[Fortscribe]

I am all for poor people paying the same tax rate as everybody else. I am down with everyone paying just a set amount whenever they have a transaction. No stupid social re-engineering carbon tax, no additional smoker tariffs, no income tax, no death tax.

Since poor people don't buy much, they would automatically have taxes scaled to what they buy. As it stands, many poor people don't have jobs because of the terrible way liberals try to regulate companies into being some kind of social support structure. Why are most liberal cities like Detroit still such third world sh1t holes? Maybe if poor people paid taxes they would realize that the government is not a benefactor hand out program but a theft program. Government social programs NEVER give back more than it takes in. Even if we become hardcore socialists and centralize all the wealth from the "greedy" corporations, the nature of government is that it cannot come up with a way to run people's lives better than what they choose for themselves. Its impossible. Even crack dealing, alcoholics killing themselves off with guns make better choices for themselves than the government can make for them. Government doesn't really care about people. Its a lie. The government is just a construct, not a living entity. It does not feel for you. The people running it are full of ideas of what they want you to do; yet I never elected them to tell me how to live my life. That was not the purpose of our government's founding, its a power that corrupt officials have taken for themselves because few people have the will or the power to question it.

How can you liberals preach the Gospel of Good Government. Often times their agenda is more corrupt than anything a corporate CEO would try to implement. Most companies don't blow trillions of dollars away and try to re-engineer society in their image. They don't plan out ideas to make you join mandatory youth brigades like Rahm Emanuel. They don't throw you in jail if you don't by their health insurance. The liberals in government are not charming; hell most of them are not all that intelligent. Often times they don't even really know what is best for themselves as their beliefs tend to follow the capricious nature of populism. The idea that people like Obama would be telling us how to live. What a joke.

Governments only do a few things well. These are the sorts of things that people have almost universal agreement upon (like not wanting to get invaded or nuked) and things that are routine and can be made into algorithms. Government cannot be charitable. Liberals, all of you are stuck on stupid.

[TheChamp]

Insurance companies wrote the health insurance bills. The East India Company completely destroyed Indian sovereignty, don't underestimate the power of a corporation over poor people.

[wvpeach]

Poor people already pay plenty of taxes. Have you looked at you're utility bills lately they have taxes on them.
And besides the majority of households that don't pay any taxes at all are the elderly who have taxed out in age.
I think we can allow that. Since they have paid taxes all their life's till the age of 67.

[TheChamp]

1/3rd of my electricity bill are taxes.

[Fortscribe]

This is not about arguing that corporations are all wholesome and good.

I don't accept your premise that because corporations can be flawed that the government is necessarily superior. Indeed, any body of people be it corporate or government that has the power to exert authority over fellow man can be corrupt. That is why we established our RIGHTS. Liberals are ignoring our rights. They ignore our right to property through excessive taxation which is better called theft. They ignore our pursuit of happiness by finding ways of coercing us into the "service of society;" defining what our roles and destiny should be. They even ignore the very tenements of the government they supposedly serve. Funding voter intimidation and ACORN? Silencing political opponents through a media monopoly and broadcasting limitations. Calling the American people terrorists? No. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Rahm Emanuel is the son of a terrorist. Enough lies and enough games. The Obama administration should be fought on every ground that one can wage.

This is about fighting a government that is exerting authorities not intended in the founding nor wished for by the American people. We are not being represented by the people in power. They are pushing through their own agendas. Why should anybody be forced to pay for a health plan or goto jail? To hell with that. If Rahm wants to recruit our children into some mandatory service camp he can stick some dynamite up his @$$ and ignite the fuse. Do you think I come across as treasonous, violent or seditious? Goto hell. My life has been one devoted to trying to help save people though means of my own volition. I love my fellow man and have the compassion that many liberals profess they have. I don't care if you accept that or not. My fight to keep America liberated from tyranny is one of the highest forms of compassion one can have. So eat it.

This post has been edited by Fortscribe: 22 April 2010 - 10:53 PM

[wvpeach]

Some of what you say has merit Fortscribe . But let me remind you that the human race has 1700 hundred years of recorded history that gives us a good indication of what happens in totally free markets. History records that without government intervention to level the playing field you get Kings, and railroad barons. You get slaves and serfs, you get taxation without representation. You get old people dying in poor homes and industrial orphanages. You get child labor and workers being less valuable than the machine that just ripped their arm off.
So Fortscribe we tried the free market way for over 1700 years and what it always ended up with was a few elite people with all the money and land and the rest of us squabbling over the scraps to earn our daily bread.

