145 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

docyabut2, on 14 October 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I heard greece wants to sell one of their islands to get out of debt, is that what we will have to do, sell Hawawii.:)As a budgeter of a family there has to be cut backs in living to balance a budget.The system was fine as it was, where people took care of people,not  big goverment hand outs and a  health care program take over that will put us in more great debt.The only thing necessary to have a good strong military to protect the country and should be at the top, not cut backs.

In a system inhabited by egotists that are unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes while demanding government services the government has no choice but to get bigger to satisfy those demands.

Now, if some neighborhood help campaign could show that they got their people off food stamps by their own initiative I might buy into that idea. Just don't hold your breath while looking for it.

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 14 October 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

In a system inhabited by egotists that are unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes while demanding government services the government has no choice but to get bigger to satisfy those demands.

Now, if some neighborhood help campaign could show that they got their people off food stamps by their own initiative I might buy into that idea. Just don't hold your breath while looking for it.

Egotists? Coming from you, that's a mouthful. The people demanding the most government services and demanding the mst in general are the ones who pay next to nothing in taxes. The fair share drivel has really worn thin on most people. Go ahead and raise taxes to whatever you think is fair. When the government still fails in efficient spending then what would you say? They can take all of our money and still solve no problems except maybe their own.

[questionmark]

Is it for real, on 14 October 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Egotists? Coming from you, that's a mouthful. The people demanding the most government services and demanding the mst in general are the ones who pay next to nothing in taxes. The fair share drivel has really worn thin on most people. Go ahead and raise taxes to whatever you think is fair. When the government still fails in efficient spending then what would you say? They can take all of our money and still solve no problems except maybe their own.

Fair share has been a fixed part from the income since biblical times.

And egotists is not a mouthful, it is a fact defining those who benefit from a society yet try to escape their obligations, by buying politicians, for example. It is not a mouthful but a definition for those those bemoan that somebody is getting a few pennies because his job has been "outsourced" to give a bigger gain to some who then don't want to pay for the damage done. Egotist also applies to those who sent others to fight their wars and the, when they return wounded, want to cut their benefits. And lastly, it befits very well to all those who grew standing on their shoulders and now don't want to help them in their old age.

And that is what you bemoan when you scream about entitlements others get.

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 14 October 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Fair share has been a fixed part from the income since biblical times.

And egotists is not a mouthful, it is a fact defining those who benefit from a society yet try to escape their obligations, by buying politicians, for example. It is not a mouthful but a definition for those those bemoan that somebody is getting a few pennies because his job has been "outsourced" to give a bigger gain to some who then don't want to pay for the damage done. Egotist also applies to those who sent others to fight their wars and the, when they return wounded, want to cut their benefits. And lastly, it befits very well to all those who grew standing on their shoulders and now don't want to help them in their old age.

And that is what you bemoan when you scream about entitlements others get.

Fair is the top couple percent paying close to half of all taxes. So they do pay their fair share. What's not fair is how you only talk about big greedy fat cats when they are only a small part of the fair share argument. The $250K+ crowd is far to vast to be lumped into your argument. Yes some big timers could spare a few bucks and I wouldn't care if they complained but this fair share crap affects way too many other people who can, do and will spend their money on better things than the gov will.
And I bemoan nothing you speak of and you know it. You'd make an excellent politician the way you say only what you want people to hear instead of elaborating on the bigger picture. What I bemoan is waste, fraud, abuse, inappropriate foreign aid and bs affirmative action entitlements. C'mon now, I like old people and soldiers. Your fooling yourself if you think higher, no, more tax money in anyway will have any benefit these days. For you guys its all about reparations and taking from others because your egos say they have too much, you think you know best and think your idea of fair is fairest regardless if what others think is fair.

[Merc14]

questionmark, on 14 October 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

So, instead of coming up with ideas of their own, that they could have very well passed, they spend 2 years sitting on their oversize ar$es on taxpayers money and you are cheering and applauding.

It was about time we saw your plumage coming through.

What is wrong with you? Do you not watch what has been going on?  Obama will not compromise or even discuss a compromise withanyone, including his own side.  Reid threw hi out of a resolution meeting because he is useless.  He has no idea how politics works at this level.  Boehner submitted his budgets and made his suggestions and Obama won't even meet with him.  Did you know Obama didn't talk to Boehner for 6 months at one point?

These delusions are endemic to your party, apparently.  No compromise, period.   Well guess what, the shoe is about to get put on the other foot.

[Legaia]

Is it for real, on 14 October 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Egotists? Coming from you, that's a mouthful. The people demanding the most government services and demanding the mst in general are the ones who pay next to nothing in taxes. The fair share drivel has really worn thin on most people. Go ahead and raise taxes to whatever you think is fair. When the government still fails in efficient spending then what would you say? They can take all of our money and still solve no problems except maybe their own.

