Tax shelters for the rich and the Corps.

[pirana 0]

I'm an advocate for tax shelters for the poor.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Don't bother rushmc with facts.

Yep, at least the other guys ask for citations, Rush just says he wants no data, facts or anything. Why do I waste my time?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Don't bother rushmc with facts.

Yep, at least the other guys ask for citations, Rush just says he wants no data, facts or anything. Why do I waste my time?

Fact, when Bush took office the economy was in down turn.
Fact 911 had a large negative effect on the economy
Fact Katrinal had a large negative effect on the economy.

Fact, the tax cuts helped to improve or hold the economy despite all the negative events

but you can keep licking Clinton butt if you want to (since his dick is Monicas but those are facts even if you refuse to admit it

Now you can go back to your insults and PAs, you know, your normal tactic.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

This article
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F17F63E540C718DDDA00894DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

From this search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=Clinton+economy+when+Bush+takes+office

Yah facts........who needs them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Fact, when Bush took office the economy was in down turn.

I wouldn't say it was downturing as much as it was slightly off. A downturn illustrates a radical turn down, your assertion, you provide data to support it.

Quote

Fact 911 had a large negative effect on the economy

Yep, but to then hand back all the reserve money with huge administrative costs exacerbates that. But yes, that gives him an excuse for a little of the negative economy, not all 3.2 trillion though.

Quote

Fact Katrinal had a large negative effect on the economy.

That I disagree with. Provide numbers of how much.

Quote

Fact, the tax cuts helped to improve or hold the economy despite all the negative events

That's your theory, not fact.

Quote

but you can keep licking Clinton butt if you want to (since his dick is Monicas but those are facts even if you refuse to admit it

Now we're back to the old Rush we know. As for facts, when talking numbers, they come in degrees, so you need to research the impact on the economy and argue it against the 3.2 trillion and soaring nightmare we're in.

Quote

Now you can go back to your insults and PAs, you know, your normal tactic.....

You're the soft, flowery type, I'm sure..... but then write, "but you can keep licking Clinton butt "

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This article
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F17F63E540C718DDDA00894DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

From this search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=Clinton+economy+when+Bush+takes+office

Yah facts........who needs them

Ben Stein article on US economic recovery under Bush administration; says recovery is not perfect, but economy, adjusted forinflation and growth in population, is considerably stronger now than during Clinton administration; holds Bush's immense tax cuts and budget deficits stopped gathering recession dead in its tracks; drawing

OK, there was a recesion during Bush, but not from CLinton. As for stopped deficits, there will still be a deficit at the end of this year and there was for last year, so your point is moot with no real benefit. If Bush had another 8 years and he maintained his growth, then maybe he could undo his damage, but for now it's moot as he will leave office at least 5 trillion more in debt, virtually doubled that of when he entered office. Your little accomplishments are meaningless when the net is disaster and that's with 4 years being solely Repub run, 2 having a mixed Congress.


To disply facts in the form of an argument you need to illustrate how much was lost during 911 and the total impact, not just throw up some website where a guy says Bush is doing well.

After more research in Ben Stein, he is a California social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. SO he thinks gays should have rights and there should be no txes, so of course he's gonna say that tax cuts are great. Quite a bit of bias there with no data to support his claim, just his opinion.

http://www.benstein.com/bio.html

Furthermore, he voted for Bush in 04:

http://www.benstein.com/103104bush.html

Hahahahahahaha, your own cite contradicts itself. He writes here in 04 that Bush went too far on taxes:

I think he's done well with an economy he inherited with real problems of a collapsing stock market and a gathering recession, although I do think he went too far on taxes. He's not perfect. He's not George Washington. He's George W. Bush, who happened to be President on 9/11 and has responded to it superbly. He's not Abe Lincoln. He's just the best guy out there in an uncertain and dangerous world. He's in it for America, not to fulfill a boyhood dream, and I want to keep him on the job. But if his opponent wins, God bless him, too. He'll need it.