No thank you!
Nope I will take the collective and what we the people can get done through the government any day.

Besides for the first time in decades we actually have a president in Obama that is making incremental steps to put this country back on track. I plan to support him 100% and that means no more third party voting for me. Nope, I will be voting in Democrats to try to help further President Obama's plans.

Oh and by the way Fortscribe even the Republicans have started to admit that nobody is going to be going to jail over the health care bill. So if you're going to insist on lying there is really no point in talking to you.
Now it;s true if you don't get your health care and don't pay the penalty tax you may never see another tax refund in your life.......... but that is not jail.

This post has been edited by wvpeach: 22 April 2010 - 11:55 PM

[TheChamp]

Resistance is Futile! We will assimilate your wealth into our own! Individuality is irrelevant.

[wvpeach]

I certainly hope you're a you're a young person champ.
It always saddens me to see people that should know better IE we older folks espouse such illogical positions.
But there is always hope that a young person learns better with age.

By the way that is why I have no respect for old illogical ideologues like Ron Paul, he knows better.

[tolbert]

wvpeach, on 23 April 2010 - 12:50 AM, said:

..... So Fortscribe we tried the free market way for over 1700 years and what it always ended up with was a few elite people with all the money and land and the rest of us squabbling over the scraps to earn our daily bread. ....

You wouldn't feel that way if you were one of those with the money and the land instead of one of the unwashed masses squabbling for your scraps.

wvpeach, on 23 April 2010 - 12:58 AM, said:

...
By the way that is why I have no respect for old illogical ideologues like Ron Paul, he knows better.

You're a fine one to be talking about ideologues Peach from what I've seen of your posts thus far.

[TheChamp]

wvpeach, on 22 April 2010 - 11:58 PM, said:

I certainly hope you're a you're a young person champ.
It always saddens me to see people that should know better IE we older folks espouse such illogical positions.
But there is always hope that a young person learns better with age.

By the way that is why I have no respect for old illogical ideologues like Ron Paul, he knows better.

You seem to constantly think you know whats good for everyone: you think you know whats in the new banking bill and why its good, you think you know whats in the health care bill and that's good, you think so much about controlling other people's lives you must have gotten very insecure with old age.

In fact, you're an ad naseus advocate. Everything out of your mouth is advocacy. So much so that when debating me, someone who rarely advocates for anyone or anything, you PROJECT things on to me. At first you projected that I was a pro-Bush Republican, then a pro-Ron Paul libertarian; you're such an insecure advocate you can't even imagine someone else is simply being critical.

BTW, How old are we talking about here, lady?

Hey peach, you're an inspiration, I changed my signature in your honor.

[KO KING]

wvpeach, on 22 April 2010 - 11:58 PM, said:

I certainly hope you're a you're a young person champ.
It always saddens me to see people that should know better IE we older folks espouse such illogical positions.
But there is always hope that a young person learns better with age.

By the way that is why I have no respect for old illogical ideologues like Ron Paul, he knows better.

I'm not sure what age needs to be considered as an older person but does 48 qualify? You should be ashamed of yourself for giving the green light to Obama or the government to continue down the path they are going. I agree the government can be used as a helpful tool but you don't seem to have a problem with allowing them to become babysitters. I won't lie and say every little thing Obama is doing is bad but each time I see something he does I can agree with we all end up giving them more power over our lives. I ask only the basics from government and have little respect for those who think government is the only solution to all our problems.

[wvpeach]

tolbert, on 23 April 2010 - 12:02 AM, said:

You wouldn't feel that way if you were one of those with the money and the land instead of one of the unwashed masses squabbling for your scraps.



You're a fine one to be talking about ideologues Peach from what I've seen of your posts thus far.

