The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[Fordsflylow]

If you're so concerned with the people that need a helping hand I would urge you to go out and give them one, and quit trying to force the taxpayers into footing the bill for you.

We are all taxpayers. The working class pays around 32% and folks like romney with his oodles of $ pay around 15%. You were stating?

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?

Are you suggesting that liberals who support assisting the poor don't in fact pay taxes of their own and should not have an opinion on where their tax money should be spent? The tired cliche is the reference to "liberals always want to spend other peoples money" or some variation of that, when in fact we all pay taxes too and have just as much say as to where it should be spent.

And thanks for bringing up the other tired cliche, that people will just step up and charities will be the solution for the poor if we "just got government out of our wallets". If that were the case, why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't it ever happened?

Like I said, tired cliches, not real world. I thought you were above that.

Again, it's not a cliche. It's a valid criticism. The wealth re-distribution is the entire point of the welfare state. If were just a matter of a genuine desire to help the poor as a community, we'd simply do that. We wouldn't need laws requiring it.

Actions speak louder than words, and like I said, show me where it's ever been done before, on a scale large enough to help the amount of people who are absolutely struggling in this country right now. You can't.

And I noticed you ignored the first part of my statement about the whole "liberals always want to spend other peoples money". I guess the fact that you ignored that part tells me you have no reply.

And I truly thought you were one of the the rare few who was able to have an honest discussion, even if we didn't see eye to eye I thought you would at least respond when someone answers your question. Ignoring portions you don't like/have a response for is pretty lame.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

You're sounding a lot like Rdean

 

[GuyPinestra]

And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.

I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?

Are you suggesting that liberals who support assisting the poor don't in fact pay taxes of their own and should not have an opinion on where their tax money should be spent? The tired cliche is the reference to "liberals always want to spend other peoples money" or some variation of that, when in fact we all pay taxes too and have just as much say as to where it should be spent.

And thanks for bringing up the other tired cliche, that people will just step up and charities will be the solution for the poor if we "just got government out of our wallets". If that were the case, why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't it ever happened?

Like I said, tired cliches, not real world. I thought you were above that.

We pay taxes so the government can operate within it's stated parameters. Charity does not fall within those said parameters, it is (and should ALWAYS be) a function of the INDIVIDUAL.

And as far as your assumption that charity isn't happening and has never happened, you're simply delusional. Just because it isn't happening in YOUR circle of friends doesn't mean it doesn't happen, although I have noticed when working in soup kitchens and on Habitat houses that the VAST majority of workers are of the Conservative variety...

 

[Liability]

If you're so concerned with the people that need a helping hand I would urge you to go out and give them one, and quit trying to force the taxpayers into footing the bill for you.

We are all taxpayers. The working class pays around 32% and folks like romney with his oodles of $ pay around 15%.

You are so delusional and misinformed, it's kind of sad.

But there's a simple solution for the idiotic tax system we have.

Abandon the "regressive taxes are sooooo unfair" bullshit. Let's insitute a straightforward flat tax OR a sane and simple version of a consumption tax to replace our graduated income tax system with its thousands of complicated pages and credits and deductions and -- oh nozies! -- loopholes.

If you ******* cheesedick libs INSIST that we have to have an income tax -- based on your utterly mindless class warfare divide and conquer thinking -- then there ARE going to be rules and regulations by which folks can minimize their exposure to that confiscation of their wealth.

If you want to eliminate loopholes and have those greedy evil rich fuckers pay their allegedly fair share, then make it a uniform tax with no deductions. No wiggle room. No tax credits. No home mortgage deductions. Nothing. Nada.

JUST a simple flat rate on income.

If that evil rich guy earns 10 million a year and the complete federal flat tax rate is (pick a number) 20%, then the evil rich guy will pay two ******* million dollars a year. If you make a hundred grand a year, you will pay at that same flat rate $20,000.00 a year. Same rate, vastly different amounts.

But until you accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with trying (WITHIN the rules and regulations and laws) to minimize how much you have to give to Uncle Sam, then you are going to continue your mindless mantra of "make the rich pay their fair share!"

They already do, you ******* nimrods.

