Brad Pitt : 'I don't mind paying taxes" [Archive] - DiscussAnything.com - Politics, Sports, Entertainment, Cars, Technology, Gadgets, and More

hadit

09-20-2011, 08:55 AM

Parade Magazine recently had a interview with actor Brad Pitt that went into all parts of his life including his charitable work.

When asked why he does it , he said " I'll tell you why:I hit the lottery-the whole cliche of moving to Hollywood and geting paid silly amounts of money.I've traveled the world and seen mothers and babies dying because they don't have a 30-cent treatment that is available in industrialized nations,I feel like I have to share whatever I can".

"You're culpable if you don't act".

"You know,we bitch about rasing taxes.I think the argument is that it's my money,I earned it,why do I have to pay for other people?I get very frustrated with that argument.I don't mind paying taxes.I live in a country that gave me the opportunity to make money,and most people on this planet do not have that

:nice:

Here's the full interview:

http://www.parade.com/celebrity/2011/09/inside-brad-pitt-world.html

God bless you Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie,you both practice what you preach and preach what you practice.

He doesn't mind paying taxes. Yip yip yip yahoo. The question then becomes, is that because he really thinks it's a great thing, or is it because he has a top tax attorney on permanent retainer, letting him pay a lower percentage than his gardener? Somehow, I don't see him sitting down with TurboTax and doing his own taxes.

garyd

09-20-2011, 09:02 AM

Sone ho I don't seeing him being able to add two and two together three times and get the same answer twice...

DamnYankee

09-20-2011, 11:03 AM

Brad Pitts is a Hollyweird idiot leftist.

And who gives a crap what he thinks anyway?

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 12:27 PM

Since does anyone care what a second rate Hollywood homo think!

Snouter, of course, but you still have to admit "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Journey to the Center of the Mind" are really good songs!!;):nice:

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 12:28 PM

If more rich people in America were like Brad Pitt, America would've been doing MUCH better economically and socially overall:).

antiquity

09-20-2011, 12:35 PM

Snouter, of course, but you still have to admit "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Journey to the Center of the Mind" are really good songs!!;):nice:

Sounds like something you would have written while on drugs.

Dick Tator

09-20-2011, 12:41 PM

If more rich people in America were like Brad Pitt, America would've been doing MUCH better economically and socially overall:).

Evidence? You don't even know how many deductions he claims. Probably gets the Child Tax Credit for each of his 20 adopted brown kids..

Freedom&Liberty

09-20-2011, 12:46 PM

Angelina's botox injections are prolly a write off too.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 01:06 PM

Evidence? You don't even know how many deductions he claims. Probably gets the Child Tax Credit for each of his 20 adopted brown kids..

Angelina's botox injections are prolly a write off too.

I'm not intersted in what anybody thinks "probably" happens. I'm interested in facts. Can you prove any of the above?:confused:

Also, I'm all for getting rid of most write offs and loopholes for people who make $500,000 and more a year. That way, ALL rich people will be paying what they are supposed to be paying, and they won't be able to use adopted kids and plastic surgeries, among many other things, as excuses:).

hadit

09-20-2011, 01:24 PM

I'm not intersted in what anybody thinks "probably" happens. I'm interested in facts. Can you prove any of the above?:confused:

Also, I'm all for getting rid of most write offs and loopholes for people who make $500,000 and more a year. That way, ALL rich people will be paying what they are supposed to be paying, and they won't be able to use adopted kids and plastic surgeries, among many other things, as excuses:).

Warren Buffet, the new face of class warfare, only pays the earned income tax rate on the $100,000 or so he draws as a salary. That's chump change to him. The rest of his millions are taxed at the capital gains rate, 15%. Of course he's championing raising the income tax rate on the rich. One, his earned income wouldn't even put him in the higher bracket, and two, it wouldn't effect the bulk of his income at all. In short, unless they lower everyone's income tax rates below 15%, his secretary will still pay higher rates than he does, and he can continue sounding all pious and stuff.

And no one, I mean no one, is going to raise the capital gains rate. That's a quick trip to economic suicide. Oh, wait, never mind, I forgot who is in the White House.

Dick Tator

09-20-2011, 01:26 PM

I'm not intersted in what anybody thinks "probably" happens. I'm interested in facts. Can you prove any of the above?:confused:

Also, I'm all for getting rid of most write offs and loopholes for people who make $500,000 and more a year. That way, ALL rich people will be paying what they are supposed to be paying, and they won't be able to use adopted kids and plastic surgeries, among many other things, as excuses:).

How about we just end the write offs and loopholes for EVERYBODY? Cause while you're saying 500k, I think that's an excessive amount. Indeed, why does someone who makes 100k need write offs and loopholes? See what I'm getting at? Rich is subjective and as such, we should just simplify things as much as humanly possible. A flat tax with no deductions is one way. Another, the one I support, is the FairTax.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 01:56 PM

How about we just end the write offs and loopholes for EVERYBODY

No, people who don't make good money should only pay a little bit of taxes, at most, esepcially depending on their situation.

Cause while you're saying 500k, I think that's an excessive amount. Indeed, why does someone who makes 100k need write offs and loopholes?

Everybody who makes under 100k should have as many write offs and loopholes as possible, especially if they are small business owners and/or have big families.

People who make over 100k should have less and less loopholes and more and more taxes, but to a reasonable extent, because a lot of those people are hardly middle-class in the end of the day, so you have to take it easy on them. People who have millions, on the other hand? They can afford it!!:nice:

A flat tax with no deductions is one way. Another, the one I support, is the FairTax.

No, because it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class. Fuck that:p.

IFF

09-20-2011, 02:02 PM

Evidence? You don't even know how many deductions he claims. Probably gets the Child Tax Credit for each of his 20 adopted brown kids..

i thought a former user here wrote that they claimed for 9 children on their tax return as that's the maximum they can claim

I'm not intersted in what anybody thinks "probably" happens. I'm interested in facts. Can you prove any of the above?:confused:

Also, I'm all for getting rid of most write offs and loopholes for people who make $500,000 and more a year. That way, ALL rich people will be paying what they are supposed to be paying, and they won't be able to use adopted kids and plastic surgeries, among many other things, as excuses:).

i agree and disagree on tax reliefs. on the one hand (and i refer to irish system here as i don't know the US), there are pointless tax relief for investment in hotels and other places. on the other hand, there is also tax relief available on investment into residential accomodation for people with an infirmity.
so my personal belief is that with regards to tax reliefs, to allow them to a point to which there is a social need for such.
Use the tax reliefs to balance out where there is a social need

Don't do what happened in Ireland and keep some reliefs go when the supply of hotels reached surplus and any more overheated the market and is ruining the viability of viable hotels

another pointless tax relief was car parking facilities in city, instead of the government investing in public transport

jwreck

09-20-2011, 02:04 PM

No, because it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class. Fuck that:p.
I'm sure I'll regret this, but why?

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 02:23 PM

I'm sure I'll regret this, but why?

Because it would mean that the rich will be paying less $, while everybody else will be paying more $ than the way that it currently is:).

Reminds me of a joke: A Russian father comes home and tells his kids "I have two things to tell you...one is bad news, the other one is not so bad, I guess..." So the kids ask "what is it?" The father says "Well, the prices for alcohol are much higher in Russia, starting today." "So daddy, does it mean you will be drinking less?" ask the kids. "No", says the father, "that means YOU will be eating less!!":p.

Truth Teller

09-20-2011, 02:31 PM

Does he send extra?
I don't know,but even (for the sake of argument) if he doesn't ,the fact is he and his lady use most of their money to help people literally all over the world (including the US),in addition to that they still live very,very well.

No one is saying that anyone shouldn't live exceptionally well,what we're saying is you can do that and still give back big time,you don't have to be be greedy.

And make no mistake about it,what Boehner ,Cantor,the Tea Party extremists ,Bachmann ,Perry ,Palin,Limbaugh,Hannity and their ilk argue for is greed,nothing else.

Fuck Brad Pitt if he thinks stealing from people is ok. If he's stupid and wants to surrender his money to those who want to steal from him, then that's his problem.
Old Brad struck a nerve there,didn't he?:D

My question for Brad is simply why does he help people instead of sending the government money to do it.

Did you read the full interview?

Do you know anything about his history?

He does :doh:

Obviously he can't be trusted to make proper decisions with money and it's up to the masses to spend it for him. We can help welfare queens sit on their asses shitting out more kids!
:cuckoo:

I believe libertarians want the federal gov't. to defend the national borders and adjuticate commerce disputes between the states. Otherwise, they believe the constitution allows citizens to choose what public services their state should provide. No need for public hospitals, law enforcement officers, judges, fire fighters, teachers, civil engineers, or other public officials for that matter.

Think of how inexpensive gov't. would be. With no regulations, everyone could sell what they want, when they want. The economy would boom. Especially when organized crime takes over. Boom-boom. :rolleyes:
Indeed,without regulations everyone can do any damn thing they want,and when that happens look for lawlessness that would make Egypt look like a picnic.

But ,that is a good point,why do moderen-day fiscal conservatives support corperations and greedy people being lawless?

Am I the only one that notices the incredible stupidity here?? He knows his taxes are used in this country right? The same country that he credits for giving him the opportunity to get wealthy? So somehow he had the opportunity but others don't? What kind of bassackwards reasoning is that?
If you read the full interview (I did link it), he said he wasn't talking about only the US but about the whole world.

Indeed. In fact organized crime prospers because of rules and regulations.
Al Capone would dispute that.

He doesn't mind paying taxes. Yip yip yip yahoo. The question then becomes, is that because he really thinks it's a great thing, or is it because he has a top tax attorney on permanent retainer, letting him pay a lower percentage than his gardener? Somehow, I don't see him sitting down with TurboTax and doing his own taxes.
Again ,he gives most of his money back to society and still lives very,very well.

I mean, how much wealth can one hoard?

Snouter, of course, but you still have to admit "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Journey to the Center of the Mind" are really good songs!!;):nice:
At least nice guitar riffs.

If more rich people in America were like Brad Pitt, America would've been doing MUCH better economically and socially overall:).
Agreed.

If I were Barack Obama ,I'd ask Brad Pitt to go out on the road and push the jobs bill to the people.

Evidence? You don't even know how many deductions he claims. Probably gets the Child Tax Credit for each of his 20 adopted brown kids..

Read the interview ,he and Angelina Jolie adopted several of those "brown kids" because those kids would have died very young in their countries of orgin if they hadn't been adopted.

Warren Buffet, the new face of class warfare, only pays the earned income tax rate on the $100,000 or so he draws as a salary. That's chump change to him. The rest of his millions are taxed at the capital gains rate, 15%. Of course he's championing raising the income tax rate on the rich. One, his earned income wouldn't even put him in the higher bracket, and two, it wouldn't effect the bulk of his income at all. In short, unless they lower everyone's income tax rates below 15%, his secretary will still pay higher rates than he does, and he can continue sounding all pious and stuff.

And no one, I mean no one, is going to raise the capital gains rate. That's a quick trip to economic suicide. Oh, wait, never mind, I forgot who is in the White House.
There is indeed class warfare going on,and it's the GOP (and the greedy people who own the the GOP) who have delcared war on the poor and middle-class.

How about we just end the write offs and loopholes for EVERYBODY? Cause while you're saying 500k, I think that's an excessive amount. Indeed, why does someone who makes 100k need write offs and loopholes? See what I'm getting at? Rich is subjective and as such, we should just simplify things as much as humanly possible. A flat tax with no deductions is one way. Another, the one I support, is the FairTax.

10% of a poor person's income is not the same as 10% of a rich person's income.

The so-called "fair tax" is not fair.

Again,if we all have to sacriifce ,then those who have more should sacrifice more.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 02:33 PM

Sounds like something you would have written while on drugs.

Well, Nugent did write "Journey To the Center of the Mind" while on drugs, most likely, even if nowdays he denies that he even knew that song was about drugs, which he certainly did, since he wrote it with his drug addicted bandmates:jester:.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 02:50 PM

Read the interview ,he and Angelina Jolie adopted several of those "brown kids" because those kids would have died very young in their countries of orgin if they hadn't been adopted.

TT, the only "brown kids" that Dick Tator gives a shit about is himself (and occasionally Hamas terrorists, whenever Snouter gets him stoned;):p), and he couldn't care less that somebody helped a poor innocent kid in India or Africa:p.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 03:04 PM

10% of a poor person's income is not the same as 10% of a rich person's income.

The so-called "fair tax" is not fair.

Again,if we all have to sacriifce ,then those who have more should sacrifice more.

My idea of a fair tax would be about:

0%-5% for 20K or less

5%-15% for 20-50K (depending on write offs and loopholes)

10%-20% for 50-100K (again, depending on write offs, loopholes and personal situations)

20%-35% for 100-500K (still depending on loopholes, but more and more limits)

35%-50% for 500-2,000K (some loopholes, but not a whole lot).

50%-70% for 2,000K+ (very few loopholes or write-offs options)

That still makes me more "right-wing" than Truman, FDR and even Ike, since at the time, many rich people payed 90%:).

hadit

09-20-2011, 03:08 PM

Again ,he gives most of his money back to society and still lives very,very well.

I mean, how much wealth can one hoard?

I would posit that a wealthy man who invests large amounts of money in companies hoping to make even more money gives as much if not more to society by allowing those companies to innovate, hire, and pay more workers. You know, feed a man or teach him to fish kind of thing.