Lets see I am by no means what people would consider rich.
But after 18 years in the mortgage/home building business I am let's say comfortable. Sold out in 2005 and walked away with a tidy profit.
I do own a 140 plus acre farm. Guess what? I farm bit too. Have been a bit of a survivalist all my life so I grow veggies and some livestock. However I think I am getting out of the livestock thing. I cannot bring myself to kill any of them. My chickens and rabbits just keep multiplying. And my goats too. I end up giving them away rather than kill them.
I have three grown kids all out of college long ago now, so those expenses are behind me. Luckily they actually chose career paths where they make a lot more money than I ever did . Except for the teacher. But he is a young single man, owns his own duplex thanks to mom and his salary goes up yearly eventually he will be doing pretty well.
I have some rentals, and want a few more. A bit of money in the bank and just went to work for a multi national company in their marketing department making a decent salary with excellent benefits. IE My health insurance only costs me $25 bucks every two weeks and co pays and prescriptions about the same. Good to know should I ever need a doctor. Just now thank God I am quite healthy so that is a economic plus too. Very liberal work schedule and excellent stock sharing and 401K matching. It is a privately held company with a awesome owner who is about my age so I think I'll retire with him.

I own my vehicles. Don't have any credit card debt or a mortgage, so yeah at 53 I am about where I hoped to be. Considering I put three kids through college and one went to med school. That was expensive. He incurred 50K in debt there at the end though and I hate that. But he won't let me help pay it back and now that he is out of residency, I agree he is making a lot more money than me. Luckily my daughter was in the army of all the crazy things. But they did help pay for her pharmacy degree.

So you see Tolbert, while I am not among the rich, rather tend to be in the 35% tax bracket. I don't mind paying a bit more so people can have the services they need to stay on their own two feet. Oh and I do give to animal charities and campaigns besides my yearly taxes.

So it's apparent tolbert you don't know me.

[wvpeach]

PS: One more thing that might be relevant about who I am. The father of my three children died very young . He was 26 years old. At that time I was a stay at home mother who was tinkling around with the occasional class trying to finish my bachelors degree. All of a sudden boom the bread winner in my family is dead and social security sent me a monthly check for $189.00. See survivor benefits are based on what they made when alive. He had died a young Mr. Goodwrench just coming out of his apprenticeship.
So here I was three kids and $189.00 a month with a payment on a old trailer and a piece of land that was more than the $189.00 a month. Luckily I had some marketable skills and most of my college behind me. But all of a sudden I had to contend with huge daycare costs. Needed a better vehicle as he died in our good one and medical insurance for three small children. They didn't have any programs that covered that sort of thing back in the day.
I know what would have helped me immensely back then. Help with day care costs. I now advocate for that for parents.
And help with medical costs , we now have SCHIP which will cover kids in the US. Yippee for that program.
It also would have been very helpful if there were more after school programs when the kids started to get older. It was a constant worry as to what they were doing after school once they got old enough to start running their baby sitters off.
My son that teaches is educational director of the regions Boys & Girls clubs. I enjoy volunteering there when called upon. Also a great program that offers tutoring, and more importantly keeps kids in a constructive environment after school.
I am big on the Y for kids too and help with a fund raiser every year to help pay dues for low income families. Unfortunately the Y's don't like to be babysitters so clubs like the boys and girls clubs are still needed.

My point is I advocate for children. None are born junk. A lot of them have a lot of cards stacked against them. But with a little help and direction social programs can make a huge difference in their life's. I have seen it happen over and over again. That is good for society as a whole. Because if the community raises a successful productive adult they will most likely do the same for their own children if they have them with much less community support needed.

See as a kid growing up in Cleveland the Boy&Girls clubs along with community sporting leagues sure did make a whole lot of difference in my life. .............. It takes tax money to run those kind of things, donations never come in at the level needed. Heck you're lucky to get enough donations to cover the cost of the bus and insurance needed to transport some of the kids home.

There now................ I think you all know me more than you probablly cared too.

Your memory must be slipping champ. How old are you by the way?
Let me remind you that it was you that told me your a Ron Paul man and I believe to quote you " support him 100%"



Also, demographic studies tend to show that if Paul doesn't make it out of the primaries which he never will his voters tend to vote Republican.
So tell me Champ who did you vote for in 08?

TheChamp, on 23 April 2010 - 12:09 AM, said:

You seem to constantly think you know whats good for everyone: you think you know whats in the new banking bill and why its good, you think you know whats in the health care bill and that's good, you think so much about controlling other people's lives you must have gotten very insecure with old age.

In fact, you're an ad naseus advocate. Everything out of your mouth is advocacy. So much so that when debating me, someone who rarely advocates for anyone or anything, you PROJECT things on to me. At first you projected that I was a pro-Bush Republican, then a pro-Ron Paul libertarian; you're such an insecure advocate you can't even imagine someone else is simply being critical.

