins" jeans.
09-02-2003 08:47 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.