There is indeed class warfare going on,and it's the GOP (and the greedy people who own the the GOP) who have delcared war on the poor and middle-class.

I'm sure you really believe that. Your ideology won't let you see anything else, but take note of who is using class warfare rhetoric today (Obama). He knows there is no way his "let's penalize the rich so you'll feel better about your life but it won't do anything whatsoever to help the economy" bill will ever pass Congress, even among his own party. He's employing class warfare, not the GOP.

Powerboss

09-20-2011, 03:49 PM

"Taxes" to Brad Pitt is nothing but pocket change. He may have no qualms about throwing money down the chute but many people who have succeeded have an honest philosophical difference in opinion with him. They believe that people who earned the money are better able to decide where their money is spent than The Magic Negro, Harry Reid, or some other government stooge think it should be spent. They believe the government is spending too much right now and is too big.

Why can't we revert back to 2007 era spending? Why should government not be forced to make sacrifices and lower their budgets like most Americans? Why do leftists believe that Government shouldn't have to live within their means and sacrifice like everyone else? What is stopping Brad Pitt and the other limousine liberals from sending all of their massive wealth into the government? In fact, why doesn't Brad Pitt send all of his wealth, except for $100,000 to the government?

jwreck

09-20-2011, 03:53 PM

Because it would mean that the rich will be paying less $, while everybody else will be paying more $ than the way that it currently is:).

Reminds me of a joke: A Russian father comes home and tells his kids "I have two things to tell you...one is bad news, the other one is not so bad, I guess..." So the kids ask "what is it?" The father says "Well, the prices for alcohol are much higher in Russia, starting today." "So daddy, does it mean you will be drinking less?" ask the kids. "No", says the father, "that means YOU will be eating less!!":p.Wow. Thanks for that concise and well thought out response that was complete with specifics and relevant examples. :|

jwreck

09-20-2011, 03:54 PM

Al Capone would dispute that.

While the rest of your points were fairly inept, this one is truly idiotic.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 04:45 PM

Wow. Thanks for that concise and well thought out response that was complete with specifics and relevant examples.

Do I really need to explain to you why 1+1=2 and bring specifics and relevant examples?:confused::rolleyes:

Which system benefits the rich over the poor/middle class:

A. The one where the rich pay over 50% of taxes and the rest pay a much smaller %.

B. The one where EVERYBODY (incluidng the rich) pays 30% or so taxes.

Is it A or B?:confused:

Freedom&Liberty

09-20-2011, 05:15 PM

Under the Fair Tax the poor pay nothing.

Lulu

09-20-2011, 05:40 PM

My idea of a fair tax would be about:

0%-5% for 20K or less

5%-15% for 20-50K (depending on write offs and loopholes)

10%-20% for 50-100K (again, depending on write offs, loopholes and personal situations)

20%-35% for 100-500K (still depending on loopholes, but more and more limits)

35%-50% for 500-2,000K (some loopholes, but not a whole lot).

50%-70% for 2,000K+ (very few loopholes or write-offs options)

That still makes me more "right-wing" than Truman, FDR and even Ike, since at the time, many rich people payed 90%:).

You are on crack. That is a sure fire way to drive every bit of business out of the country and make every one who makes over $500K move out of the country. Hope you are learning Mandarin, commie ;)!

Anyhow, I could give 2 shits what Brad Pitt thinks.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 05:49 PM

Under the Fair Tax the poor pay nothing.

Increase of sale tax would hurt the poor much more than a little (if any) income tax, overall, and that's why the only solution is to make the rich pay more taxes:).

You are on crack. That is a sure fire way to drive every bit of business out of the country and make every one who makes over $500K move out of the country. Hope you are learning Mandarin, commie !

No, you are the one who is on crack, businesses and rich sociopaths didn't leave go anywhere during Truman and Eisenhower when they payed 90% very often, and besides, where the hell would they go to? Europe? To pay EVEN MORE taxes?:p

They will stay right here in America and pay the damn taxes, just like Brad Pitt:).

jwreck

09-20-2011, 05:51 PM

Do I really need to explain to you why 1+1=2 and bring specifics and relevant examples?:confused::rolleyes:

Which system benefits the rich over the poor/middle class:

A. The one where the rich pay over 50% of taxes and the rest pay a much smaller %.

B. The one where EVERYBODY (incluidng the rich) pays 30% or so taxes.

Is it A or B?:confused:You could just say you don't understand the topic.

Lulu

09-20-2011, 05:54 PM

Increase of sale tax would hurt the poor much more than a little (if any) income tax, overall, and that's why the only solution is to make the rich pay more taxes:).

No, you are the one who is on crack, businesses and rich sociopaths didn't leave go anywhere during Truman and Eisenhower when they payed 90% very often, and besides, where the hell would they go to? Europe? To pay EVEN MORE taxes?:p

They will stay right here in America and pay the damn taxes, just like Brad Pitt:).

Stick with music. Economics is not your strong suit.

Your idiotic grid would have me paying 5-10% more than I already do in taxes. :rolleyes:

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 05:56 PM

You could just say you don't understand the topic.

I'm sorry you failed first grade's math, however I always had A's in math (except one B+ (89.3%, it was) in Multi-variable calculus:p), so you must believe me that that a system that makes the rich pay LESS taxes benefits them more than the one that makes them pay more taxes, and if the rich don't pay a certain amount of money to the gov't, it would mean that somebody else will have to pay it...such as the poor and the middle-class. Any questions?

jwreck

09-20-2011, 06:07 PM

I'm sorry you failed first grade's math, however I always had A's in math (except one B+ (89.3%, it was) in Multi-variable calculus:p), so you must believe me that that a system that makes the rich pay LESS taxes benefits them more than the one that makes them pay more taxes, and if the rich don't pay a certain amount of money to the gov't, it would mean that somebody else will have to pay it...such as the poor and the middle-class. Any questions?Yeah, none of that answers what you were originally replying to. Maybe you should put the bong down so you can follow a conversation.

How about we just end the write offs and loopholes for EVERYBODY? Cause while you're saying 500k, I think that's an excessive amount. Indeed, why does someone who makes 100k need write offs and loopholes? See what I'm getting at? Rich is subjective and as such, we should just simplify things as much as humanly possible. A flat tax with no deductions is one way. Another, the one I support, is the FairTax.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 06:07 PM

Stick with music. Economics is not your strong suit.

I understand economics (and life in general) well enough to know that people are naturaly greedy and more often than not would like to keep their money for themselves as much as possible. That's why the gov't is there to tax them:).

You can find all kinds of excuses to let the rich pay less taxes (and some are good points indeed), but in the end of the day, you just want more money for yourself and so does everybody else. But then, somebody has to pay for this country/society, and it has to be mostly the people who have more than enough money already, rather than the ones who barely afford to survive.

You guys are kinda like 10 year old kids who are trying to convince their mother to let them go out and play with their friends outsides rather than do their homework...you even bring up GOOD reasons for the mother to do so (such as "it's nice outside, fresh air, physical excersises is just as important as school work..."), but you STILL have to do the damn homework, no mater what, just like you will continue paying taxes (based upon the desires of most Americans), and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it:).

Your idiotic grid would have me paying 5-10% more than I already do in taxes.

That's because you probably should be paying more!!:p You're like a spoiled narcisistic child who thinks that everything is about you...well, it isn't, welcome to the real world and be thankful that the capitalist pro-business Obama isn't actually taxing you like he really should be:).

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 06:13 PM

Yeah, none of that answers what you were originally replying to. Maybe you should put the bong down so you can follow a conversation.

Originally Posted by Dick Tator
How about we just end the write offs and loopholes for EVERYBODY? Cause while you're saying 500k, I think that's an excessive amount. Indeed, why does someone who makes 100k need write offs and loopholes? See what I'm getting at? Rich is subjective and as such, we should just simplify things as much as humanly possible. A flat tax with no deductions is one way. Another, the one I support, is the FairTax.

I already explained that the poor and lower-middle class cannot afford not having the loopholes and the write-offs, they often need it just to survive, while the rich don't really need it, they just want to save money:p. Besides, any increase of the sale tax (in order to make up for less income tax) will hurt poor people most of all (prices on food and gas will go up, for instance), as the rich will be able to afford it anyways.

Truth Teller

09-20-2011, 06:38 PM

While the rest of your points were fairly inept, this one is truly idiotic.

Prohibition was a rule,a regulation,and it made organized crime prosper.

jwreck

09-20-2011, 06:50 PM

Prohibition was a rule,a regulation,and it made organized crime prosper.
Yeah, that was the original point. Welcome to the thread.

9ball8

09-20-2011, 06:50 PM

...
Indeed,without regulations everyone can do any damn thing they want,and when that happens look for lawlessness that would make Egypt look like a picnic.

But ,that is a good point,why do moderen-day fiscal conservatives support corperations and greedy people being lawless?
...
Al Capone would dispute that.
....

Al Capone is a mediocre example of what happens when a gov't operates on a low regulation, low revenue environment. While the 20's was low revenue, Al depended heavily on strict regulation against the sale or use of alcoholic beverages and loose women. Under-funded cops did make Al's life easier though, bribery smoothing the way. A better example of what happens with a low reg, low revenue gov't. would be the wild west and the guilded age (1866-1896).

Always good to have law & order planned & funded on a government level. Only then one can depend on a libertarian faith in the overwhelming goodness of most all people, and our dedication to root out bad behavior when we see it. Whenever that faith proves false (and it will), the gov't. is there to restore order.

jwreck

09-20-2011, 06:51 PM

Al Capone is a mediocre example of what happens when a gov't operates on a low regulation, low revenue environment. While the 20's was low revenue, Al depended heavily on strict regulation against the sale or use of alcoholic beverages and loose women. Under-funded cops did make Al's life easier though, bribery smoothing the way. A better example of what happens with a low reg, low revenue gov't. would be the wild west and the guilded age (1866-1896).

Always good to have law & order planned & funded on a government level. Only then one can depend on a libertarian faith in the overwhelming goodness of most all people, and our dedication to root out bad behavior when we see it. Whenever that faith proves false (and it will), the gov't. is there to restore order.You really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, do you?

SnOuTeR4LiFe

09-20-2011, 07:53 PM

Prohibition was a rule,a regulation,and it made organized crime prosper.

Indeed the zionist crime mobs flourished and still do!

Guido

09-20-2011, 08:15 PM

Here's Teller's brain at work:

First this:

Indeed. In fact organized crime prospers because of rules and regulations.

Teller: Al Capone would dispute that.

Then this:

Prohibition was a rule,a regulation,and it made organized crime prosper.

The notion of consistency -- thoughts occuring in a logical sequence -- has no application to Teller's mental process, which can be compared to the action of the silver ball in a pinball machine, bouncing from one bumper to another, setting off weird sounding bells and whistles and miniature light shows, all apparently at random.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 08:55 PM

Indeed the zionist crime mobs flourished and still do!

God blesses those who bless Israel:):nice:. Read your Torah sometimes:D.

Freedom&Liberty

09-20-2011, 08:58 PM

jwreck

09-20-2011, 09:00 PM

I have one. What's keeping people, who think like you do, from sending in as much the poor need?The greedy rich and the Tea Party obv.

GanjaFreebird

09-20-2011, 09:07 PM

I have one. What's keeping people, who think like you do, from sending in as much the poor need?

We don't have NEARLY enough money for that. Sure we have no problem paying taxes and even giving some extra to charities, but that's not nearly enough money to cover for what other people, who DON'T think like we do, wouldn't pay if taxes were optional:p.

Besides, most people, even many liberals, are greedy by nature, and would rather keep that money to themselves, but somebody still has to pay bills for this country, so there must be rules and we should all follow them, regardless if one hates, loves, or is hypocritical about paying taxes, and whoever wants to contribute even extra to charity after all of that, well, God bless them:).

hadit

09-20-2011, 09:44 PM

The greedy rich and the Tea Party obv.

How?

hadit

09-20-2011, 09:45 PM

We don't have NEARLY enough money for that. Sure we have no problem paying taxes and even giving some extra to charities, but that's not nearly enough money to cover for what other people, who DON'T think like we do, wouldn't pay if taxes were optional:p.

Besides, most people, even many liberals, are greedy by nature, and would rather keep that money to themselves, but somebody still has to pay bills for this country, so there must be rules and we should all follow them, regardless if one hates, loves, or is hypocritical about paying taxes, and whoever wants to contribute even extra to charity after all of that, well, God bless them:).

The rich don't have enough either.

Peabody

09-20-2011, 10:28 PM

@Ganja Freebird.

"Somebody still has to pay bills for this country"

I pay bills for food, electric, etc. What am I paying taxes for. What does the government really provide me that the power company and the grocery store doesn't. What am I getting for paying all of these taxes besides more taxes. Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare is bankrupt, the government is bankrupt and it seems they want to take the grocery store and the power company with them.

I'm sure this sounds simple, but I'm tired and can't think of a great response.

garyd

09-20-2011, 10:34 PM

It is not the purpose of the government to redress the cosmic balance.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 01:15 AM

Arkady

09-21-2011, 01:37 AM

Brad Pitt is obviously not as dumb as I thought. He has it right.

If you choose to live in a country, you must contribute to that country.

beatlebabe

09-21-2011, 01:52 AM

Brad Pitt can pay my taxes, since he doesn't mind & all :)

jwreck

09-21-2011, 01:54 AM

Brad Pitt is obviously not as dumb as I thought. He has it right.

If you choose to live in a country, you must contribute to that country.Tell that to the folks on the government teat.