So your own cite is a guy who is a fiscal conservative who voted for Bush, said 2 yeas ago he went too far with tax cuts, now praises him. What a joke.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

This article
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F17F63E540C718DDDA00894DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

From this search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=Clinton+economy+when+Bush+takes+office

Yah facts........who needs them

Ben Stein article on US economic recovery under Bush administration; says recovery is not perfect, but economy, adjusted forinflation and growth in population, is considerably stronger now than during Clinton administration; holds Bush's immense tax cuts and budget deficits stopped gathering recession dead in its tracks; drawing

OK, there was a recesion during Bush, but not from CLinton. As for stopped deficits, there will still be a deficit at the end of this year and there was for last year, so your point is moot with no real benefit. If Bush had another 8 years and he maintained his growth, then maybe he could undo his damage, but for now it's moot as he will leave office at least 5 trillion more in debt, virtually doubled that of when he entered office. Your little accomplishments are meaningless when the net is disaster and that's with 4 years being solely Repub run, 2 having a mixed Congress.


To disply facts in the form of an argument you need to illustrate how much was lost during 911 and the total impact, not just throw up some website where a guy says Bush is doing well.

After more research in Ben Stein, he is a California social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. SO he thinks gays should have rights and there should be no txes, so of course he's gonna say that tax cuts are great. Quite a bit of bias there with no data to support his claim, just his opinion.

http://www.benstein.com/bio.html

Furthermore, he voted for Bush in 04:

http://www.benstein.com/103104bush.html

Hahahahahahaha, your own cite contradicts itself. He writes here in 04 that Bush went too far on taxes:

I think he's done well with an economy he inherited with real problems of a collapsing stock market and a gathering recession, although I do think he went too far on taxes. He's not perfect. He's not George Washington. He's George W. Bush, who happened to be President on 9/11 and has responded to it superbly. He's not Abe Lincoln. He's just the best guy out there in an uncertain and dangerous world. He's in it for America, not to fulfill a boyhood dream, and I want to keep him on the job. But if his opponent wins, God bless him, too. He'll need it.


So your own cite is a guy who is a fiscal conservative who voted for Bush, said 2 yeas ago he went too far with tax cuts, now praises him. What a joke.

I know exactly what he said. he also said some things more recently but in any event. I gave the link and the search to show both sides (of which there are) You pick the parts you want and only post those. Only those you agree with Point? You aint got the market on truth. and neither do I. I know that, you don't seem to...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Hmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.

Seems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.

Raising taxes to pay for what we spend is not the same as making taxes exhorbitant, don't you guys work in moderation?

Sure, if you don't spend exhorbitant amounts. But raising taxes to pay for exhorbitant spending is different, wouldn't you think?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.

Quote

Seems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.

Now, that's what I call progressive.

It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well.

Here, I'll finish it for you:

It is progressive because it progresses past the modern ideal of punishing those who do things well...... on the backs of the underclass.

Actually, I don't look at the "underclass" as having anything to do with it. The only thing that does well in perpetuating the "underclass" is the government - well, maybe other poverty pimps, too.

Keep a shitload of people down and they HAVE to come to you for help. That brings power. And power comes best when you can make strong rhetoric blaming others - like the rich, whitey, mexicans, blacks, jews, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Not at all, I posted the entire abstract articel as pulled up from your reference, I then researched your author and found just 2 years ago he said Bush went too far on the tax cuts.

I impeached your reference by using your author, who is a very biased individual that earlier thought Bush's tax cuts were bad. Suck it up man, I exposed your reference.

[Lucky... 0]

Yes, and that is what this admin has failed to do, if they wanna spend out their ass, they should raise taxes, but that would raise hell with the neo-cons.

It's just all bad news man. If Bush cut military spending he could cut taxes and still manage the debt. He's a idiot.