For my part, I don't want to soak the rich. I am content if they pay the same rate as everyone else. I kinda want them to have an incentive to do the capitalism thing they do. THAT'S what really spreads the wealth around. Stop trying to kill the golden goose just because you assholes are jealous.

Newsflash: we reject communism AND socialism. They suck.

 

[Liability]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

You're sounding a lot like Rdean

rdean is 6% dumber.

 

[dblack]

And I noticed you ignored the first part of my statement about the whole "liberals always want to spend other peoples money". I guess the fact that you ignored that part tells me you have no reply.

That was what "wealth redistribution" referred to. Thought you'd catch that.

 

[midcan5]

We are standing outside a casino in Atlantic city last evening waiting for valet service to bring our American made car up for the trip home and it dawns on me even Americans of my age and privilege do not buy American. Status or cost or assumption guide the American today who now owns more Communist made products than American made as their elected idiots claim there are communists in congress. No joke. Maybe they should check the 'Made in' label. How many Americans now require a status car as a symbol of being ahead of the Jones? Fancy cars bring in the most profits and most are foreign. So when I hear about job complaints I wonder at the world of the past and the pretense and nonsense of the present. I'd bet few out there could afford Limbaugh's Maybach. Real American that Rush.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/220510-the-greatest-job-creator-of-all-time.html

 

[Fordsflylow]

I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?

Are you suggesting that liberals who support assisting the poor don't in fact pay taxes of their own and should not have an opinion on where their tax money should be spent? The tired cliche is the reference to "liberals always want to spend other peoples money" or some variation of that, when in fact we all pay taxes too and have just as much say as to where it should be spent.

And thanks for bringing up the other tired cliche, that people will just step up and charities will be the solution for the poor if we "just got government out of our wallets". If that were the case, why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't it ever happened?

Like I said, tired cliches, not real world. I thought you were above that.

Again, it's not a cliche. It's a valid criticism. The wealth re-distribution is the entire point of the welfare state. If were just a matter of a genuine desire to help the poor as a community, we'd simply do that. We wouldn't need laws requiring it.

It's like putting up for a referendum vote on a civil right issue, the minority would never win.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?

Are you suggesting that liberals who support assisting the poor don't in fact pay taxes of their own and should not have an opinion on where their tax money should be spent? The tired cliche is the reference to "liberals always want to spend other peoples money" or some variation of that, when in fact we all pay taxes too and have just as much say as to where it should be spent.

And thanks for bringing up the other tired cliche, that people will just step up and charities will be the solution for the poor if we "just got government out of our wallets". If that were the case, why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't it ever happened?

Like I said, tired cliches, not real world. I thought you were above that.

We pay taxes so the government can operate within it's stated parameters. Charity does not fall within those said parameters, it is (and should ALWAYS be) a function of the INDIVIDUAL.

We can disagree how then money should be spent. But the argument that liberals just want to spend other peoples money is the tired cliche, when I clearly just showed that. Try to stick to the topic.

And as far as your assumption that charity isn't happening and has never happened, you're simply delusional. Just because it isn't happening in YOUR circle of friends doesn't mean it doesn't happen, although I have noticed when working in soup kitchens and on Habitat houses that

Where did I say charity isn't happening? I said it's not happening on the scale that is needed to help those that truly need it. Again, reading comprehension would help you to actually understand what I am saying and not what you think I am saying. Try again.

the VAST majority of workers are of the Conservative variety...

LOL, talk about tired cliches! Thanks!

 

[Jackson]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

A helping hand doesn't mean a way of life. There are jobs out there and many don't want them because they have to train for them and stop taking from the government.

Stop the government give aways and see how many more people will become employed. Stop the regulations and taxing small businesses so they are reluctant to hire and fear the future.

 

[RDD_1210]

And I noticed you ignored the first part of my statement about the whole "liberals always want to spend other peoples money". I guess the fact that you ignored that part tells me you have no reply.

That was what "wealth redistribution" referred to. Thought you'd catch that.