I don't mind paying a certain amount of taxes either, but there is a limit.

Arkady

09-21-2011, 01:56 AM

Tell that to the folks on the government teat.

I don't mind paying a certain amount of taxes either, but there is a limit.

I agree there should be a limit, but I don't think anyone is paying too much taxes - at least, not yet

jwreck

09-21-2011, 01:58 AM

Until everyone is paying some, I would say that many people are paying too much.

Arkady

09-21-2011, 02:02 AM

Until everyone is paying some, I would say that many people are paying too much.

It depends on what you think is 'too much'. Not everyone can pay taxes. Some people are too poor and should be exempt.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 02:32 AM

Whoa pal! You've told me at least a dozen times that this is what the American people want. If that's true then you shouldn't have a bit of trouble finding at least a hundred million wage earners willing to freely support it. Don't let my lack of a donation hold the people back.

I said MOST Americans, not all. Just because over 50% of Americans vote for a moderate liberal gov't (such as Obama's) doesn't mean that ALL or even most American will pay what they used to pay if taxes are optional:p. Nice try though;).

Remember, I also said that people greedy by nature, and even many liberals (or the hypocritical ones at least) need the gov't to actually force them to pay taxes, or else, they just wouldn't pay it, and I'm well aware of that:). Laws are enforced for a reason, after all:).

Even if 55% of the country still payed the same taxes as they used to, and even extra (as much as they possibly can), that still wouldn't be NEARLY enough to make up for the 45% minority who ISN'T liberal (or hypocritical about their liberalism) who would chose not to pay. And since most (although very far from all) rich and upper-middle class people are either conservative or libertarian, that would mean that America would be losing LOTS of money that it's getting right now, which is still MUCH less than what it used to get from rich people.

In the end, it all comes down to democracy. The rich greedy sociopaths in this country need to understand that as long as the majority of Americans aren't in their boat, they will vote the other way and the gov't will have to (at the very least) promise those people things over the expense of the rich. Therefore, if rich people want to end up sharing less money with the society, they should take more responsibility for the economy, create more opportunities for people and invest more money into programs that help fight poverty and unemployment, as well as helping poor people get access to birth control and abortion.

That way, things will be better in America, socially and economically, and therefore, there would be less people who would need help, less gov't spending and less taxes for everybody, including the rich.

But if you just want to put your head into your wallet, refuse to see the world around you and just act like a spoiled bad 10 year kid, screaming "I just want to have my money and be left alone", then the gov't will continue to tax you and if you refuse, you will simply go to jail and lose even more money. That's life:).

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 02:37 AM

I pay bills for food, electric, etc. What am I paying taxes for. What does the government really provide me that the power company and the grocery store doesn't. What am I getting for paying all of these taxes besides more taxes. Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare is bankrupt, the government is bankrupt and it seems they want to take the grocery store and the power company with them.

I'm sure this sounds simple, but I'm tired and can't think of a great response.

Taxes are rent for living in your country:). There are no countries (other than some places with anarchy) where you don't pay taxes:p.

The rich don't have enough either.

SURE they do, they have much more than "enough":). You see, there is a big difference between "unable to" and "would prefer not to";). Of course NOBODY wants to pay more taxes, at least in practice, just like no kids really want to do their homework, and all of the above is understandable to a certain degree, but nevertheless, they still have to do what they need to do, even if they don't want to:).

Dick Tator

09-21-2011, 02:51 AM

Taxes are rent for living in your country:).

Speaking of which... doesn't the concept of Property Taxes go against the concept of Land Ownership? Indeed, do you really own the land if it can be taken away for failure to pay? Are land owners not essentially renting their property?

jwreck

09-21-2011, 02:54 AM

It depends on what you think is 'too much'. Not everyone can pay taxes. Some people are too poor and should be exempt.If you have a dollar you can pay a penny.

Meh Neegah Snouter

09-21-2011, 02:55 AM

Taxes are totally zionist/communist!

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 05:27 AM

I said MOST Americans, not all. Just because over 50% of Americans vote for a moderate liberal gov't (such as Obama's) doesn't mean that ALL or even most American will pay what they used to pay if taxes are optional:p. Nice try though;).

Remember, I also said that people greedy by nature, and even many liberals (or the hypocritical ones at least) need the gov't to actually force them to pay taxes, or else, they just wouldn't pay it, and I'm well aware of that:). Laws are enforced for a reason, after all:).

Even if 55% of the country still payed the same taxes as they used to, and even extra (as much as they possibly can), that still wouldn't be NEARLY enough to make up for the 45% minority who ISN'T liberal (or hypocritical about their liberalism) who would chose not to pay. And since most (although very far from all) rich and upper-middle class people are either conservative or libertarian, that would mean that America would be losing LOTS of money that it's getting right now, which is still MUCH less than what it used to get from rich people.

In the end, it all comes down to democracy. The rich greedy sociopaths in this country need to understand that as long as the majority of Americans aren't in their boat, they will vote the other way and the gov't will have to (at the very least) promise those people things over the expense of the rich. Therefore, if rich people want to end up sharing less money with the society, they should take more responsibility for the economy, create more opportunities for people and invest more money into programs that help fight poverty and unemployment, as well as helping poor people get access to birth control and abortion.

That way, things will be better in America, socially and economically, and therefore, there would be less people who would need help, less gov't spending and less taxes for everybody, including the rich.

But if you just want to put your head into your wallet, refuse to see the world around you and just act like a spoiled bad 10 year kid, screaming "I just want to have my money and be left alone", then the gov't will continue to tax you and if you refuse, you will simply go to jail and lose even more money. That's life:).Enough of your lies. I don't want a government that responds to emotional pleas for money by people who can't handle freedom. If MOST Americans want to help the poor there is nothing stopping them. Either you put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is or you admit that you don't give a shit about the poor and that YOUR interests purely lie in a tyrannical need for vote bribery, Prove that you care or STFU.

hadit

09-21-2011, 06:21 AM

SURE they do, they have much more than "enough":). You see, there is a big difference between "unable to" and "would prefer not to";). Of course NOBODY wants to pay more taxes, at least in practice, just like no kids really want to do their homework, and all of the above is understandable to a certain degree, but nevertheless, they still have to do what they need to do, even if they don't want to:).

No, they don't have enough to close the Obama deficit in the budget. No one does.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 07:45 AM

caddis

09-21-2011, 08:19 AM

0%-5% for 20K or less No one should have a 0% tax rate. Come on, be a consistant liberal and demand that everyone pay their fair share

5%-15% for 20-50K (depending on write offs and loopholes)

10%-20% for 50-100K (again, depending on write offs, loopholes and personal situations)

20%-35% for 100-500K (still depending on loopholes, but more and more limits)
Income is income, simplify the tax system and remove all write offs and loop holes. You do that and you won't need the criminally progressive rates you have listed.

35%-50% for 500-2,000K (some loopholes, but not a whole lot).

50%-70% for 2,000K+ (very few loopholes or write-offs options)

That still makes me more "right-wing" than Truman, FDR and even Ike, since at the time, many rich people payed 90%:).There is no way in hell the government should be garnishing 25% of what you earn let alone 35%-70%!!! Fuck that

caddis

09-21-2011, 08:23 AM

I would posit that a wealthy man who invests large amounts of money in companies hoping to make even more money gives as much if not more to society by allowing those companies to innovate, hire, and pay more workers. You know, feed a man or teach him to fish kind of thing. What liberals like TT don't understand (prolly because of a dimininshed moral code) is that when you give a man a fish you rob him of his self respect.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 08:27 AM

I'm not intersted in what anybody thinks "probably" happens. I'm interested in facts.That would be a first.

302Riz

09-21-2011, 09:58 AM

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 11:09 AM

I just got a generous backpay check from my job for all the overtime I worked the past year, and over 1/3 of the check was taken out in taxes and social security. Having said that, I will be a little reluctant to buy a car that I need (but not desperate for) and some things for my house. I get overtime for working more than 45 hours a week, so I have to put in a little extra work during the week to bring home extra cash that I could put to better use than the government can.

Good job, you want a cookie?:)

What liberals like TT don't understand (prolly because of a dimininshed moral code) is that when you give a man a fish you rob him of his self respect.

Not if he's physically/mentally disabled and can't catch a fish himself:rolleyes:.

No one should have a 0% tax rate. Come on, be a consistant liberal and demand that everyone pay their fair share

Assuming that they have ANYTHING to pay that's above whatever covers their basic needs:rolleyes:. No, I refuse to rape the working class and steal whatever pennies left in their pockets just to save a few dollars for the rich, fuck that!!:rolleyes: If you make $1,000 a month, there is NO WAY you can pay anything to anybody...that's hardly even enough to pay rent at a decent place. Unless you make REAL money that actually cover your rent, food, cloths and other basic needs, not only you should not pay taxes, but the gov't should help you cover the rest of the basic needs, if the money you earn isn't enough:).

I can't stand it how greedy rich people want to save money over the expense of the people who don't have it, such as sick, old, children, single mothers and working class people, I mean, do you people have ANY soul, at all?:confused:

Income is income, simplify the tax system and remove all write offs and loop holes.

NOT for the working and middle class. They need those write-offs and loopholes. I'm not trying to do things at the expense of hard working people and small businesses either, as they don't have too much extra money either.

There is no way in hell the government should be garnishing 25% of what you earn let alone 35%-70%!!! Fuck that

In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, some paid 90% in America!! Get over it, it's all good, it can be even higher in Europe, and just because you guys were spoiled for so long, doesn't mean it has to be that way ALL the time;).

If you make more than 2,000K a year, there is NO REASON why you can't share at least 35% of the income with the society and still afford to buy/do pretty much anything you want. Anybody who is left with over a million a year (after taxes) has NO reason to complain, they are fuckin' lucky and should be thankful to the American society for creating such opportunities for them!!:usa:

302Riz

09-21-2011, 11:21 AM

You arent even worth replying to.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 11:27 AM

The poor, the old and the sick already suck up 2/3rds of the federal budget. That's $1,700,000,000,000 dollars and increasing every year. Obviously more money is NOT the cure for poverty. Imagine how fast we could pay off the deficit and the debt and how low taxes could be if we cut that $1.7 Trillion out of the federal budget.

Sure, but it wouldn't be worth it for the American society. To murder the poor, old, sick, not to mention children from poor families, single mothers and Vietnam vets...over what exactly?:confused: To make more money for China and let greedy ulra-rich sociopaths get richer at faster rates?:p Or to prevent the spoiled and narcicisitic upper-middle class house wives from, God forbid, turning off their T.V. and getting a job?:confused::p

No thanks:).

Increasing it is no longer an option because MOST people worth a shit no longer give a shit.

Most RICH and maybe even upper-middle class people don't really give a shit, but then again, they never did to begin with, and that didn't stop us from taxing them:p.

The poor are just going to have to figure it out or die.

We all are going to die someday, but it will be naturally and not from hunger or cold weather, and if the rich assholes have a problem with paying taxes, they should figure it out as far as either buying an island or going to jail is concerned:).

Save America. Keep the poor, the old, the sick and the terminally stupid from voting.

That's impossible, undemocratic and completely unconstitutional. American citizens have the constitional and God given right to vote and elect the gov't that they want, regardless of their age, health or EVEN intelligence (even if that means, many people will vote Republican;):p).

We don't need this dictatorship BS (preventing many people from voting) just because you want to save money for you and other sociopaths. Nice try, but you're better off going to a casino:D.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 11:40 AM

No, they don't have enough to close the Obama deficit in the budget. No one does.

Sure they do, stop bullshiting. A country that has THAT much money alltogether can do a lot of things:). Some people would rather just not share their wealth, which I understand, but they still got to do what they got to do:).

If you have a dollar you can pay a penny.

No, because a dollar alone isn't enough to cover anybody's basic needs. Until the basic needs are covered, the person shouldn't even pay half a penny in taxes.

Taxes are totally zionist/communist!

Snouter, at least get a job first before you're going to talk about something you don't pay anyways, such as taxes:p.

Speaking of which... doesn't the concept of Property Taxes go against the concept of Land Ownership?

I think that property taxes should only be for people that own more than one house:).

If you are rich enough to buy two big houses or more, you're rich enough to contribute more to the American society:).

Indeed, do you really own the land if it can be taken away for failure to pay? Are land owners not essentially renting their property?

Don't take the land away, just increase the income tax on such people. There's no need to make anybody homeless:).

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 11:48 AM

Enough of your lies. I don't want a government that responds to emotional pleas for money by people who can't handle freedom.

Then vote for the libertarian party. That's ALL you can do as an American citizen to benefit your goals. Remember, you only have the right to vote, not the right to get the gov't that you want;):p.

If MOST Americans want to help the poor there is nothing stopping them.

Even most Americans wouldn't be NEARLY enough to help the poor. Besides, most taxes come from the rich, and I NEVER said that most rich people would still want to help the poor, if taxes were just an option;):p.

Either you put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is or you admit that you don't give a shit about the poor and that YOUR interests purely lie in a tyrannical need for vote bribery, Prove that you care or STFU.

I already do way more than my share for the poor/disabled/sick on my private time, but I'm not the topic, nor can I theoretically make up the amount of money that rich people are forced to pay in taxes, obviously:p.

What you need to know is that I care about the poor enough to vote for the politicians that will make sure that they will have their basic needs and won't let anybody die from hunger or from being homeless, and that's as much as anybody can possibly do to MAKE SURE things are ok. Of course, extra contributions to charity are always great, just like a teacher will love the student that does extre-credit work, but you still have to finish your homework first though:).