[Lucky... 0]

Yea, well when we have a country revoking the right of workers to organize and we are the richest country in teh world that won't give its poor medical care, it's easy to invoke the concept that the rich and well off exploit the workers.

Much poorer countries extend medical benefits to their poor. You want to believe that this is teh land of opportunity, go right ahead, the truth is far different for many peolple.

[kallend 2,219]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hmm. So if people are forced to pay exhorbitant taxes, they will go elsewhere where the taxes are lower? Hmmm.

Seems that there may be a lesson to be learned with this. I.e., governments can actually collect more money by lowering taxes. The Netherlands did it.

Raising taxes to pay for what we spend is not the same as making taxes exhorbitant, don't you guys work in moderation?

Sure, if you don't spend exhorbitant amounts. But raising taxes to pay for exhorbitant spending is different, wouldn't you think?

It is obviously a multi-dimensional problem, and just looking at non-inflation-adjusted revenues is silly in the extreme.

It is also silly in the extreme that a CEO (of a Fortune 500 company) that I happen to know through school, and who made $16M last year, is effectively paying tax at a lower rate than I am due to his better opportunities to shelter income. The very very rich are NOT suffering.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not at all, I posted the entire abstract articel as pulled up from your reference, I then researched your author and found just 2 years ago he said Bush went too far on the tax cuts.

I impeached your reference by using your author, who is a very biased individual that earlier thought Bush's tax cuts were bad. Suck it up man, I exposed your reference.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I do know this for sure. Everytime taxes have been cut significantly the economy has grown and tax revenues have grown (percentage wise) History is hard to argue with too.

You are very good at making "always" or "every time" claims without a shred of supporting data.

In actuality, that trend shows the trailing nature certain indicators have in the wake of the recession. Though, I will say that my previous post was incorrect. Tax receipts are not setting records, but they are meeting or exceeding forecasts. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/06/D8KJ8R2G1.html

Edit to add: Tax receipts are exceeding the total amounts accounted for during 7 of the 8 years President Clinton was in office. However, that could also account size of the economy as well, trailing indicators of the last 18 months or so from President G.H.W. Bush's term through President Clinton.

Are you correcting for inflation when making those comparisons? The Treasury seems to think that tax cuts have not led to REAL incresase in revenues.

No, and I didn't attempt to. If I looked at it again, I'd say that it paced itself with inflation, and a bit slower than that the past couple years. But, I'm guessing at that as I write this...no need to take it to heart.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It is also silly in the extreme that a CEO (of a Fortune 500 company) that I happen to know through school, and who made $16M last year, is effectively paying tax at a lower rate than I am due to his better opportunities to shelter income. The very very rich are NOT suffering.

Two points: 1) Congress has within its authority to eliminate these shelters, as Reagan and the Democratic Congress did with the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The shetlers were gone, marginal tax rates were lowered, and tax receipts rose while taxpayers complained less.

2) When you say the very very rich are NOT suffering, I could conclude that you believe that the very very rich SHOULD suffer. Do you believe that they SHOULD suffer? If so, why? Why should ANYONE suffer due to the will of others?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Not at all, I posted the entire abstract articel as pulled up from your reference, I then researched your author and found just 2 years ago he said Bush went too far on the tax cuts.

I impeached your reference by using your author, who is a very biased individual that earlier thought Bush's tax cuts were bad. Suck it up man, I exposed your reference.

Yea, you should stick to smileys, leave the other keys alone.

I impeached your source as a, how do you put that, flip-flopper.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The shetlers were gone, marginal tax rates were lowered, and tax receipts rose while taxpayers complained less.

Meanwhile 8 years later he trippled the debt, so where is the greatness? Sounds as if the whole plan was worthless since the outcome was disaster.

Quote

When you say the very very rich are NOT suffering, I could conclude that you believe that the very very rich SHOULD suffer. Do you believe that they SHOULD suffer? If so, why? Why should ANYONE suffer due to the will of others?