BTW, How old are we talking about here, lady?

Hey peach, you're an inspiration, I changed my signature in your honor.

This post has been edited by wvpeach: 23 April 2010 - 10:03 AM

[Fortscribe]

wvpeach, on 23 April 2010 - 12:50 AM, said:

Some of what you say has merit Fortscribe . But let me remind you that the human race has 1700 hundred years of recorded history that gives us a good indication of what happens in totally free markets. History records that without government intervention to level the playing field you get Kings, and railroad barons. You get slaves and serfs, you get taxation without representation. You get old people dying in poor homes and industrial orphanages. You get child labor and workers being less valuable than the machine that just ripped their arm off.
So Fortscribe we tried the free market way for over 1700 years and what it always ended up with was a few elite people with all the money and land and the rest of us squabbling over the scraps to earn our daily bread.

No thank you!
Nope I will take the collective and what we the people can get done through the government any day.

So the railroad barons were terrible? They only managed to construct a system that allowed trans-continental transportation and the growth of numerous industries that made America a first rate power. The average liberal politician today can't even get a light rail system up. Are you aware of how many towns grew up along the rails? Of how much our country changed? Without the railroad barons there is no way the U.S. would have been an important enough industrial nation when compared with places like Germany. Maybe they did use their fortunes to control politicians. Eventually a Republican named Teddy Roosevelt came around who did some trust busting. Please enlighten me as to when corporate powers created a king? Kings are one of the ultimate constructs of authoritarian government. Are you aware that the Magna Carta and the rise of democratic principles arouse when in no small part to British Corporations? I am glad you are happy living with the collective. Perhaps we should relocate you to unimatrix 010 in Detroit where you can best serve the collective.



My other thread with this is buried, but I think some of the people here can appreciate Rahm's take on the new "collective."

This post has been edited by Fortscribe: 23 April 2010 - 10:10 AM

[Rose]

Ahh yes, another advocate for heavy taxation who tries to make the case that all tax revenues go for bunnies, rainbows and kittens for the poor, while never acknowledging that taxes also go to blow some kid's face off in the name of the American Empire. She won't acknowledge that her taxes go to bad word like the Obama's taking a "date night" that costs around $150k. She won't admit that her taxes go to Blackwater and to Guantanamo and to spy on American citizens.

Noooo, taxes go to help the poor and the disadvantaged and god knows that we stupid humans aren't capable of supporting various charities by CHOICE that would be far more efficient than any bureaucracy the government can dream up. And politicians can be trusted too! They're wonderful people who would NEVER do anything wrong with that money! And Ben Bernanke didn't just suggest a few months ago that the gov't raid social security and medicare to pay for all this warmongering bad word, because he's a wonderful guy that wouldn't leave old people in the lurch. And this spiffy new unconstitutional "health care reform" bill didn't strip many aspects of Medicare and it doesn't FORCE people to give money to corrupt insurance companies!

Taxes are good! Taxes are patriotic! Spread the wealth around by force because we're too damn stupid to decide what to do with our own money.

Thanks for setting us straight, WVPeach.

[Fortscribe]

wvpeach, on 23 April 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

It takes tax money to run those kind of things, donations never come in at the level needed. Heck you're lucky to get enough donations to cover the cost of the bus and insurance needed to transport some of the kids home.

So you survived thanks to 189$/month in social security. How many years ago was this? Since you are old now and your husband was 26, I am guessing this would have been around 1970?

This calculator here at http://www.measuring.../result.php?use[]=DOLLAR&use[]=GDPDEFLATION&use[]=VCB&use[]=UNSKILLED&use[]=MANCOMP&use[]=NOMGDPCP&use[]=NOMINALGDP&year_source=1970&amount=189&year_result=2010 allowed me to compare your value to now.

In 2009, $189.00 from 1970 is worth:
$1,040.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$853.00 using the GDP deflator
$1,070.00 using the unskilled wage
$1,260.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$1,730.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$2,600.00 using the relative share of GDP

Obviously you survived but you needed to be careful and work hard. You were fortunate enough to have already learned to fish and the social program supported you while you sailed to better waters. I have no problem with that. How unfortunate that for every case like yourself there are dozens of people lining up for "Obama Money." How can we justify programs that make more and more people dependent on the government? Democrats use social programs to get votes, organize and keep themselves in power. I have been told that only about half of all Americans pay a substantial income tax. If we assume that half the population supports the other half, then every tax paying citizen should pay 31200$ a year to support people in your position. Thankfully you were the type who wanted to work hard to break out. How do you feel about half the population living off of Obama's Stash?