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 11:49 AM

Sure, but it wouldn't be worth it for the American society. To murder the poor, old, sick, not to mention children from poor families, single mothers and Vietnam vets...over what exactly?:confused: To make more money for China and let greedy ulra-rich sociopaths get richer at faster rates?:p Or to prevent the spoiled and narcicisitic upper-middle class house wives from, God forbid, turning off their T.V. and getting a job?:confused::pNo thanks:).

Most RICH and maybe even upper-middle class people don't really give a shit, but then again, they never did to begin with, and that didn't stop us from taxing them:p.

We all are going to die someday, but it will be naturally and not from hunger or cold weather, and if the rich assholes have a problem with paying taxes, they should figure it out as far as either buying an island or going to jail is concerned:).

That's impossible, undemocratic and completely unconstitutional. American citizens have the constitional and God given right to vote and elect the gov't that they want, regardless of their age, health or EVEN intelligence (even if that means, many people will vote Republican;):p).

We don't need this dictatorship BS (preventing many people from voting) just because you want to save money for you and other sociopaths. Nice try, but you're better off going to a casino:D.Damn it, boy. You are chock full of emo. Have you sent in your check yet? You do want to help the poor, right? Until then, I don't give two shits what you think anyone else should be forced to pay or what you think is constitutional. You've repeatedly shown yourself to be too god damned stupid to understand either one. If the poor can't figure out how to live on 1.7T a year, fuck them.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 11:55 AM

Damn it, boy. You are chock full of emo.

Why? Because I accept reality and don't mind doing what people have to do in all countries (at least the civilized ones), such as paying taxes?:confused:

Have you sent in your check yet?

I always pay my taxes and give extra to causes that I support, not to mention raising awareness for them:):usa:.

You do want to help the poor, right? Until then, I don't give two shits what you think anyone else should be forced to pay.

I do help the poor, but the gov't doesn't give two shits about what you think about me or anybody, you will still be going to jail for not paying taxes, regardless of what I or anybody else do or not do:D.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 11:58 AM

Then vote for the libertarian party. That's ALL you can do as an American citizen to benefit your goals. Remember, you only have the right to vote, not the right to get the gov't that you want;):p.

Even most Americans wouldn't be NEARLY enough to help the poor. Besides, most taxes come from the rich, and I NEVER said that most rich people would still want to help the poor, if taxes were just an option;):p.

I already do way more than my share for the poor/disabled/sick on my private time, but I'm not the topic, nor can I theoretically make up the amount of money that rich people are forced to pay in taxes, obviously:p.

What you need to know is that I care about the poor enough to vote for the politicians that will make sure that they will have their basic needs and won't let anybody die from hunger or from being homeless, and that's as much as anybody can possibly do to MAKE SURE things are ok. Of course, extra contributions to charity are always great, just like a teacher will love the student that does extre-credit work, but you still have to finish your homework first though:).Waaaaaaaa! Your poor people are gonna die in the streets as you sit in your recliner watching them die on your TV. You just didn't care enough.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 11:59 AM

or what you think is constitutional.

People who have an American citizenship have the right to vote. I didn't invent such idea, that was done by the founding fathers and whoever that invented the concept of democracy:). If you don't like it when all people get to vote, I'm sure you could buy a one-way ticket to Iran or Saudi-Arabia:D.

You've repeatedly shown yourself to be too god damned stupid to understand either one. If the poor can't figure out how to live on 1.7T a year, fuck them.

I'm not sure that it's all so simple, but either way, they do have the right to vote, which is given to them by the constitution and by the concept of democracy, and they will vote for whoever they want to, regardless if they figure out how to live on a certain budget or not:).

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 12:00 PM

Why? Because I accept reality and don't mind doing what people have to do in all countries (at least the civilized ones), such as paying taxes?:confused:No. Because you're a whiny bitch who can't face reality. To you freedom can only come from the point of a gun.

I do help the poor, but the gov't doesn't give two shits about what you think about me or anybody, you will still be going to jail for not paying taxes, regardless of what I or anybody else do or not do:D.As far as you know I've never paid taxes and I never will. Put that in your hat, Pillow Biter.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 12:02 PM

People who have an American citizenship have the right to vote. I didn't invent such idea, that was done by the founding fathers and whoever that invented the concept of democracy:). If you don't like it when all people get to vote, I'm sure you could buy a one-way ticket to Iran or Saudi-Arabia:D.

I'm not sure that it's all so simple, but either way, they do have the right to vote, which is given to them by the constitution and by the concept of democracy, and they will vote for whoever they want to, regardless if they figure out how to live on a certain budget or not:).Keep it up and watch them die.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 12:02 PM

Waaaaaaaa! Your poor people are gonna die in the streets as you sit in your recliner watching them die on your TV. You just didn't care enough.

That's my point, they are not going to die in the streets, because the gov't will keep forcing you guys to pay taxes and provide people with basic needs, and nobody will give a shit that you guys don't care about the poor or would rather sit and watch them die on your t.v....instead you will sit down, watch your t.v. and get pissed off at Obama for taxing you and at the people that voted for him;):). Life is great, ain't it!!:nice:

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 12:06 PM

Don't count on it, Ganja. The days of unlimited handouts are gone. You're about to get run over by all the poor people coming to take yout shit.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 12:10 PM

Keep it up and watch them die.

Everybody's going to die one day, but it won't be from hunger or cold weather, at least not in America, and if that means that we would have to increase taxes on the rich and/or cut down on the military, then so be it:).

No. Because you're a whiny bitch who can't face reality.

Rich people paying big taxes is the reality, which I'm completely fine about, but you refuse to face and accept. Oh well:).

As far as you know I've never paid taxes and I never will. Put that in your hat, Pillow Biter.

Of course, but that would make you a criminal (unless you are very poor or live off your parents' money like Snouter, or something:p), and if you really cheat on your taxes and the IRS puts you to jail, that will be your problem, and I'm not going to feel sorry for you or anybody else who refuses to pay taxes. If you'd rather take it up the ass in prison than pay taxes and give back to the American society, than it's your problem and your choice:).

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 12:14 PM

Don't count on it, Ganja. The days of unlimited handouts are gone. You're about to get run over by all the poor people coming to take yout shit.

Only in your dreams:). People who commit crimes will go to jail, regardless if it's poor people who steal or rich people who don't pay taxes:D. The law is the law:).

hadit

09-21-2011, 12:16 PM

Not if he's physically/mentally disabled and can't catch a fish himself:rolleyes:.

That's not who we're talking about, is it? You cannot convince me that 45% of America is physically/mentally disabled, the number that are paying no income tax at all.

I can't stand it how greedy rich people want to save money over the expense of the people who don't have it, such as sick, old, children, single mothers and working class people, I mean, do you people have ANY soul, at all?:confused:

No, as said multiple times, they want to be able to help those around them on their own, not be coerced to cough up ever increasing amounts out of every paycheck (no liberal will EVER tell you how much is a "fair share", just MORE) so that some left wing deadbeats feel, not think, good about themselves.

NOT for the working and middle class. They need those write-offs and loopholes. I'm not trying to do things at the expense of hard working people and small businesses either, as they don't have too much extra money either.

If you really want revenue, that's where you're going to have to go to get it because there just isn't enough wealth at the top. That's why this latest effort from TFO is so obviously class warfare and campaigning.

In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, some paid 90% in America!!

No one paid that much because there were many, many more loopholes than there are today. In fact, it was Reagan who closed most of them.

Get over it, it's all good, it can be even higher in Europe, and just because you guys were spoiled for so long, doesn't mean it has to be that way ALL the time;).

And why again do we want our economy to suck as bad as most of Europe's?

If you make more than 2,000K a year, there is NO REASON why you can't share at least 35% of the income with the society and still afford to buy/do pretty much anything you want.

Bull pucky. That's YOUR standard. If I want to sink a million into a start up business I believe in and allow it to hire 10 more people (much cheaper than TFO's jobs, BTW), or endow a charity with another half mil, that's none of anyone else's business. IOW, private property rights apply.

Anybody who is left with over a million a year (after taxes) has NO reason to complain, they are fuckin' lucky and should be thankful to the American society for creating such opportunities for them!!:usa:

Society should be thankful that people can amass such a fortune and afford to hire personal shoppers, trainers, maids, drivers, etc.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 12:16 PM

There won't be any new taxes, Ganja. Everytthing will be offset by spending cuts from now on. Obama is done.

hadit

09-21-2011, 12:16 PM

Only in your dreams:). People who commit crimes will go to jail, regardless if it's poor people who steal or rich people who don't pay taxes:D. The law is the law:).

The law is worthless if enough people decide to break it all at the same time.

hadit

09-21-2011, 12:18 PM

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 12:30 PM

Yup, and as soon as people figure out they can vote themselves access to their neighbor's wallet, it's all over but the shouting.

As Winston Churchill said, it's true that democracy is absolutely a terrible system, but it's not nearly as bad as all other systems that exist today:).

The law is worthless if enough people decide to break it all at the same time.

That's fine, enforce tax laws on everybody then!!:nice:

There won't be any new taxes, Ganja.

That's what Bush Sr. said too:jester:.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 12:33 PM

Only in your dreams:). People who commit crimes will go to jail, regardless if it's poor people who steal or rich people who don't pay taxes:D. The law is the law:).The law is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day. Your days are numbered and I for one hope to see you cry on national television.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 12:49 PM

Obama is done.

We don't know that yet:). Elections haven't even began, much less are over:p.

That's not who we're talking about, is it?

I'm talking about those who are physically/mentally unable to work for living.

You cannot convince me that 45% of America is physically/mentally disabled, the number that are paying no income tax at all.

No, that's equivalent to the people who can catch enough fish to feed themselves but not nearly enough to share. The people who can't work AT ALL are the ones who are mentally and physically disabled, as well as children and old people.

Besides, 45% Americans don't pay income tax?:confused: Everybody has to pay at the very least for medicare and SS, and that's ALREADY a lot of money to many poor people, so let's not be dishonest here, everybody who works legally in America pays at least SOME taxes:rolleyes:.

No, as said multiple times, they want to be able to help those around them on their own, not be coerced to cough up ever increasing amounts out of every paycheck (no liberal will EVER tell you how much is a "fair share", just MORE) so that some left wing deadbeats feel, not think, good about themselves.

And what if the amount of money that they would contribute on their own isn't enough to take care of those who can't take care of themselves?:confused: Who is going to MAKE SURE that nobody dies from hunger or freezes to death?:confused: Who will ACTUALLY take responsibility for that and promise us that such move won't risk anybody's lives?:confused:

And if such move MAY risk some people's lives, why the hell should we even do that for?:confused: Just to save right-wingers some money?:p No thanks:rolleyes:.

If you really want revenue, that's where you're going to have to go to get it because there just isn't enough wealth at the top. That's why this latest effort from TFO is so obviously class warfare and campaigning.

There is more than enough wealth at the top. Almost all of American wealth is at the top:p.

Taking away pennies from the working and lower-middle class isn't going to make much of a difference for the gov't anyways.

No one paid that much because there were many, many more loopholes than there are today.

But even with the loopholes, it was still VERY high taxes, nevertheless. Maybe at the time, rich people in America weren't as selfish and spoiled, who knows, but there sure wasn't a problem then:shrug:.

In fact, it was Reagan who closed most of them.

Evidence?

And why again do we want our economy to suck as bad as most of Europe's?

Well...where else would American rich people go to if Obama increased taxes for them?:confused:

Bull pucky. That's YOUR standard. If I want to sink a million into a start up business I believe in and allow it to hire 10 more people (much cheaper than TFO's jobs, BTW), or endow a charity with another half mil, that's none of anyone else's business. IOW, private property rights apply.

Or you might just put that million in your bank and keep it for yourself;). Why should the gov't risk and let you keep ALL your money, hoping you might give some to charity and/or create jobs, when they can just tax you and MAKE SURE that the money goes to charity and/or towards creating jobs?:p

People are often greedy assholes by nature, and often hypocritical about it too, so that's why we have a gov't, so that we actually get things done for our society, rather than depend on individual kindness, when some people are worse than others.

Society should be thankful that people can amass such a fortune and afford to hire personal shoppers, trainers, maids, drivers, etc.

Sure, and these people can still do all of that (and I believe in capitalism and have absolutely no problem with people living a wonderful rich life) but AFTER paying taxes and making sure that everybody's got their basic needs at the very least. Just like a 10 year old can still go out and play with the kids outside, but only after finishing homework:).

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 01:12 PM

The law is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day.

Los Angeles and New York are MUCH safer than they used to be 20 or even 10 years ago, actually:).

Your days are numbered and I for one hope to see you cry on national television.

Oh, I'm gonna be around for a very very long time, my friend, but I don't know about crying on national t.v. though, I usually play happy music, but wouldn't mind doing a slow Blues as a request:).

Truth Teller

09-21-2011, 01:32 PM

The greedy rich and the Tea Party obv.
Now you're cathing on.

There's some hope for you.

It is not the purpose of the government to redress the cosmic balance.

Sez who?

Truth Teller

09-21-2011, 01:56 PM

You are on crack. That is a sure fire way to drive every bit of business out of the country and make every one who makes over $500K move out of the country. Hope you are learning Mandarin, commie ;)!

He is historically right.

The 1950s are regarded as the good old days (at least for wealthy whites) and the tax rate then was 90%.