Agreed. I can't take the "fair share" garbage much longer. My father owns a small business and when he isn't getting raped in taxes, he's dishing out money in other business "fees". According to the whining crybabies on the left (some members here, for example) and this administration, he isn't paying his "fair share". Nevermind the fact that he's employing 37 people - that's just an inconvenient truth.

Because I can think of nothing more fair than giving out money to the fed so they can turn and spend it on their lovely empire and failed entitlement programs. It's cool though guys because they can always just print more money!


Fair -

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

Edited by Legaia, 15 October 2012 - 04:46 AM.

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 14 October 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Fair share has been a fixed part from the income since biblical times.

And egotists is not a mouthful, it is a fact defining those who benefit from a society yet try to escape their obligations, by buying politicians, for example. It is not a mouthful but a definition for those those bemoan that somebody is getting a few pennies because his job has been "outsourced" to give a bigger gain to some who then don't want to pay for the damage done. Egotist also applies to those who sent others to fight their wars and the, when they return wounded, want to cut their benefits. And lastly, it befits very well to all those who grew standing on their shoulders and now don't want to help them in their old age.

And that is what you bemoan when you scream about entitlements others get.

Sorry bud.. the egotists are nothing more than a by-product of a commercialized society in America.    

Those you deem unwilling to pay their taxes are the by-product of this commercialized society.  Does it comprehend yet?

It's a rat race.  It's a game of leverage.  It's a losing game.  Why?  -because it's GOV rigged.

And Obama is there to broker the deal at the UN and sell it to the American people.... this is why 911 happened.

[and then]

acidhead, on 15 October 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Sorry bud.. the egotists are nothing more than a by-product of a commercialized society in America.

Those you deem unwilling to pay their taxes are the by-product of this commercialized society.  Does it comprehend yet?

It's a rat race.  It's a game of leverage.  It's a losing game.  Why?  -because it's GOV rigged.

And Obama is there to broker the deal at the UN and sell it to the American people.... this is why 911 happened.

I have finally come to believe this.  It's just been too depressing to contemplate up til now but when it has become so VERY obvious over the last 8 years or so there can be no more denial.  The squabbling continues as we fall over a cliff into financial oblivion and what then?  Total government control over every aspect of our lives?  The FEMA camps might be needed for voluntary housing before this coming depression is over.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Legaia, on 14 October 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

I could ask you the same question. The writers of the constitution certainly learned from it.

Let me tell you a little something the Founding Fathers learned...
Our first type of government was that put forth by the Articles of Confederation. This made a very weak federal government. The federal government could not tax and could not draft an army. All the states had the right to do things their way but this caused issues in trade because individual states could make treaties with other countries and they used different monetary systems.

The tipping point was something called Shay's Rebellion. When the state could not handle the rebellion, it asked the federal government for help. Basically the federal government said "what the hell do you want us to do about it?" Remember they have no army and no money.

Because of this the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the Founding Fathers learned that states being in control was not the way to do. They then drafted the Constitution

[F3SS]

HuttonEtAl, on 15 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Let me tell you a little something the Founding Fathers learned...
Our first type of government was that put forth by the Articles of Confederation. This made a very weak federal government. The federal government could not tax and could not draft an army. All the states had the right to do things their way but this caused issues in trade because individual states could make treaties with other countries and they used different monetary systems.

The tipping point was something called Shay's Rebellion. When the state could not handle the rebellion, it asked the federal government for help. Basically the federal government said "what the hell do you want us to do about it?" Remember they have no army and no money.

Because of this the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the Founding Fathers learned that states being in control was not the way to do. They then drafted the Constitution

Well, if thats all true then it seems they learned well. I don't think anyone thinks every state should be in control of every aspect of governing. Otherwise, whats the point of being the United States or a country? I'm sure back then it was worth a shot but they came to know better. That doesn't mean they ever intended for a federal government to be what it is today. It was meant to be limited with specific duties and not meant to be fat, bloated, fiscally reckless, self interested, nearly unstoppable by the people, pandering, choosing to hand out tax payer money based on the color of ones skin as it does in many cases. Hell, the only people who should be considered for affirmative action entitlements are native Americans.

[Legaia]

HuttonEtAl, on 15 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Let me tell you a little something the Founding Fathers learned...
Our first type of government was that put forth by the Articles of Confederation. This made a very weak federal government. The federal government could not tax and could not draft an army. All the states had the right to do things their way but this caused issues in trade because individual states could make treaties with other countries and they used different monetary systems.

The tipping point was something called Shay's Rebellion. When the state could not handle the rebellion, it asked the federal government for help. Basically the federal government said "what the hell do you want us to do about it?" Remember they have no army and no money.

Because of this the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the Founding Fathers learned that states being in control was not the way to do. They then drafted the Constitution

Thanks for the history lesson. As the poster above me implies, I don't think anyone believes that the states should run their own separate armed forces as well. The constitution is the document that matters, and it was written to prevent what we have today for a government.

Edited by Legaia, 16 October 2012 - 12:59 AM.