When we have the richest people on earth collected here in the US and kids w/o medical attention, 50Million people, that's 1/6 w/o any medical care, most of the rest have some watered down version of some f/n HMO, who can refuse to lay for doctor-ordered care, when we have all that the rich should contribute, esp considering they usually get that way by using the services of teh poor with little return.

Do you envision this utopian society where 1% have everything and the rest are scum-suckers begging for a handout? If we keep going like this we will have that. Are the rules not pegged the way of the corporation and the rich quite enough for your liking?

[kallend 2,219]

Quote

Quote

It is also silly in the extreme that a CEO (of a Fortune 500 company) that I happen to know through school, and who made $16M last year, is effectively paying tax at a lower rate than I am due to his better opportunities to shelter income. The very very rich are NOT suffering.

Two points: 1) Congress has within its authority to eliminate these shelters, as Reagan and the Democratic Congress did with the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The shetlers were gone, marginal tax rates were lowered, and tax receipts rose while taxpayers complained less.

2) When you say the very very rich are NOT suffering, I could conclude that you believe that the very very rich SHOULD suffer. Do you believe that they SHOULD suffer? If so, why? Why should ANYONE suffer due to the will of others?

You conclude incorrectly. The middle classes trying to put kids through college are definitely suffering. The GOP basically sold the middle class a bill of goods, when the main beneficiaries of the tax cutting were the very wealthy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

One fact about taxes and corporations: Corporations never "pay taxes" in the end result. This amounts to overhead which always, always, gets passed into their end-product costs to their respective customers.

The money still passes through the corporate channel to the "tax collector", but the source of that money always comes from the end-user/customer.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

When we have the richest people on earth collected here in the US

Okay. I can accept that...

Quote

kids w/o medical attention,

I would disagree with that. Go to a local ER. Try a county hospital and see whether your statement is a reality. I would make a prediction that your statement will be countered by the evidence.

Quote

50Million people, that's 1/6 w/o any medical care

see above. Are you confusing "insurance" with "care?" If so, your statement makes more sense.

Quote

most of the rest have some watered down version of some f/n HMO, who can refuse to lay for doctor-ordered care,

Okay, you said "watered down." And also that HMO's have a right to refuse care. In many places, perhaps all, that is a subjective belief that is not the truth.

Quote

when we have all that the rich should contribute,

Okay. You believe that it is the responsibility or duty of the rich to pay for the poor. I'd like to ask, honestly, why any person should be REQUIRED to care for another when not in a family relationship.

And, for the sake of transparency, can you state any valid reasons why the rich would object?

Further, how would you define the "rich?? For example, I'll compare my net worth to yours and explain why I am poor, and on that basis, why you are beter off financially than me, and should pay for my care. Odds are, there are few people on these boards with a present worth as little as mine.

Quote

esp considering they usually get that way by using the services of teh poor with little return.

How do they use the poor? What returns do the poor get?

And since by your admission not all rich got wealthy by malevolence toward the poor, should those persons also be forced to pay?

In my opinion, you are positing a wealth redistribution system whose bases are founded upon the caprice and arbitrary decisions of others who deems one person to be "good" and another to be "bad."

---

Quote

Do you envision this utopian society where 1% have everything and the rest are scum-suckers begging for a handout?

No, because I do not envision utopia. I think that a society that neither punishes nor rewards wealth (or lack thereof) is a good thing. A government should not punish a person for being rich, should it? Nor do I think society should reward a person for being poor - both of which you seem to propose.

Nor should a government reward the rich or punish the poor. I think that the rich should pay taxes at the same rate as the poor. I do not believe that a government that ensures everybody ends up with the same result for their activities is wrong - the man working 60 hours a week for $13 per hour should not be taxed at a higher rate than the man working 40 hours a week for $15 per hour because he makes more money.

Quote

If we keep going like this we will have that.