No wealthy person went without luxury unless they chose to.

The poor are just going to have to figure it out or die.

If you get your way,then look out for lawlessness that will make Syria look like an ice cream social.

What liberals like TT don't understand (prolly because of a dimininshed moral code) is that when you give a man a fish you rob him of his self respect.
What if you teach a man to fish,but the water is so badly polluted the fish he catches are too toxic to eat?

You arent even worth replying to.
Yet,you replyed to him with that response.

Snouter, at least get a job first before you're going to talk about something you don't pay anyways, such as taxes:p.

:rofl:

As far as you know I've never paid taxes and I never will.
Then get ready to go to Leavenworth,don't drop the soap.

You're about to get run over by all the poor people coming to take yout shit.

I think "they" will go after you first ,you aren't rich,strong, or armed enough to fight all of "them" off.

Just sayin'.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 02:35 PM

STFU, TT.

Powerboss

09-21-2011, 02:38 PM

Evidence

So Reagan undertook a comprehensive tax reform effort that actually raised the corporate taxes and closed numerous loopholes that allowed big firms to dodge their tax responsibilities. As part of these reforms, Reagan passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This law “raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/18/159301/ronald-reagan-corporate-tax/

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 03:05 PM

STFU, TT.

Don't get upset, it's not like he's the IRS agent that will be knocking on your door sometimes soon;):p.

So Reagan undertook a comprehensive tax reform effort that actually raised the corporate taxes and closed numerous loopholes that allowed big firms to dodge their tax responsibilities. As part of these reforms, Reagan passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This law “raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...corporate-tax/

Thank you:). Despite his faults, Reagan was still MUCH MUCH better than modern conservative politicians, and the same should be said about Nixon, Ike and Ford...they don't seem all that bad for Republicans, considering what we got today:rolleyes:.

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 04:54 PM

I'm not upset. TT has even less to offer than your greedy, hypocritical ass. Like I said, post a pic of a cancelled check that you freely sent to the Treasury and I'll believe you care. Until then you're just more worthless vote buying scum.

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 05:02 PM

Like I said, post a pic of a cancelled check that you freely sent to the Treasury and I'll believe you care. Until then you're just more worthless vote buying scum.

WHAT cancelled check? What the hell are you talking about?:confused:

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 06:01 PM

Prove that you care about the poor by posting a cancelled check made out to the US Treasury. .

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 06:06 PM

What does this have to do with anything?:confused:

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 06:12 PM

Do you want to help the poor or not?

Lulu

09-21-2011, 06:16 PM

Do you want to help the poor or not?

Yes as long as it's other people's money.:p

Truth Teller

09-21-2011, 06:24 PM

Don't get upset, it's not like he's the IRS agent that will be knocking on your door sometimes soon;):p.

When that happens ,F+L had better call Saul:

am7E2U3BNaE

caddis

09-21-2011, 06:37 PM

caddis

09-21-2011, 06:38 PM

Not if he's physically/mentally disabled and can't catch a fish himself:rolleyes:Are you claiming that Cartman was correct and that 25% of our population is retarded?

Assuming that they have ANYTHING to pay that's above whatever covers their basic needs. No, I refuse to rape the working class and steal whatever pennies left in their pockets just to save a few dollars for the rich, fuck that!! If you make $1,000 a month, there is NO WAY you can pay anything to anybody...that's hardly even enough to pay rent at a decent place. Unless you make REAL money that actually cover your rent, food, cloths and other basic needs, not only you should not pay taxes, but the gov't should help you cover the rest of the basic needs, if the money you earn isn't enough. You are operating under the assumption that the vast majority of those in poverty can't afford to pay a small income tax. 1%...That's all I'm asking for, 1% . Just to say they actually contribute their fair share.

Of course, that would mean they may not be able to afford new rims for their low rider, or a new ipod, or gaming system, or the premium package on their cable bill

9ball8

09-21-2011, 06:55 PM

You really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, do you?
So you dispute my historical example of libertarian ("low reg, low revenue gov't. would be the wild west and the guilded age (1866-1896)", or the low rev/low reg gov't as a general definition.
Fair enuf! Go ahead and provide your definition of a libertarian.

If the libertarian wing of the Republican party had been doing it's job, it would have demanded a business plan -with measurable objectives- attached to all gov't entitlement and defense programs. Instead, it seems to rely on emotional attachment that people have for tax money they must fork over to the gummint. With no particulars regarding what should replace the "nanny state gov't." It might win an election, but risks alienating a "do nothing" party from power for a few decades. "Do nothing" is no replacement for "doing too much".

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 07:48 PM

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#A1

GanjaFreebird

09-21-2011, 08:01 PM

Do you want to help the poor or not?

Of course, and I do, almost daily, even if by throwing a few dollars to the homeless people here and there:).

But the rich will still have to pay taxes, REGARDLESS if I or anybody else "want to help the poor". Deal with it:).

Are you claiming that Cartman was correct and that 25% of our population is retarded?

People with mental disabilities are FAR from the only ones who gets benefits from the gov't...try children in poor families, single mothers, Vietnam vets, old people and people with physical disabilities for starts:rolleyes:.

You are operating under the assumption that the vast majority of those in poverty can't afford to pay a small income tax. 1%...That's all I'm asking for, 1% . Just to say they actually contribute their fair share.

A person who is in poverty can't afford to pay even a tax of 0.000001% because they obviously are BARELY even surviving on their own, and as long as they aren't much above affording their basic needs, they shouldn't be required to help anybody else:rolleyes:.

But most of them still pay SS and Medicare anyways, even though I think that people who make less than 15K shouldn't pay any taxes AT ALL, because that's HARDLY an income.

Of course, that would mean they may not be able to afford new rims for their low rider, or a new ipod, or gaming system, or the premium package on their cable bill

People who live in poverty can't afford that anyways:rolleyes:.

Yes as long as it's other people's money.

I'm paying taxes just like everybody else, genius:rolleyes:.

According to Cowpunk, you would simply save that money anyways so it's best the government take it and SPEND it...because, you know, government spending is healthy for our economy

Well OBVIOUSLY it would benefit our society much more if the gov't spent a certain amount of money than let a rich guy put it in his bank, because even if the money isn't spent the best way, it's still went towards the American people somehow, while otherwise it would be just sitting in somebody's bank account, so what good would it be then?:confused:

Freedom&Liberty

09-21-2011, 08:16 PM

Of course, and I do, almost daily, even if by throwing a few dollars to the homeless people here and there.Evidence? Your money can't be properly put to use unless you give it to government for redistribution.

Let's see that check. Show us all how much you care.

caddis

09-21-2011, 09:00 PM

People with mental disabilities are FAR from the only ones who gets benefits from the gov't...try children in poor families, single mothers, Vietnam vets, old people and people with physical disabilities for starts:rolleyes:.
Is this 50% of the population?

Regardless, It wouldn't kill anyone to pay 1% Maybe then they would have a stake in the process. When the dickheads they elect promise them more and more goodies then maybe they will actually stop to contemplate what kind of economic impact it will have.

caddis

09-21-2011, 09:14 PM

A person who is in poverty can't afford to pay even a tax of 0.000001% because they obviously are BARELY even surviving on their own, and as long as they aren't much above affording their basic needs, they shouldn't be required to help anybody else:rolleyes:.

I'll call Bull Shit on this one.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s annual poverty report, released this morning, found that 46.2 million Americans, or one in seven of us, were poor in 2010. The prolonged recession, with its high levels of unemployment, clearly has swollen the ranks of the poor.1 in 7 are "poor" yet 1 in 2 tax payers do not pay income taxes.

And of course there are these numbers from the census that dispell the myth that the "poor" are all suffering.

These figures sound ominous. But do we really understand poverty in the United States? What does it mean to be poor?

To the average American, the word “poverty” implies significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing.

Activists reinforce this view, characteristically declaring that to be poor in America means being “unable to obtain the basic material necessities of life.” The old-stream news media traditionally amplify this idea: Most news stories on poverty feature homeless families, people living in crumbling shacks, or lines of the downtrodden waiting to eat in soup kitchens.

But the actual living conditions of most of America’s poor—that is, the poor as defined by the Census Bureau—differ greatly from these images, as we document in a new research paper from The Heritage Foundation called "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts about America’s Poor."

This is in part because in calculating income the government agency doesn’t count most means-tested welfare assistance --on track to top $1 trillion this decade alone -- and in part because of exaggerated depictions of the poor.

According to data compiled by other government agencies, the typical household considered “poor” by census officials has a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household has cable or satellite TV, two color televisions, a DVD player and a VCR. If children (especially boys) are in the home, they have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household has the ordinary conveniences: refrigerator, oven, stove, microwave.

Half the poor now have a personal computer. A third have a widescreen TV (plasma or LCD); a quarter have a digital video recorder such as TiVo.

In all these cases, U.S. Department of Energy data say so. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in households defined by the Census Bureau as poor. In part, this is a result of the normal downward trend of prices in the years after a product is introduced. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent; over time prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population.

The Left uses the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that it’s no big deal that poor households have air conditioning, computers, cable TV and widescreen televisions. They argue that even though most poor families have a house full of modern conveniences, the average poor family still suffers from substantial deprivation in basic needs such as food and housing.

Fortunately, that’s not the case.

Let’s look at housing. The old-stream media usually present America’s poor living in real deprivation: a large family crowded into a leaky, rundown trailer, for example. But only a tenth of the poor live in mobile homes, according to government data; half live in single-family houses and the remaining 40 percent live in apartments.

These homes in most cases are in good repair and almost never overcrowded, according to the government’s own statistics. Poor Americans, on average, live in larger houses or apartments than does the average, non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

The media cry with alarm that “nearly one in four kids” in the nation are hungry. Again, government data show otherwise. Fully 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during 2009, despite the severity of the recession, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Of course, these facts don’t mean that all poor Americans escape hardship. Although the overwhelming majority of the poor are well-housed, around one in 70 poor persons was homeless at any specific time during the last year, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And although the majority of poor families have an adequate, reasonably steady supply of food, many worry about keeping food on the table. One in five poor adults experienced temporary food shortages and hunger at various times during the year.

Those who are temporarily hungry or homeless will find no comfort in the fact that their condition is relatively infrequent. Their distress must be a real and serious concern for policy makers.

Regrettably, however, most discussions of poverty in the U.S. are riddled with exaggeration and misinformation. Effective anti-poverty policy must be based on an accurate assessment of actual living conditions and the long-term causes of real deprivation—especially the collapse of marriage and erosion of the work ethic.

Over the long haul, as we conclude in “Understanding Poverty in the United States,” grossly exaggerating the extent and severity of material deprivation won’t benefit the poor, the economy and our society as a whole.

Robert Rector is senior research fellow in domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation, where Rachel Sheffield is a research assistant.

9ball8

09-21-2011, 10:10 PM

Good link to libertarian definitions and party platform. Pretty much confirms my observation re historical and general principles. Minarchists need a plan; the free market botched things unless they take conscious steps to control themselves. Works that way in most every human organization. Could do it with gov't. controls or structural methods outside of gov't control, but assuming the sum of individual behaviors will even out the market (a "free market") is equivalent to assuming the sum of our behaviors will result in order, in the absence of law enforcement.

garyd

09-21-2011, 10:38 PM

The free market botched nothing.

The fifties weren't much of a golden age for anyone. The economy grew at about half the annual rate it did during the gilded age but after the disaster forced upon the world by the Keyesians half of previous economic growth rate seemed like a good deal. Then came 64 and the War on Poverty and by the 70's econmic growth was fairly well flatlined.

Snouter MKIII

09-21-2011, 10:40 PM

WHAT cancelled check? What the hell are you talking about?:confused:

EXACTLY! :p Getting paid in beer has its advantages! :p But some day you will have to buy groceries and stuff. So you might want to consider getting a job! :(

DamnYankee

09-21-2011, 10:42 PM

Evidence? Your money can't be properly put to use unless you give it to government for redistribution.

Let's see that check. Show us all how much you care.

I'm curious myself.

Let's see that check. It's time for you kooks to put up or shut up. Let's see da money.

Powerboss

09-22-2011, 12:23 AM

Here you go Statists: Since you demand the rest of us pay more, why don't you hypocrites lead the way and pay extra yourselves. Once you've paid, post a copy of the payment record. Otherwise, STFU you hypocrites.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?nc=1271991815942&agencyFormId=23779454

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4bd582677f8b9a8e59b70500-601-664/null.png

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:28 AM

Works that way in most every human organization. I'd say it works that way in EVERY human organization, including government at every level and branch. With minimal framework a free market is self correcting, government isn't.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 08:08 AM

The free market corrects itself only in theory. In practice, state intervention is required to keep the system from destroying itself and harming consumers.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 09:58 AM

Wrong. It's a fact, not a theory.

The state, typically driven by impatient, envious, uncompetitive liberals, create regulations that screw the market up.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 11:21 AM

No, liberals and conservatives pass laws that keep the free market from hurting consumers, which they would gladly do if it meant profit - as in the Kentucky School Bus crash case or the subprime mortgage crisis, which was caused by free market ideology.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 12:25 PM

A FREE market is self correcting. The market hasn't been FREE since before you were born.

antiquity

09-22-2011, 12:30 PM

When CR was born, rocks were still soft.

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 01:53 PM

Evidence?

The poor and disabled people that I've helped have the evidence, and that's good enough:).