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

 

[Liability]

We are standing outside a casino in Atlantic city last evening waiting for valet service to bring our American made car up for the trip home and it dawns on me even Americans of my age and privilege do not buy American. Status or cost or assumption guide the American today who now owns more Communist made products than American made as their elected idiots claim there are communists in congress. No joke. Maybe they should check the 'Made in' label. How many Americans now require a status car as a symbol of being ahead of the Jones? Fancy cars bring in the most profits and most are foreign. So when I hear about job complaints I wonder at the world of the past and the pretense and nonsense of the present. I'd bet few out there could afford Limbaugh's Maybach. Real American that Rush.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/220510-the-greatest-job-creator-of-all-time.html

God dayum but Trashcan offers simplistic and empty arguments.

Poor poor deluded Trashcan. The mindless ninny cannot grasp the fact that nobody gives a rat's ass what Rush drives. He cannot grasp that I will buy American when the American product is the best economic decision. He cannot grasp the fact that much of the time, when we buy a "foreign" car we are actually buying American anyway -- at least to a significant degree.

I am not opposed to sending some of our money to workers and industries and captains of capitalism in other lands. Indeed, I'd rather DO that through the free choices of our market system(s) than have it imposed on me by faceless government bureaucrats in the form of "foreign aid."

There is nothing at all un-American about Rush buying a foreign car. That kind of mindless sophistry is typical of the thinking of rhetoric bound mindless lib drones.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Are you suggesting that liberals who support assisting the poor don't in fact pay taxes of their own and should not have an opinion on where their tax money should be spent? The tired cliche is the reference to "liberals always want to spend other peoples money" or some variation of that, when in fact we all pay taxes too and have just as much say as to where it should be spent.

And thanks for bringing up the other tired cliche, that people will just step up and charities will be the solution for the poor if we "just got government out of our wallets". If that were the case, why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't it ever happened?

Like I said, tired cliches, not real world. I thought you were above that.

We pay taxes so the government can operate within it's stated parameters. Charity does not fall within those said parameters, it is (and should ALWAYS be) a function of the INDIVIDUAL.

We can disagree how then money should be spent. But the argument that liberals just want to spend other peoples money is the tired cliche, when I clearly just showed that. Try to stick to the topic.

And as far as your assumption that charity isn't happening and has never happened, you're simply delusional. Just because it isn't happening in YOUR circle of friends doesn't mean it doesn't happen, although I have noticed when working in soup kitchens and on Habitat houses that

Where did I say charity isn't happening? I said it's not happening on the scale that is needed to help those that truly need it. Again, reading comprehension would help you to actually understand what I am saying and not what you think I am saying. Try again.

the VAST majority of workers are of the Conservative variety...

LOL, talk about tired cliches! Thanks!

You can call it a fried egg sandwich if you like, but it is most definitely a fact. I've done volunteer work for over 30 years, and the ratio of Cons to Libs runs AT LEAST 10-1. If you don't like the 'scale', get off your ass and DO SOMETHING about it.

 

[The Rabbi]

And the Left has the following:
Bush was very stupid but had the power to screw the economy up beyond anyone's ability to fix it. Obama, who is much smarter than BUsh, couldn't fix it in 4 years with strong Democratic majorities in Congress. So he needs another 4 years to fix it. Presidents don't control the price of gasoline, unless they are Republicans. Decreasing regulation has a bad effect on business but increasing regulation has no effect on business. Taxes don't affect the economy, except the economy is hurt by tax breaks. Deficits don't matter but we need to cut the deficit. Later. Much later. Since Congress can't agree on spending cuts now we'll just institute a tax increase and promise to cut spending sometime down the road.
A penalty is a tax is a penalty, depending on the definition of the word "is".
The Supreme Court is the greatest institution guaranteeing freedom, except when they rule against us.
John Roberts is a heartless conservative. Except in NFIB when he evolved into an intelligent nuanced jurist.
Sarah Palin didnt have the experience necessary to be VP, but experience doesn't matter to being President.
Obama is mixed race and therefore black. George Zimmerman is mixed race and therefore white.
I could do this all day.

 

[RDD_1210]

We pay taxes so the government can operate within it's stated parameters. Charity does not fall within those said parameters, it is (and should ALWAYS be) a function of the INDIVIDUAL.

We can disagree how then money should be spent. But the argument that liberals just want to spend other peoples money is the tired cliche, when I clearly just showed that. Try to stick to the topic.