This is an opinion that I do not believe can be substantiated. I personally believe that your proposal would result in that because the 1% would constantly be shifting as people move in an out - the motive for being in the 1% will no longer be there.

I would not be where I am today in your system - having invested several hundred thousand dollars and the near complete lack of social life until I was 30. And now you seem to suggest that I should pay MORE than I did.

As you can probably tell, it does not lead me to view your viewpoint positively.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The middle classes trying to put kids through college are definitely suffering.

Yes. That is why there is financial aid available. Student loans, grants, etc. My parents could not afford to send me to college or law school, so I found a way to do both of them.

I ahve found that slmost ALL adults have this option. Student loans. The government even subsidizes interest on loads of them.

Quote

The GOP basically sold the middle class a bill of goods, when the main beneficiaries of the tax cutting were the very wealthy.

I believe we should ease their burdens - not by transfering their burdens to others, but to releive the burdens on all. I believe that individual burdens should be borne by those individuals. My problems should be mine and nobody else should be FORCED to carry my weight.

Nor should I be forced to carry anybody else's, except the loads of my wife and kids. I believe that people are capable of doing things that they do not believe they are capable of doing.

You may disagree, which is your right. I do not think I can convince you otherwise, so I have merely stated my position.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

One fact about taxes and corporations: Corporations never "pay taxes" in the end result. This amounts to overhead which always, always, gets passed into their end-product costs to their respective customers.

The money still passes through the corporate channel to the "tax collector", but the source of that money always comes from the end-user/customer.

I don't aggre with you, as businesses might then be forced to reduce other costs, like huge CEO salaries. Either way, even if you are right, this edistribution allows for money to circulate and be distributed to the poor who would otherwise suffer.

Hey, we're in a country where the rich fought tooth and nail to refuse federal minimum wage increasses to just 7 bucks an hour, I think speaks volumes of your beloved rich. Hell, it was so pathetic that many sttaes strted passing state minimums due to this admins corrupt nature and refusal to do the right thing..... just pathetic.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I would disagree with that. Go to a local ER. Try a county hospital and see whether your statement is a reality. I would make a prediction that your statement will be countered by the evidence.

And I would then say the next step after the ER visit would be no follow-up visit unless the child is dying on the doorstep, followed by one of your collegues pursuing them for years to collect the costs for said care. I never said they wouldn't get emergency care, just not follwo-up care and the ER care would cost.

Quote

Are you confusing "insurance" with "care?" If so, your statement makes more sense.

ER care is required until you can get the stiff to walk teh fuck out of the hospital. Insurance provides such luxuries like follow-up visits, you know, things that other countries prvide as basics, they are gold-lined luxuries here. It's funny to have a conversation with a rich guy trying to defend the rights of the rich. The rights of the rich in the US are inherent, I would rather defend teh rights of the poor since they are the ones being shat upon.

Quote

Okay, you said "watered down." And also that HMO's have a right to refuse care. In many places, perhaps all, that is a subjective belief that is not the truth.

Perhaps you are familiar with the movie, The Rainmaker, which, as I recall, was about a guy who had insurance but the ins co decided not to pay for treatment so the insured patient died.

Perhaps you are familiar with the 9-0 2-prong decision where:

- HMO's can't be sued in state court
- HMO's can deny doctor-ordered care and can't be sued for it

Quote

when we have all that the rich should contribute,

Not being picky here, but if you could keep it in context it wouldbe great. I know you're not misquoting me or trying to deceive, just embolden the passage in question and post the entire sentence.

Quote

Okay. You believe that it is the responsibility or duty of the rich to pay for the poor. I'd like to ask, honestly, why any person should be REQUIRED to care for another when not in a family relationship.

And, for the sake of transparency, can you state any valid reasons why the rich would object?

Further, how would you define the "rich?? For example, I'll compare my net worth to yours and explain why I am poor, and on that basis, why you are beter off financially than me, and should pay for my care. Odds are, there are few people on these boards with a present worth as little as mine.