I don't feel like offering my loyalty to the democrats because they give me a handout. They perpetuate situations in which people need handouts. We have had a war on poverty for several generations now. Yet they keep asking for more money. The hand out people tell us to stop being selfish. The tax paying democrats say, oh what is another 5%. Well get real.

More money flows into the government when they lower the tax rate. Confused? No, it is logical - more transactions when people pay less in taxes. Money is not a finite resource that is consumed in a transaction. Raising taxes is not about raising money to help the poor. It is about centralizing wealth and authority within the government. Only by controlling the means by which people survive can a liberal tyranny levy authority over the masses.

This post has been edited by Fortscribe: 23 April 2010 - 10:39 AM

[wvpeach]

You all will have to forgive me, I don't seem to have the hang of this forum. I keep trying to reply to individuals and for some strange reason all the posts end up lumped into one.
So king I will just copy your post in a different color until I figure out how to work this forum.

KO KING, on 23 April 2010 - 12:34 AM, said:

I'm not sure what age needs to be considered as an older person but does 48 qualify? You should be ashamed of yourself for giving the green light to Obama or the government to continue down the path they are going. I agree the government can be used as a helpful tool but you don't seem to have a problem with allowing them to become babysitters. I won't lie and say every little thing Obama is doing is bad but each time I see something he does I can agree with we all end up giving them more power over our lives. I ask only the basics from government and have little respect for those who think government is the only solution to all our problems.

I'd call us peers King, my husband is 2 years younger than you are and we certainly relate to each other as peers.
I don't think government is the only solution to all our problems.
Unless you count education and job training as government. Education may be most of the solution to our problems. I would disagree that education is entirely government. I believe communities have as much responsibility in educating as does any government. You can teach a child all the math and science you want but if they can't wash a dish, cook or balance a check book it's unlikely they will be successful.

And I am not quite sure what you mean about giving up freedoms?
Are you less free because we require people to have drivers licenses? That little bit of government stops people that shouldn't be driving . IE the 86 year old granny that can't see and the 12 year old kid that would just love to see what 120 MPH feels like.
Are you less free because the FDA tries to monitor food and drugs? Maybe if you want to mix up your own drug potions and sell them to people you are. But millions are saved when they stop ecoli from getting into the meat. Or some drug that starts to become apparent is giving people strokes. The free market would not police itself that way.

Are you less free because reasonable regulations and standards for getting a home mortgage are going to once again be enforced? Maybe if you wanted to walk in and get a loan just because you say so. But communities are better off because thoughtful well screened people buy houses in neighborhoods and the property values don't end up suffering because of a lot of foreclosed, weed overgrown houses that cannot be resold.

Are you less free because you're now going to be mandated to buy health insurance ( at subsidized rated) or pay a fine? Maybe if you think you don't need health insurance. But all tax payers are better off if you should get hit by a bus and survive and we the tax payer get stuck with a million in costs to get you patched back together. And then possibly a lifetime of further care and disability payments.

Freedom is a relative thing. It's all in how you look at it. I feel very free. I live in a country where I can pretty much do as I please. I can walk around naked in my yard if I want where I choose to live. I don't mind buying car and health insurance. Nor do I mind paying property, income taxes or FICA. I'd sure like to know what all those taxes that have popped up on utility bills are really going for. But I trust the local government to oversee that they go to good uses. It's my responsibility to advocate for how they are spent if I don't like their uses now.