Your money can't be properly put to use unless you give it to government for redistribution.

Says who?:confused: I didn't say the rich sociopaths should be paying the gov't EXTRA, they can keep EVERYTHING that they have, AFTER they pay their taxes. If they don't want to contribute extra to charity, they really don't have to:shrug:.

Let's see that check. Show us all how much you care.

I have other people do my taxes for me, but make no mistake about it, the gov't knows how much I care about paying my taxes, or else I would possibly be in jail today:):p.

As for charity, obviously I'm not writting out checks to homeless people,and people who are too disabled to even go to the bank to cash it, or hungry children in Africa. Obviously I contribute to the cause by raising awareness through my talent, giving people cash/food and inspiring other to do the same. I don't need to pay the gov't extra money, just whatever they require me to pay, and neither does anybody else:).

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 02:01 PM

Is this 50% of the population?

Regardless, It wouldn't kill anyone to pay 1% Maybe then they would have a stake in the process. When the dickheads they elect promise them more and more goodies then maybe they will actually stop to contemplate what kind of economic impact it will have.

Once again, Medicare and SS alone is MUCH more than 1%, therefore ALL Americans technically pay some taxes, even those who make less than $1,000 a month:rolleyes:. Just because I personally don't think working class/poor people should be paying any taxes, doesn't mean that they actually don't:rolleyes:.

1 in 7 are "poor" yet 1 in 2 tax payers do not pay income taxes.

1. They don't pay ANY taxes? Not even Medicare and SS?;):confused:

2. It means that half of America can barely afford anything above their basic needs and only suggests that there's a major economic inequality in this country:shrug:.

And of course there are these numbers from the census that dispell the myth that the "poor" are all suffering.

And if that's true, that's a good thing that poor people are no longer suffering like they used to:). It means that LBJ and FDR were right in their war on poverty in the long run!!:nice:

I'll call Bull Shit on this one.

REALLY, you're going to force people who make less than 1,000 a month to give away whatever pennies they might have left in their pocket?:confused: Do you have any heart AT ALL?:confused:

Are you also going to tax children from poor families if their parents give them $3 for lunch at school? How low are you actually going to go to save rich assholes and big businesses some money?:confused:

You know what happens when you tax the poor in order to save money for rich greedy assholes?:confused: Read about the French revolution, for starts:p.

Truth Teller

09-22-2011, 02:02 PM

The fifties weren't much of a golden age for anyone.

Bullshit.

First,way more people were educated than ever before, thanks to the GI Bill (which came about because of liberals and liberalism).

Second,the post-war prosperity made it easy for anyone,anywhere to get some kind of job.

Quit repeating the revisionist "history" told by conservative pundits who weren't even born back then.

Listen to someone who was actually there at the time , like CR.

A FREE market is self correcting.
:rofl:

I guess you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too.:rolleyes:

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 02:06 PM

A FREE market is self correcting. The market hasn't been FREE since before you were born.

Sure, and before CR was born, there was the great depression, child labor and all kinds of shit, and the reason why it was all gone by the time CR was born is because FDR started regulating the market and doing other things that benefited MOST Americans, rather than just most rich people;):p.

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 02:15 PM

Here you go Statists: Since you demand the rest of us pay more, why don't you hypocrites lead the way and pay extra yourselves.

I never asked you to pay extra;). I said we will be paying exactly what the gov't is asking from us, and so will you, unless you want to go to jail:p.

I would never force anybody to give any extra money on top of what's required because that's their personal choice, they don't legally have to do so, and most people are greedy by nature anyways, so that's why we have the gov't to make rules about the minimum that we have to contribute to society. If somebody is so nice that they decide to contribute even more, then God bless them:D.

Once you've paid, post a copy of the payment record. Otherwise, STFU you hypocrites.

No hypocrisy here, my friend. If I were a hypocrite about paying taxes, I'd either be in jail or risking jail:). How about we all pay what the gov't tells us to pay, rather than ask liberals to pay extra, so that some rich conservatives could possibly save money:). We should all pay based upon our income, NOT our political opinions:D.

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 02:31 PM

EXACTLY! Getting paid in beer has its advantages!

That may very well be true, but don't you wish you actually had a REAL job so that you could buy your own beer without having to clean your parents' boat?:p

But some day you will have to buy groceries and stuff. So you might want to consider getting a job!

THAT'S MY POINT, and that day came when I was about 18, so I started playing redneck bars and private parties in VA for very little money, and over the last 8 years I've graduated to playing festivals, colleges, casinos all around America (and yes, Carnegie Hall;)) for more money:).

On the other had, you're as old as my parents and you still refuse to get a job, other than cleaning your parents' boat whenever the Mexican workers are on vacation;):D.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 05:19 PM

The poor and disabled people that I've helped have the evidence, and that's good enough:).No, it's not. Any idiot can say they gave thousands to the poor and disabled. Provide evidence or admit that you don't care about the poor.

Says who?:confused: I didn't say the rich sociopaths should be paying the gov't EXTRA, they can keep EVERYTHING that they have, AFTER they pay their taxes. If they don't want to contribute extra to charity, they really don't have to:shrug:.Liberal ideology says that you're too stupid to help the poor on your own. Without governments help, you might be giving money to some rich, liberal sociopath.

I have other people do my taxes for me, but make no mistake about it, the gov't knows how much I care about paying my taxes, or else I would possibly be in jail today:):p.

As for charity, obviously I'm not writting out checks to homeless people,and people who are too disabled to even go to the bank to cash it, or hungry children in Africa. Obviously I contribute to the cause by raising awareness through my talent, giving people cash/food and inspiring other to do the same. I don't need to pay the gov't extra money, just whatever they require me to pay, and neither does anybody else:).In other words, you really don't give a shit. That's what I thought.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 05:21 PM

Sure, and before CR was born, there was the great depression, child labor and all kinds of shit, and the reason why it was all gone by the time CR was born is because FDR started regulating the market and doing other things that benefited MOST Americans, rather than just most rich people;):p.Liberals used government to screwed up the market long before FDR came along.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 05:24 PM

I never asked you to pay extra;). I said we will be paying exactly what the gov't is asking from us, and so will you, unless you want to go to jail:p.
I would never force anybody to give any extra money on top of what's required because that's their personal choice, they don't legally have to do so, and most people are greedy by nature anyways, so that's why we have the gov't to make rules about the minimum that we have to contribute to society. If somebody is so nice that they decide to contribute even more, then God bless them:D.You want taxes raised. That's using government to FORCE people to pay extra. Why should anyone be forced to pay if you won't do it voluntarily?

No hypocrisy here, my friend. If I were a hypocrite about paying taxes, I'd either be in jail or risking jail:). How about we all pay what the gov't tells us to pay, rather than ask liberals to pay extra, so that some rich conservatives could possibly save money:). We should all pay based upon our income, NOT our political opinions:D.Liberals are the ones who "supposedly" care about the poor. If you really cared, you'd show us that check.

jwreck

09-22-2011, 05:33 PM

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 05:41 PM

A FREE market is self correcting. The market hasn't been FREE since before you were born.
The markets weren't self-correcting then either....there were still plenty of wars, recessions, and economic crises - as well as robber barons

The

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 05:48 PM

Libertarians are not against law enforcement or government regulation of trade. They just want it to be as minimal as possible. Your "do nothing" comment should be replaced by "do less". We don't want anarchy.
No, they want legislation that doesn't benefit them financially to be minimal; the legislation that's most profitable for their bank accounts they wish to be maximal.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 05:49 PM

There is no evidence that a libertarian free market is better, whatever "better" means. It's not even beginning to be a fact.

jwreck

09-22-2011, 05:51 PM

No, they want legislation that doesn't benefit them financially to be minimal; the legislation that's most profitable for their bank accounts they wish to be maximal.No. :|

86Dùde

09-22-2011, 05:53 PM

Holy crap, this hasn't devolved into a jew thread yet.

caddis

09-22-2011, 06:04 PM

The free market corrects itself only in theory. In practice, state intervention is required to keep the system from destroying itself and harming consumers.Your "practice" is theory

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 06:05 PM

You want taxes raised. That's using government to FORCE people to pay extra.

Actually, I personally suggested eliminating most loopholes for rich people before we actually decide to raise taxes:). And if through a democratic process we came to decide that the American society needs extra money, then raising taxes on those who can pay extra, can very well become an option:).

Why should anyone be forced to pay if you won't do it voluntarily?

Remember, I could be forced to pay myself, depending on how much money I earn, but I'm not complaining;).

Liberals are the ones who "supposedly" care about the poor. If you really cared, you'd show us that check.

It's not about individuals "caring'...that's what charities are for, which I encourage people to do, but it's not required. It's about the society providing everybody who can't help themselves with basic needs, regardless if anybody "cares" about them or not.

I don't care about bringing up emotions, I'm talking about the law, and you will be paying taxes or going to jail REGARDLESS if "liberals really care" about anybody or just pretend to:D.

Liberals used government to screwed up the market long before FDR came along.

But I thought it was all FDR's fault that America is "socialist" these days?:confused::jester:

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 06:05 PM

No, it's not. Any idiot can say they gave thousands to the poor and disabled. Provide evidence or admit that you don't care about the poor.

My activities, including raising awareness, playing music for and organazing special events, in the disabled community are well documented on my band's website, http://www.arrestmysister.com/about, as well as at http://www.diversitydances.com

The money and food that I gave poor people on the streets everywhere around the world obviously cannot be documented, but I do have a short video of a concert I helped organize (at the College of W&M, back when I was still a student there and have just started playing shows) that raised much over a $1,000 for starving children in Kenya. The concert was called Ken-Ya Feel The Rock:nice::

http://www.myspace.com/video/crazytomes/crossroads-benefit-for-kenya-2006/9603447

Here's another picture of me from the "Concert for Malawi" organized by Bruce Hornsby which raised money to provide water for people in Malawi:).
http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/135/2e3449731dd9496ab0d6209557b0d719/l.jpg

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 06:11 PM

In other words, you really don't give a shit. That's what I thought.

WTF?:confused:

Liberal ideology says that you're too stupid to help the poor on your own. Without governments help, you might be giving money to some rich, liberal sociopath.

That's not true. Just because private charities are not NEARLY enough to help the poor, doesn't mean that they useless or that people can't help even extra on their own without the gov't;).

86Dùde

09-22-2011, 06:17 PM

Israel sucks, Palestinians rule. <hint: this is your chance to divert the thread. You know you want to>

caddis

09-22-2011, 06:17 PM

No, liberals and conservatives pass laws that keep the free market from hurting consumers, which they would gladly do if it meant profit - as in the Kentucky School Bus crash case Consumers correct product defects when they stop buying the product.

the subprime mortgage crisis, which was caused by free market ideology.It isn't free market when a government backed institution controls interest rates, or when the government sets conditions such as who must receive loans and is further involved when they purchase bundled crap (fannie and freddy). Free market means those that accept loans also accept risk. If they know they can dump bad loans onto the government then there isn't much risk involved

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 06:23 PM

A free market has no other option than to self correct. Unfortunately, since the progressive era, a hundred years worth of regulations have strangled competition for the benefit of some influential, typically liberal, asshats. That combined with the surrender of congressional powers to dozens of various agencies has left us with a mess that only a dumbass liberal could support.

jwreck

09-22-2011, 06:24 PM

Israel sucks, Palestinians rule. <hint: this is your chance to divert the thread. You know you want to>:lol:

:|

:slap:

jwreck

09-22-2011, 06:26 PM

My activities, including raising awareness, playing music for and organazing special events, in the disabled community are well documented on my band's website, http://www.arrestmysister.com/about, as well as at http://www.diversitydances.com

The money and food that I gave poor people on the streets everywhere around the world obviously cannot be documented, but I do have a short video of a concert I helped organize (at the College of W&M, back when I was still a student there and have just started playing shows) that raised much over a $1,000 for starving children in Kenya. The concert was called Ken-Ya Feel The Rock:nice::

http://www.myspace.com/video/crazytomes/crossroads-benefit-for-kenya-2006/9603447

Here's another picture of me from the "Concert for Malawi" organized by Bruce Hornsby which raised money to provide water for people in Malawi:).
http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/135/2e3449731dd9496ab0d6209557b0d719/l.jpg I hate to tell you dude, but while playing for charity is better than NOT playing for charity, its not exactly high on the list of sacrifices made to help the poor.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 06:26 PM

http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/135/2e3449731dd9496ab0d6209557b0d719/l.jpgThat's not a check you greedy bastard.

caddis

09-22-2011, 06:30 PM

2. It means that half of America can barely afford anything above their basic needs and only suggests that there's a major economic inequality in this country:shrug:. wrong

And if that's true, that's a good thing that poor people are no longer suffering like they used to:). It means that LBJ and FDR were right in their war on poverty in the long run!!:nice:
No, it means our definition of "poor" is inaccurate, totally subjective, and unfair

REALLY, you're going to force people who make less than 1,000 a month to give away whatever pennies they might have left in their pocket?:confused:yes

Do you have any heart AT ALL?:confused:Yes I do. I believe what is best for the poor is a boss that can provide a job for them and is allowed to keep enough of his money so that he can afford to pay his employees a better wage or higher more employees. Having the government garnish the money from the employers to pass it on to others is not an efficient use of resources.

Are you also going to tax children from poor families if their parents give them $3 for lunch at school? How low are you actually going to go to save rich assholes and big businesses some money?:confused:
Now your being a bit of an ass.