I think the gov has a basic repsonsibility to the people to provide care, where they get the money I don't care.

The rich object to fucking minimum wage increases to 7 bucks an hour, so do we need to go further with that argument?

I don't believe that you are poor, you're value is probably tied up in assets. I drive a $500 car, nuff said. I bounce from contract job to another, as my career sucks. I served in the military, yet I have had no medical benefits forever now. The patriotic are teh ones who are rich and probably have never served, just get served by the fascist-leaning rules of this country.

Rich is subjective and comes in degrees, occasionally you get poor redneck hillbillies to buy into protections for the rich. These are the real fools, you can't blame the rich for stacking the deck.

Quote

How do they use the poor? What returns do the poor get?

And since by your admission not all rich got wealthy by malevolence toward the poor, should those persons also be forced to pay?

In my opinion, you are positing a wealth redistribution system whose bases are founded upon the caprice and arbitrary decisions of others who deems one person to be "good" and another to be "bad."

They use the poor by exploiting their labor for cheap, then lobbying to keep the rules stacked their way by hooking up with legislators. Again, the minimum wage BS.

Most rich got that way by exploitation of the poor or by their predecesors doing so, so yes, there should be a larger portion of their income paid int the tax pool, defense (offense) speding curtailed and redirected to medical care for all citizens.

Nothing capricious and arbitrary, this is wealth redistribution that I propose, but our current wealth redist is far less than other countries, hence we have the most rich people of any country and we are only 4.5% of teh world's poulation. Get it?

Quote

No, because I do not envision utopia. I think that a society that neither punishes nor rewards wealth (or lack thereof) is a good thing. A government should not punish a person for being rich, should it? Nor do I think society should reward a person for being poor - both of which you seem to propose.

Nor should a government reward the rich or punish the poor. I think that the rich should pay taxes at the same rate as the poor. I do not believe that a government that ensures everybody ends up with the same result for their activities is wrong - the man working 60 hours a week for $13 per hour should not be taxed at a higher rate than the man working 40 hours a week for $15 per hour because he makes more money.

Do you think the poor person wanting medical attention for themselves and their family are wanting to punish anyone? They just want to be cared for. You call it punishment in order to thro a negative spin, if it were viewed as helping your fellow countrymen then perhaps it would be more pallatable,but I don't care about that, I just think it's pathetic that this country decides who gets medical attention and who does not.

Your words: punsh, reward...... I guess compassion is not in your vocabulary.

With the tax loopholes they do not, this is the problem. Who do you think objects to a flat tax? The corps do. If they paid the same tax rate w/o writeoffs, we would have more revenue for Bush to fire back at the corps., things would be good, right?

Of course you don't want a sliding tax scale. I think thise who have the most should pay the most.

Quote

I would not be where I am today in your system - having invested several hundred thousand dollars and the near complete lack of social life until I was 30. And now you seem to suggest that I should pay MORE than I did.

I thought you were dirt poor. Hmmm, so much for that plea.

Quote

As you can probably tell, it does not lead me to view your viewpoint positively.

Understood, the rich usually do not.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My parents could not afford to send me to college or law school, so I found a way to do both of them.

You did both of your parents. What does that mean? Did you knock them off? We'll have to call you Menendez

I'm jokin man not diminishing your hard work to become a lawyer.

Quote

I ahve found that slmost ALL adults have this option. Student loans. The government even subsidizes interest on loads of them.

Local univ tuition has increased 85% since your pres took office, making the payback much higher.

Quote

I believe we should ease their burdens - not by transfering their burdens to others, but to releive the burdens on all. I believe that individual burdens should be borne by those individuals. My problems should be mine and nobody else should be FORCED to carry my weight.

The prob with that is that we become a classist and even caste system with that mentality. We have become like that a large degree already. Think of a kid trying to buy a house; not gonna happen. The classes are becoming more and more defined, class mobility is becoming extinct.