Can government be reformed and made to work more efficiently? Sure it can.
But come on now people. We just came out of almost two decades with people in Washington that hated government. Over 2 decades of republicans telling the nation Government is bad, bad, bad. Right down from Reagan- Gingrich and Bush. Proof that old adage is true,
" repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it"
I am old enough to have watched what they did to government. They gutted the programs and tried to make it as ineffective as possible so everything could be deregulated. That experiment failed miserably and in a way I am glad the melt down of 2006 happened because it proves they were wrong. I know this recession put a lot of people out of jobs and misery is great, but had it not happened people would not be paying attention. Any thinking person can do a bit of research into the last thirty years in this nation and come to the conclusion that Republican economic policies failed and that their we hate government slogan certainly needs tweaked at best and rejected to some degree. This downturn has proven the Republican ideologies complete failures where government and the economy is concerned.
I know that we need some government intervention that makes sense, I just happen to believe if we elect the right people "we the people" can help create a better more efficient unobtrusive government. It's going to take a lot of work and unraveling the mess the Republicans have created. I see President Obama making those steps in all areas from foreign policy, education to infrastructure. I will support him 100%. Nothing is perfect, but he sure is the best damn thing we have had in over 20 years.

[Rose]

wvpeach, on 23 April 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

Are you less free because you're now going to be mandated to buy health insurance ( at subsidized rated) or pay a fine? Maybe if you think you don't need health insurance. But all tax payers are better off if you should get hit by a bus and survive and we the tax payer get stuck with a million in costs to get you patched back together. And then possibly a lifetime of further care and disability payments.

Yes, in fact I am less free if the government forces me to give money to a private insurance company, they will also potentially imprison people who don't cough up. That's not freedom.

Quote

Freedom is a relative thing. It's all in how you look at it. I feel very free. I live in a country where I can pretty much do as I please. I can walk around naked in my yard if I want where I choose to live. I don't mind buying car and health insurance. Nor do I mind paying property, income taxes or FICA. I'd sure like to know what all those taxes that have popped up on utility bills are really going for. But I trust the local government to oversee that they go to good uses. It's my responsibility to advocate for how they are spent if I don't like their uses now.

You say that *you're* happy to pay taxes. Fine. What gives you the right to make that choice for others? Why won't you acknowledge all the death and destruction that our huge, out-of-control government has wrought on other countries with that tax money you gleefully send in?

Quote

Can government be reformed and made to work more efficiently? Sure it can.
But come on now people. We just came out of almost two decades with people in Washington that hated government. Over 2 decades of republicans telling the nation Government is bad, bad, bad. Right down from Reagan- Gingrich and Bush. Proof that old adage is true,
" repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it"
I am old enough to have watched what they did to government. They gutted the programs and tried to make it as ineffective as possible so everything could be deregulated. That experiment failed miserably and in a way I am glad the melt down of 2006 happened because it proves they were wrong. I know this recession put a lot of people out of jobs and misery is great, but had it not happened people would not be paying attention. Any thinking person can do a bit of research into the last thirty years in this nation and come to the conclusion that Republican economic policies failed and that their we hate government slogan certainly needs tweaked at best and rejected to some degree. This downturn has proven the Republican ideologies complete failures where government and the economy is concerned.
I know that we need some government intervention that makes sense, I just happen to believe if we elect the right people "we the people" can help create a better more efficient unobtrusive government. It's going to take a lot of work and unraveling the mess the Republicans have created. I see President Obama making those steps in all areas from foreign policy, education to infrastructure. I will support him 100%. Nothing is perfect, but he sure is the best damn thing we have had in over 20 years.

Wow, for an older person, you are insanely naive. Have you not noticed that Obama is a corporatist, just like Bush? Have you not noticed that he continues to ramp up the warfare? He happily continued the Patriot Act? The bank bailouts? Gitmo is still open? He recently ordered the assassination of an American citizen for god's sake! Torture still continues. The failed drug war continues.

I can only guess that you're smitten with him because he's prettier and sometimes better spoken than Bush, because he ain't doing a damn thing different except changing some of the rhetoric.

[Boadicea]

I like your style, wvpeach!

Baffle 'em with facts.

I like how every time someone mentions giving back in the form of taxes, someone else automatically assumes you have no money and want a handout for sitting around and eating bonbons.

This disturbs me mostly because I think if they could figure out a way to do that, they'd be the first ones reclining on the couch.

[Fortscribe]

Boadicea, on 23 April 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

I like your style, wvpeach!

Baffle 'em with facts.

I like how every time someone mentions giving back in the form of taxes, someone else automatically assumes you have no money and want a handout for sitting around and eating bonbons.

This disturbs me mostly because I think if they could figure out a way to do that, they'd be the first ones reclining on the couch.

I also appreciate your civil style wvpeach. It is light years beyond some of the other miscreants on this forum. I still disagree with you as evidenced with by my posts above.