You know what happens when you tax the poor in order to save money for rich greedy assholes?:confused: Read about the French revolution, for starts:p.lol..from1% to revolution....talk about a slippery slope argument

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 06:36 PM

There is no evidence that a libertarian free market is better, whatever "better" means. It's not even beginning to be a fact.It worked pretty damned well until progressives came along and fucked everything up.

Lulu

09-22-2011, 07:03 PM

I hate to tell you dude, but while playing for charity is better than NOT playing for charity, its not exactly high on the list of sacrifices made to help the poor.

It's called free publicity and free advertising plus good will. It's a nice thing to do but the band gets something out of it too.

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 07:04 PM

It worked pretty damned well until progressive came along and fucked everything up.

Really?:jester:

No, it means our definition of "poor" is inaccurate, totally subjective, and unfair

No it isn't. There's a major economic inequality in this country.

yes

I rest my case:rolleyes:.

Yes I do. I believe what is best for the poor is a boss that can provide a job for them and is allowed to keep enough of his money so that he can afford to pay his employees a better wage or higher more employees.

So instead of taking away from the poor and giving it back to his boss, hoping that MAYBE his boss will somehow share that money, why not just leave that money with poor people to begin with, and force the rich greedy assholes to pay their taxes, as they should?;)

Having the government garnish the money from the employers to pass it on to others is not an efficient use of resources.

More efficient than risking at least 90% chance that this money will stay in the rich man's pocket:p.

Now your being a bit of an ass.

You are being absolutely unreasonable as far as saving money for rich people is concerned. That can't happen over the expense of the poor and working class.

lol..from1% to revolution....talk about a slippery slope argument

AGAIN, they already pay MUCH more than 1%, just with medicare and SS...stop trying to take money from people who barely have any...aren't you ashamed of yourself for even thinking in that direction?:confused:

That's not a check you greedy bastard.

All of the money that people paid that night to see me, Bruce Hornsby and others play, went to provide poor Africans with water. That's more productive than writing a check just by myself:).

I hate to tell you dude, but while playing for charity is better than NOT playing for charity, its not exactly high on the list of sacrifices made to help the poor.

Why not?:confused: It depends how much money it raises for the poor people, and one way or another, I did those two charity shows FOR FREE, when at the time I was getting paid anywhere from $100 to $250 a show, so that's a sacrifice, especially considering my financial situation at the time!!

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:06 PM

That's still not a check you greedy bastard.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:07 PM

No. :|
Of course. I don't see them asking the government to cut spending on, say, property records

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:07 PM

It worked pretty damned well until progressives came along and fucked everything up.
No, it worked so badly it required slavery to operate. If that's not enough, it caused the Great Depression too.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:08 PM

No, it worked so badly it required slavery to operate.That has nothing to do with it.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:08 PM

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 07:08 PM

It's called free publicity and free advertising plus good will. It's a nice thing to do but the band gets something out of it too.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that such shows don't really pay me as much as regular shows (and in the past, I've done completely free shows for charity as well), and that I'm helping poor/disabled people in the process MUCH more than if I tried to do it in any other way.

Bono may also get his band publicity for what he does, and yet, he's done more for poor people around the word than any of you clowns combined, and in the end of the day, it all comes down to actions and results, rather than intentions or even how much you actually sacrifice.

Lulu

09-22-2011, 07:15 PM

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that such shows don't really pay me as much as regular shows (and in the past, I've done completely free shows for charity as well), and that I'm helping poor/disabled people in the process MUCH more than if I tried to do it in any other way.

Bono may also get his band publicity for what he does, and yet, he's done more for poor people around the word than any of you clowns combined, and in the end of the day, it all comes down to actions and results, rather than intentions or even how much you actually sacrifice.
My post wasn't meant as a slam on you. It's very smart business and it helps people along the way. Why do they call you Crazy?

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:17 PM

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.It's been corrected, get over it.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:20 PM

If that's not enough, it caused the Great Depression too. The free market was long gone by then. Government caused the Great Depression, just like government caused the Great Recession.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:21 PM

It was corrected by ending the abomination of the free market.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:22 PM

It was corrected by a constitutional amendment.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:22 PM

The free market was long gone by then. Government caused the Great Depression, just like government caused the Great Recession.
There is no evidence government caused the Great Depression.

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:22 PM

It was corrected by a constitutional amendment.

.....which ended the free market by introducing labor regulation.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:23 PM

LOL Are you kidding?

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 07:24 PM

My post wasn't meant as a slam on you. It's very smart business and it helps people along the way.

Thank you:).

Why do they call you Crazy?

:topic: A legendary Rock'n'Roll pioneer gave me that name when I was 15:D.

caddis

09-22-2011, 07:25 PM

.....which ended the free market by introducing labor regulation.I thought you just claimed the free market caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 07:26 PM

That's still not a check you greedy bastard.

I'm not the one who is paranoid about the IRS agents comming to my house;).

Dick Tator

09-22-2011, 07:27 PM

Cyclone Ranger thinks that Slaves were in a free labor market! :rolleyes:

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:27 PM

In the liberal mind a free market is responsible for everything that's bad.

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:29 PM

I'm not the one who is paranoid about the IRS agents comming to my house;).That bong done made you stupid, boy.

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 07:31 PM

That bong done made you stupid, boy.

Stupid or not, but at least I don't forget to pay my taxes, do you?;):p

Freedom&Liberty

09-22-2011, 07:40 PM

You appear to have forgotten to post that check. Why should anyone be forced to do what you won't do voluntarily?

GanjaFreebird

09-22-2011, 07:43 PM

You appear to have forgotten to post that check. Why should anyone be forced to do what you won't do voluntarily?

For the same reason why I'm forced to pay for the military and all other things that I wouldn't pay for volunatrily;).

Cyclone Ranger

09-22-2011, 07:58 PM

Cyclone Ranger thinks that Slaves were in a free labor market! :rolleyes:
Free market doesn't necessarily mean free labor market.

jwreck

09-22-2011, 08:03 PM

Of course. I don't see them asking the government to cut spending on, say, property records
:lol: WTF?

antiquity

09-22-2011, 08:21 PM

Ganga spends more money on pot than the poor.

Snouter MKVII

09-22-2011, 09:11 PM

Ganga is blowing smoke as usual! I bet $200 he never filed a 1040!

86Dùde

09-22-2011, 09:16 PM

I'd say that there is an above average chance that that is true.

Snouter MKVIII

09-22-2011, 11:18 PM

Ganga should accept the bet so he can buy groceries this week!

GanjaFreebird

09-23-2011, 03:33 AM

Ganga spends more money on pot than the poor.

Actually, that's false:).

Ganga is blowing smoke as usual! I bet $200 he never filed a 1040!

As I said earlier, other people do those things for me, so in a way, you are correct.

Ganga should accept the bet so he can buy groceries this week!

I don't think so, my solo gig tomorow night will solve that particular problem, besides, I don't feel comfortable taking money from a nice Jewish couple in their late 80s, that just doesn't feel right:).

Freedom&Liberty

09-23-2011, 08:35 AM

For the same reason why I'm forced to pay for the military and all other things that I wouldn't pay for volunatrily;).The military is a constitutional mandate. Do you want to help the poor or not? If so, let's see that check.

Freedom&Liberty

09-23-2011, 08:37 AM

Free market doesn't necessarily mean free labor market.Liberals have screwed that up too. Minimum wage and unions keep the labor market from being free.

Cyclone Ranger

09-23-2011, 11:35 AM

Not to mention, keep workers from getting screwed.

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 11:42 AM

Last I saw, people decide to work on their own volition and are not compelled to perform their job. Unions had a role, 80 or so years ago but now they are nothing more than a political front group for the DNC to help launder money for them. Their time has passed due to greed and corruption.

Cyclone Ranger

09-23-2011, 11:46 AM

LOL! People are compelled to work by such forces as starvation and the need to live indoors. Empowering employers to pay below subsistence wages is essentially empowering a destructive monopoly.

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 11:52 AM

Nobody is being compelled to do work that they don't want to do. The market tends to determine what a person earns based on their skills. If you are a loser, you end up on the lower pay scale, like Truth Teller. Instead of whining and demanding handouts, people like him should work harder to better their skills so they are more valuable to employers.

Cyclone Ranger

09-23-2011, 12:00 PM

Again...LOL! :rofl:

The labor market compels people to do work they don't wish to do. Most people do work they don't wish to do as a result.

Many, many losers end up with high-paying jobs because they have connections via their social class. If you're born poor, the reality is, you have little chance of upward mobility.

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 12:12 PM

Awww...Poor babies, having to actually work, and maybe in a job that wasn't their chosen field!! My heart bleeds for them.

You are right, many losers do get high paying jobs. They're the whiny liberals you see in the office, continually complaining about everything.

Cyclone Ranger

09-23-2011, 12:15 PM

Being forced to do work for sub-subsistence wages, however, is something the law will not allow because the interests of business do not outweigh fair treatment of workers.

Losers that get jobs through connections describes the entire Republican Party

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 12:16 PM

Who is forcing them to work?

GanjaFreebird

09-23-2011, 12:20 PM

The military is a constitutional mandate. Do you want to help the poor or not? If so, let's see that check.

And so is providing welfare for the American people:D.

Cyclone Ranger

09-23-2011, 12:24 PM

Who is forcing them to work?
Biology.

GanjaFreebird

09-23-2011, 12:30 PM

Liberals have screwed that up too. Minimum wage and unions keep the labor market from being free.

Rich sociopaths and big businesses should NOT be "free" to abuse their workers and pay them less than $7 an hour for hard work:rolleyes:. Fuck that:p.

Nobody is being compelled to do work that they don't want to do. The market tends to determine what a person earns based on their skills.

And businessmen will have no problem ripping people off either, if the gov't doesn't control them:p. Nice try:).

If you are a loser, you end up on the lower pay scale, like Truth Teller. Instead of whining and demanding handouts, people like him should work harder to better their skills so they are more valuable to employers.

HAHAHAHA, very funny:p. The greedy assholes will always find an excuse to pay less money, unless the law forces them to do otherwise. It sucks to not be able to rape the working class like you guys used to, doesn't it;). Thank God for democracy!!:nice:

Awww...Poor babies, having to actually work, and maybe in a job that wasn't their chosen field!! My heart bleeds for them.

No need to feel sorry, just pay the workers what they deserve and don't be a greedy asshole:).

antiquity

09-23-2011, 12:54 PM

If those greedy bar owners paid you what you were worth, you would be on food stamps.

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 01:30 PM

Biology.

Is Biology a Republican?

caddis

09-23-2011, 03:38 PM

And so is providing welfare for the American people:D.No it isn't.

Truth Teller

09-23-2011, 04:38 PM

Ganga spends more money on pot than the poor.
And rasies more money for the poor than you ever have.

I bet $200 he never filed a 1040!
Have you?

Nobody is being compelled to do work that they don't want to do. The market tends to determine what a person earns based on their skills. If you are a loser, you end up on the lower pay scale, like Truth Teller. Instead of whining and demanding handouts, people like him should work harder to better their skills so they are more valuable to employers.
You clearly don't know me.

If those greedy bar owners paid you what you were worth, you would be on food stamps.

:cuckoo:

9ball8

09-23-2011, 05:47 PM

A FREE market is self correcting. The market hasn't been FREE since before you were born.

Here is a summary of the end of the guilded age, ~1893-1898. AKA, the first great depression: link: http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/depression.html
It notes the rise of national labor unions, despite high unemployment. Apparently, modern socialist controls on the free market were partially inspired during this period by none other than one John Coxey, a businessman of all things. His address to Congress is in the link, notably delayed due to Coxey's arrest for trespassing on the steps of the nation's capitol when first trying to present his speech. What a commie, before commies were even well known. :rolleyes:

One should study the hypothesis that many in the business sector of that time wished to impose outside (gov't) order on the economy, since the guilded age failed -in dismal fashion- to prevent or correct it's own economic closterflock. The mess defined (from link): "There are millions of heads of families partially or wholly out of employment, and many of these must live in some degree on the earnings of their friends. In the agricultural districts wages have fallen one-half." -Keep in mind that most people made their living in "agricultural districts" at that time.

Finally, how was this "free market" repaired? In addition to high tariffs, groundwork for anti-trust legislation was beefed up by McKinley, who was president during the initial recovery from the 1893 Great Depression. McKinley, a Republican, initiated a commission to study imposition of trust-busting activities against industrial trusts, as opposed to just imposing upon labor unions as Pres. Cleveland (a libertarian's favorite) thought right. Link:
http://www.linfo.org/sherman.html

After Republicans threw McKinley's successor, Teddy Roosevelt, under the bus, Democrats made a 180 degree switch and picked up on Teddy's progressive economic line, while Republicans pursued the mysteriously vacant, libertarian policies of the old Democrats from the guilded age. Republicans used the Cleveland principle (specifically, lack of coherent principles to control the economy) in the run up to the next Great Depression, which is the major mess we're most familiar with aside from the current one. :|

Honestly, libertarians who want political position are gonna have to come up with a plan on how they will control people behaving badly in the economy. Either that, or convince American voters that Cleveland was a great guy, and the G.Depression of 1893 wasn't all that bad.

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 06:04 PM

And so is providing welfare for the American people:D.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. It truly is a shame to see how poorly educated in American History and the Constitution you leftists are. No wonder we're losing our country.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html

Not that I think you'll ever take the time to actually read and study what Madison wrote....