Where did I say charity isn't happening? I said it's not happening on the scale that is needed to help those that truly need it. Again, reading comprehension would help you to actually understand what I am saying and not what you think I am saying. Try again.

the VAST majority of workers are of the Conservative variety...

LOL, talk about tired cliches! Thanks!

You can call it a fried egg sandwich if you like, but it is most definitely a fact. I've done volunteer work for over 30 years, and the ratio of Cons to Libs runs AT LEAST 10-1. If you don't like the 'scale', get off your ass and DO SOMETHING about it.

LOL, so you're not different than DBlack or any of the others. You ignore the entire post that you have no reply to and then nitpick one part, which was still a worthless reply.

Newsflash! Guy Pinestra did his own scientific poll and it's officially now 10-1 that conservatives are more generous than liberals. LOL.

Debating you idiots is way too easy, you basically give up within 2 posts.

 

[Fordsflylow]

The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!

A helping hand doesn't mean a way of life. There are jobs out there and many don't want them because they have to train for them and stop taking from the government.

Stop the government give aways and see how many more people will become employed. Stop the regulations and taxing small businesses so they are reluctant to hire and fear the future.

Then I suggest the mega-corp's spend some of that $2.5 Trillion they have in off-shore acct's to work training folks AND paying a livable wage.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I noticed you ignored the first part of my statement about the whole "liberals always want to spend other peoples money". I guess the fact that you ignored that part tells me you have no reply.

That was what "wealth redistribution" referred to. Thought you'd catch that.

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

You're rather stupid, aren't you?
Liberals always want to spend other people's money, is not the same as liberals only want to spend other people's money.
Get an adult to explain the difference.

 

[dblack]

And I noticed you ignored the first part of my statement about the whole "liberals always want to spend other peoples money". I guess the fact that you ignored that part tells me you have no reply.

That was what "wealth redistribution" referred to. Thought you'd catch that.

So liberals only want to spend other peoples money? They don't pay their own taxes? They shouldn't have a say in where their taxes are spent?

"Liberals want to spend other peoples' money" has become a cliche because there is undeniable truth to it. If they were only interested in spending their own money, they'd simply do it themselves (and have complete control over how it's spent).

 

[Fordsflylow]

If you're so concerned with the people that need a helping hand I would urge you to go out and give them one, and quit trying to force the taxpayers into footing the bill for you.

We are all taxpayers. The working class pays around 32% and folks like romney with his oodles of $ pay around 15%.

You are so delusional and misinformed, it's kind of sad.

But there's a simple solution for the idiotic tax system we have.

Abandon the "regressive taxes are sooooo unfair" bullshit. Let's insitute a straightforward flat tax OR a sane and simple version of a consumption tax to replace our graduated income tax system with its thousands of complicated pages and credits and deductions and -- oh nozies! -- loopholes.

If you ******* cheesedick libs INSIST that we have to have an income tax -- based on your utterly mindless class warfare divide and conquer thinking -- then there ARE going to be rules and regulations by which folks can minimize their exposure to that confiscation of their wealth.

If you want to eliminate loopholes and have those greedy evil rich fuckers pay their allegedly fair share, then make it a uniform tax with no deductions. No wiggle room. No tax credits. No home mortgage deductions. Nothing. Nada.

JUST a simple flat rate on income.

If that evil rich guy earns 10 million a year and the complete federal flat tax rate is (pick a number) 20%, then the evil rich guy will pay two ******* million dollars a year. If you make a hundred grand a year, you will pay at that same flat rate $20,000.00 a year. Same rate, vastly different amounts.

But until you accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with trying (WITHIN the rules and regulations and laws) to minimize how much you have to give to Uncle Sam, then you are going to continue your mindless mantra of "make the rich pay their fair share!"

They already do, you ******* nimrods.

For my part, I don't want to soak the rich. I am content if they pay the same rate as everyone else. I kinda want them to have an incentive to do the capitalism thing they do. THAT'S what really spreads the wealth around. Stop trying to kill the golden goose just because you assholes are jealous.

Newsflash: we reject communism AND socialism. They suck.

...and all you come back with is a hate-filled rant minus any logic.