This post has been edited by Fortscribe: 23 April 2010 - 11:07 AM

[wvpeach]

Ah so that is how you work that. I learned a bit about how the software here at the forum works during that last post.


Fortscribe

You seem like a thoughtful enough person and it will be my honor to talk with you at a later date.
Just now I have taken way too much time here. I have to go pick up an gas cap for my riding mower. The darn thing won't run without the right cap. I am having company coming Fri and Sat night and I have a presentation due at work Monday. So you'll have to forgive me if I check back into this conversation perhaps Sunday.

In the meantime let me address a bit of your last post to me.

Regarding your wage chart as to what my social security check would have been worth back then let me assure you that is not correct. You might have noticed I said I got $189.00 per month and if memory serves my mortgage on the trailer and land was about $230 a month. A very modest payment at the time compared to a mortgage on the average home. We had bought that way with the intention of keeping our payment low because he was working towards being a certified Mr Goodwrench and I was a stay at home mom and in school part time. So no, My SS check did not even cover our modest home payment. If it had in any way been adjusted as per your chart I wouldn't have had to go to work within 2 weeks of his death or the children and I would have starved. I signed up for food stamps once. It was a joke I spent a entire day ( which you had to do once a month) I spent a entire day and I think they gave me about $89 a month. Not worth my time to go back for the next month.
It cost a lot more to put diapers and food in the kids mouths than that.

As to you're other assertion that people will take advantage of social programs. Sure a few people will. But our social programs are all messed up at the moment. Welfare has been reformed and the reforms are working great. I can explain that at a later date if you'd like. As a past court advocate I made it my business to understand what was available for my clients and how the programs worked. Welfare reforms done in the 90's are logical and working very well.
Things like social security disability are badly inefficient and in need of reform. The way the programs are set up right now some people get trapped in them and can't get off if they wanted to because they have some medical condition that is now considered pre-existing and medicine is all that is keeping them alive. Thus they stay on disability because private insurance companies won't take them and many work jobs up to the limit allowed and keep their benefits. The new health care legislation will go a long ways towards releasing some of those people from the program. We will still need to reform the program to get some off that should be off I am sure.

As far as social programs being some kind of free ride. I don't believe people will settle for that kind of minimum standard of living given the choice. People act like people are living large on social programs. That simply is a myth. Social programs provide enough to survive. Subsidized housing provides a roof and little personal freedom. Most subsidized housing is not the sort of place people want to raise their kids.
I have been a court advocate for the family courts and trust me most people want a helping hand up to stand on their own feet not a handout. They want a decent job, a decent means of getting there, safe housing where their kids can play outside and have a dog or cat if they want it. Decent schools. They want some luxuries , a vacation once in awhile. New Clothes that sort of thing. Social programs do not provide those things. So most people are eager to work to get them. Problem is can a newly single mother afford to work or will the child care costs eat up her check? They will eat up her check and there are years long waiting lists for child care subsidies. Might as well stay home and skimp by on what social net program help she can get rather than turn her kids over to strangers for very little gain.

Other countries have vastly more extensive social programs than does the US. Take for instance Australia and The Scandinavian nations. They provide child care, education through college, at little or no cost to their citizens. They provide independent housing subsidies to allow workers just starting out to live in nice housing. They provide parental leave some as long as up to a year fully paid for by tax payers. They provide Universal health care and they don't have a problem with half their nations laying around being lazy preferring the social program to working. Quite the contrary. But their mind set is different. From the start their citizens know those programs are there when they need them and they have committed to paying for them for the good of the collective. However achieving and working is also a measure of societal success in those nations. And most of those nations have weathered the global recession better than has the US. I see absolutely no reason the US can't do that. And we are a much bigger nation population wise which means the cost spread through the collective can be made more efficient and easier to bear.

Have a good after noon King I am off to get my gas cap. Running late- talked to you all good people way too long this morning.

[Fortscribe]

Boadicea, on 23 April 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

I like how every time someone mentions giving back in the form of taxes, someone else automatically assumes you have no money and want a handout for sitting around and eating bonbons.
This disturbs me mostly because I think if they could figure out a way to do that, they'd be the first ones reclining on the couch.