Powerboss

09-23-2011, 06:05 PM

You clearly don't know me.

I know you wasted your school age years and 20's partying rather than trying to further yourself......

caddis

09-23-2011, 06:31 PM

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. It truly is a shame to see how poorly educated in American History and the Constitution you leftists are. No wonder we're losing our country.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html

Not that I think you'll ever take the time to actually read and study what Madison wrote....

Great piece PB, thanks :nice:

'Consider for a moment the immeasurable difference between the Constitution limited in its powers to the enumerated objects, and expounded as it would be by the import claimed for the phraseology in question. The difference is equivalent to two Constitutions, of characters essentially contrasted with each other--the one possessing powers confined to certain specified cases, the other extended to all cases whatsoever; for what is the case that would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution; all such provisions and laws superseding, at the same time, all local laws and constitutions at variance with them? Can less be said, with the evidence before us furnished by the journal of the Convention itself, than that it is impossible that such a Constitution as the latter would have been recommended to the States by all the members of that body whose names were subscribed to the instrument?'

86Dùde

09-23-2011, 06:53 PM

Lora Logan needs to chime in here.

Freedom&Liberty

09-23-2011, 07:56 PM

Here is a summary of the end of the guilded age, ~1893-1898. AKA, the first great depression: link: http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/depression.html
It notes the rise of national labor unions, despite high unemployment. Apparently, modern socialist controls on the free market were partially inspired during this period by none other than one John Coxey, a businessman of all things. His address to Congress is in the link, notably delayed due to Coxey's arrest for trespassing on the steps of the nation's capitol when first trying to present his speech. What a commie, before commies were even well known. :rolleyes:

One should study the hypothesis that many in the business sector of that time wished to impose outside (gov't) order on the economy, since the guilded age failed -in dismal fashion- to prevent or correct it's own economic closterflock. The mess defined (from link): "There are millions of heads of families partially or wholly out of employment, and many of these must live in some degree on the earnings of their friends. In the agricultural districts wages have fallen one-half." -Keep in mind that most people made their living in "agricultural districts" at that time.

Finally, how was this "free market" repaired? In addition to high tariffs, groundwork for anti-trust legislation was beefed up by McKinley, who was president during the initial recovery from the 1893 Great Depression. McKinley, a Republican, initiated a commission to study imposition of trust-busting activities against industrial trusts, as opposed to just imposing upon labor unions as Pres. Cleveland (a libertarian's favorite) thought right. Link:
http://www.linfo.org/sherman.html

After Republicans threw McKinley's successor, Teddy Roosevelt, under the bus, Democrats made a 180 degree switch and picked up on Teddy's progressive economic line, while Republicans pursued the mysteriously vacant, libertarian policies of the old Democrats from the guilded age. Republicans used the Cleveland principle (specifically, lack of coherent principles to control the economy) in the run up to the next Great Depression, which is the major mess we're most familiar with aside from the current one. :|

Honestly, libertarians who want political position are gonna have to come up with a plan on how they will control people behaving badly in the economy. Either that, or convince American voters that Cleveland was a great guy, and the G.Depression of 1893 wasn't all that bad.The only regulations needed were child labor laws. There should be no laws keeping unions from forming and there should be no laws forcing employers to hire union labor. From anti-trust to minimum wage and everything in between is all liberal bullshit. And honestly, no one cares what you think libertarians should do.

Cyclone Ranger

09-23-2011, 10:09 PM

Is Biology a Republican?

No. Unlike Republicans, biology understands evolution.

garyd

09-23-2011, 10:24 PM

Biology doesn't require evolution. Neither do biologists. Neither for that matter does anything else.

Big businesses that are in trouble always flee to government for help and government loves it. it is after all far easier to control one elephant than a similar weight of kittens.

antiquity

09-23-2011, 10:35 PM

And rasies more money for the poor than you ever have.

And exactly how do you know that? I am betting over my life time I have paid more taxes than you and ganga combined....money paid to support the entitled....In fact I wouldn't be surprised I paid more taxes in one year than you paid in your entire life time.

You clearly don't know me.

And you clearly don't know anyone on DA except maybe Ganga who you may have met in in line at pot dispensary.

:cuckoo:

Evidence?

garyd

09-23-2011, 10:39 PM

Antiquity that last is leftist for 'anyone who disagrees with me'.

If a leftist doean't think you are crazy or stupid you are probabably ignorant as dirt.

Powerboss

09-24-2011, 02:37 AM

No. Unlike Republicans, biology understands evolution.

What a moronic remark. I guess that's all you have left. You've pissed away any shred of credibility on your messiah. You both have failed.

Cyclone Ranger

09-24-2011, 06:23 AM

*yawn*

Let me know when you have some real argument instead of hot air.

Cyclone Ranger

09-24-2011, 06:24 AM

Biology doesn't require evolution.
Yes, it does.

Truth Teller

09-24-2011, 02:19 PM

I know you wasted your school age years and 20's partying rather than trying to further yourself......

There were mitigating circumstances you don't know about ,and that I even didn't know about back then.

Anyway,what does that have to do with me today?

GanjaFreebird

09-24-2011, 05:18 PM

No it isn't.

Then why was the word "welfare" mentioned in the constitution, while "abortion" and "gay marriage" were not?;):p

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. It truly is a shame to see how poorly educated in American History and the Constitution you leftists are. No wonder we're losing our country.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s27.html

Not that I think you'll ever take the time to actually read and study what Madison wrote....

Times have changes since the Constitution was written, therefore, it's open for modern interpretations:).

robb sneak MkII

09-24-2011, 06:59 PM

LOOK UP WELFARE IN THE 1776 DICTIONARY PUNK! It does NOT mean redistribution of wealth you tard! :p It actually means support of pro-life!

GanjaFreebird

09-24-2011, 07:18 PM

LOOK UP WELFARE IN THE 1776 DICTIONARY PUNK! It does NOT mean redistribution of wealth you tard! It actually means support of pro-life!

The founding fathers didn't say anything about abortion;).

Freedom&Liberty

09-24-2011, 09:37 PM

Then why was the word "welfare" mentioned in the constitutionIt has to be taken in context to the scope of the document. If the founders intended for welfare to mean that congress could implement anything they wanted, why bother listing the powers of congress? Congress is to promote and provide for the welfare of the union, not the people. The 10th amendment passes all remaining power to the states and the people, not the federal government.

Cyclone Ranger

09-24-2011, 11:58 PM

The enumerated powers include the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses.

Freedom&Liberty

09-25-2011, 10:05 AM

Wrong. Enumerated powers are the only powers that can be used to provide for the general welfare. Why bother listing the powers if congress can do whatever it wants? Government had limits until liberals fucked it up.

Cyclone Ranger

09-25-2011, 12:58 PM

Freedom&Liberty

09-25-2011, 05:17 PM

Bullshit. If it only applied to enumerated powers, there would no reason to include the necessary and proper clause at all.

The framers weren't in the habit of including superfluous clauses in their Constitution, so "necessary and proper" must expand Congress' power. That's ridiculous. Doing what's necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers doesn't give congress the power to do more than what's listed. Madison shat all over your superfluous liberal misinterpretation of the constitution.

Cyclone Ranger

09-25-2011, 05:31 PM

That would imply that "necessary and proper" is redundant. Granting Congress the power to tax or raise an army means in itself that Congress has all powers necessary and proper to tax or raise an army.

Moreover, the actual text of the 1:8:18 draws a distinction between the aforementioned enumerated powers and "all other powers" held by Congress:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So the framers themselves clearly did not believe it only applied to the powers explicitly granted by number in Article One.

9ball8

09-25-2011, 11:18 PM

The only regulations needed were child labor laws. There should be no laws keeping unions from forming and there should be no laws forcing employers to hire union labor. From anti-trust to minimum wage and everything in between is all liberal bullshit. And honestly, no one cares what you think libertarians should do.

Why then, your libertarian task for attaining majority power only involves convincing the majority of voters that anti-trust laws and all that liberal crap that followed should be thrown out the window. It just ain't necessary for the general welfare of the union, and people power will naturally destroy monopolies that need to go away. That's what would've happened if Grover held sway, you could say.

Good luck with that task, BTW. :banana:

Freedom&Liberty

09-26-2011, 06:10 AM

That would imply that "necessary and proper" is redundant. Granting Congress the power to tax or raise an army means in itself that Congress has all powers necessary and proper to tax or raise an army.

Moreover, the actual text of the 1:8:18 draws a distinction between the aforementioned enumerated powers and "all other powers" held by Congress:

So the framers themselves clearly did not believe it only applied to the powers explicitly granted by number in Article One.Which has nothing to do with creating a social program.

Cyclone Ranger

09-26-2011, 11:19 AM

According to who? You?

Freedom&Liberty

09-26-2011, 02:25 PM

Me and James Madison and millions of other decent Americans..

GanjaFreebird

09-26-2011, 02:29 PM

How about tax-paying Americans that are still alive today?;):p

Notalibtard

09-26-2011, 02:47 PM

My question for Brad is simply why does he help people instead of sending the government money to do it. Obviously he can't be trusted to make proper decisions with money and it's up to the masses to spend it for him. We can help welfare queens sit on their asses shitting out more kids!

And if he loves this country so much, why doesnt he adopt american children? Why does he go around the world to gewt his rugrats. We got plenty of needy crumb crunchers here.

Truth Teller

09-26-2011, 04:04 PM

And if he loves this country so much, why doesnt he adopt american children?

He answers that question in the link.

In case one is too lazy to read the link ,his main reasons are the children he and Angeleina Jolie adopted are children who would have died very young if they remained in their country of birth,and because he doesn't see any difference between being charitible in the US or being charitible anywhere else in the world.

He said he and Jolie can't help everyone in the world,but they help whomever they can in both the US and overseas.

Notalibtard

09-26-2011, 04:13 PM

He answers that question in the link.

In case one is too lazy to read the link ,his main reasons are the children he and Angeleina Jolie adopted are children who would have died very young if they remained in their country of birth,and because he doesn't see any difference between being charitible in the US or being charitible anywhere else in the world.

He said he and Jolie can't help everyone in the world,but they help whomever they can in both the US and overseas.

Fuck him, Angie, his foreign brats and your link. I dont have the time to read what some spoiled bleeding heart liberal has to say about anything. Them kids dying young would have helped the clean up the gene pool.

GanjaFreebird

09-26-2011, 04:19 PM

Fuck him, Angie, his foreign brats and your link. I dont have the time to read what some spoiled bleeding heart liberal has to say about anything. Them kids dying young would have helped the clean up the gene pool.

And this is EXACTLY why we don't take you guys seriously, and neither does the American gov't, nor should they:rolleyes:.

Assholes who have this type of attitude should be forced to pay MUCH bigger taxes, while Brad and Angie should get a tax cut for helping poor children much more than they are required to:).

Notalibtard

09-26-2011, 04:22 PM

And this is EXACTLY why we don't take you guys seriously, and neither does the American gov't, nor should they:rolleyes:.

Assholes who have this type of attitude should be forced to pay MUCH bigger taxes, while Brad and Angie should get a tax cut for helping poor children much more than they are required to:).

You should have cut out of the gene pool as well or at least taken to the showers.:D

GanjaFreebird

09-26-2011, 05:01 PM

You should have cut out of the gene pool as well or at least taken to the showers.

Or maybe you should pay taxes and stop bitching. Crying about Brad Pitt helping non-White babies isn't going to make your taxes any lower:p.

Freedom&Liberty

09-26-2011, 05:50 PM

How about tax-paying Americans that are still alive today?;):pThe shitty ones like you think theft is great. The rest are hard working victims of liberal ideology. They don't like seeing their labor stolen by liberals to buy votes.

Cyclone Ranger

09-26-2011, 06:02 PM

Me and James Madison and millions of other decent Americans..
Let's see a direct quote from Madison

GanjaFreebird

09-26-2011, 06:09 PM

The shitty ones like you think theft is great. The rest are hard working victims of liberal ideology. They don't like seeing their labor stolen by liberals to buy votes.

I don't like my labor stolen by conservatives to buy votes either, but I deal with it, and they will have to deal with it too, unless they want to go to jail, of course.

Freedom&Liberty

09-26-2011, 06:19 PM

Let's see a direct quote from Madison “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
-James Madison

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
- James Madison, The Author of The Constitution

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents.”
-James Madison

“…the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
-James Madison

And just for shits and giggles -

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Freedom&Liberty

09-26-2011, 06:29 PM

I don't like my labor stolen by conservatives to buy votes either, but I deal with it, and they will have to deal with it too, unless they want to go to jail, of course.The military is a constitutional mandate that the people voted for and social programs are NOT.

Cyclone Ranger

09-26-2011, 06:31 PM

“…the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

This is the only quote that's actually on point, but it's quoted out of context: it was stated in a debate on a proposed aid grant to the refugees of Santa Domingo, who weren't US citizens.

He said in full:

Mr. MADISON remarked, that the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of the St. Domingo sufferers. The report of the committee, he observed, involved this constitutional question--whether the money of our constituents can be appropriated to any other than specific purposes. Though he was of opinion that the relief contemplated could not be granted in the way proposed, yet he supposed a mode might be adopted which would answer the purpose without infringing the Constitution.

In his interpretation, nothing in the Constitution granted Congress the power to make gifts of foreign aid, which is outside (in his mind) the general welfare. There is no reason to believe that applies to entitlements to citizens especially noting that he made room for the possibility of even helping the Santo Domingans.