Boadicea, your point seems to be that we need to "give back" because the tax paying citizens are the truly lazy people who would be the first ones reclining on the couch? I think your logic is derived from some sort of worker versus Bourgeoisie attitude. The tax paying citizens are Bourgeoisie because they are fortunate enough to have jobs. They are wrong for wanting to enjoy the fruits of their labor while so many do not have opportunity. The poor people have it hard because they had their opportunities stolen from them.


Sorry... I don't accept this premise. Although I agree that many do strive to exist beyond the need of social programs; many social programs are designed to ensnare people. I challenge you to read into the logic behind socialism. (May I suggest Daniel J. Flynn "Intellecutal Morons" and Ronald Rodash "The Old Left, the New Left and Leftover Left." There is abundant evidence that some social programs are engineered to keep people inline and just comfortable enough with what they have that they don't have to strive for more. Many would gladly take this lifestyle over one of work and hardship. That is simply human nature. For this pittance they should be thankful to the government.

This video captures some of that:



@wvpeach - I would enjoy a future debate with you and have a good afternoon.

This post has been edited by Fortscribe: 23 April 2010 - 11:29 AM

[tolbert]

wvpeach, on 23 April 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

..... And we are a much bigger nation population wise which means the cost spread through the collective can be made more efficient and easier to bear. .....

"the collective"

ding, ding, ding, ding, ding - now we know what peachy really is (despite his/her bs personal story)

the real question is: whose sok is it?

[wvpeach]

Boadicea

*

* Posts: 7,357
* Joined: 08-June 08
* Gender:Female
* Location:Up here

Posted 18 minutes ago
I like your style, wvpeach!

Baffle 'em with facts.

I like how every time someone mentions giving back in the form of taxes, someone else automatically assumes you have no money and want a handout for sitting around and eating bonbons.

This disturbs me mostly because I think if they could figure out a way to do that, they'd be the first ones reclining on the couch.

Thank you Boadicea

Have we met before? I recognize you're handle.

Yes it is a strange demographic study actually. I find that most people that complain about social programs and taxes are in fact people sitting at home living on social programs like social security disability, veterans benefits, or SS retirements naturally with medicare. I find the very people that complain are the ones using the programs.
Recently a NY times poll of the tea baggers came back that most of them said they were wealthy, and educated. LOL I don't believe that for a moment as evidenced by all the gray hair and the signs saying keep your hands off my medicare in their crowd.
Strangely enough because my daughter works at a VA when I talk to older veterans the majority are against social programs although many of them have been living on a monthly VA check for supposedly PSTD they got 40 years ago in the Vietnam war. LOL All the while working under the table at construction or something and bragging about paying no taxes.
Can we say hypocrisy at it's height?
No, what we see among the tea baggers and libertarian types I believe is mostly a uninformed, selfish type that really haven't bothered to think things through. the libertarians are often young ideologues who have been taken in by the likes of Ron Paul and hopefully will grow out of that nonsense as they mature.
I remember a older lady on TV when Bush was trying to Privatize social security she was holding up a "We Love Bush sign of some sort" a reporter asked her, you know Bush wants to change social security completely. Her Response: Not my social security he doesn't, he wants to kick all the free loaders off. .................. LOL. Proof most of these people don't have a clue what they really support. And they have theirs so everybody else is out of luck.

Anyhoo. Gotta go. Good to meet you Boadicea

tolbert, on 23 April 2010 - 11:17 AM, said:

"the collective"

ding, ding, ding, ding, ding - now we know what peachy really is (despite his/her bs personal story)

the real question is: whose sok is it?

I think you'll find tolbert that I am always the wvpeach.
Only name I use. Google me if you like.

One might say, I have built a internet brand ( if you will) that is wvpeach. I am wvpeach on facebook, on blogs and on forums.
LOL Some have asked me to rejoin forums under another handle. Because somebody kicked me off. Nope I am who I am. And I see no point in subterfuge. I have better things to do with my time than that. I have spent considerable time since at least 2004 making my views known all over the internet I think it;s most effective when people recognize my name and know what I stand for.
I think you'll find that a good many people on forums know wvpeach. Some of them might even tell the peach never changes she is nothing if not consistent.

This post has been edited by wvpeach: 23 April 2010 - 11:27 AM

[doc mercer]

Interesting the silence on this board about a week or so ago with the story about Corporations not paying taxes
wasn't it?

Yeah .. the "poor people" are always the reason this country is getting screwed financially