do you believe this statement is true?

[Channman 2]

It appears to be 24 Socialist replying to your poll. It's time for me to put a lock box on my families income.

Theodore Roosevelt: "Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures."

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

i am not demonizing what he said, redistribution of wealth is one of the basics of liberalism. i'm just asking who here believes in that. there may be liberals who don't believe in it or conservatives who do. i don't have a problem with paying my share, i just don't want to pay someone elses share who is capable of paying their own way.

Liberals and most moderates just disagree with conservatives on which direction of wealth distribution is prudent. Conservatives here certainly believe that the massive amounts of wealth distribution from the majority of Americans that we have seen since Trickle On Economics became the norm for the neo-"conservatives" is good for America. The reality for far too many of the "little people" has been the loss of their life savings.... a wealth redistibution that seems ok with this administration. Now they have gone and added even more billions to those who have been robbing Americans blind since they came to power.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

he had made the dividing line at $250,000. below that will have a tax decrease and above will have a tax increase. while likely won't be paying as high of a percentage as someone making a couple million, but it will probably be a significantly higher percentage than the person pulling down 120k.

The closest I've seen to an actual proposal would be that the marginal tax rate at 250k would go from 31 to 36%. So if she's sitting at 260k, that's $500.

But it's all election fantasy right now. The deficit is going to kill both candidates tax plans.

Quote

it is true that her medical school was paid for in exchange for service, but dollarwise, she would have been farther ahead to take on the debt and get a higher paying job out of residency. i'm not seeing how that is relevant to your side of the discussion, but it does point out the fact that you don't have to have a rich daddy to become a doctor.

The relevance is that government spending helped her get to the point where she could be earning a quarter million per year. Maybe it's not outlandish to suggest that she be paying a little more back. Of course, 'fair' is letting 'someone else' pay more.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

The relevance is that government spending helped her get to the point where she could be earning a quarter million per year. Maybe it's not outlandish to suggest that she be paying a little more back. Of course, 'fair' is letting 'someone else' pay more.

but it wasn't a handout. the military has a need for doctors. she was willing to fulfill that need in return for and education at USUHS and a redidency in the military. instead of giving handouts in the form of foodstamps and welfare checks, find a need that can be filfilled and make the recipients of govenment money earn their money fulfill that need. if they choose not to hold up their end of the deal, fuck 'em. they can starve.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

context aside, is it good when you take money from rich people and give it to poor people for the sake of spreading the wealth?

What do you suppose those poor people will do with that extra money? My guess is most of them will spend it at establishments owned by the not-so-poor.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

>I believe we went in there with the right intensions, and best data
>avaliable to the world!

We had the best data available. Unfortunately we were given a completely different set of data. The New Yorker summed it up well:

"There is no longer the slightest doubt that the Bush Administration manipulated, bullied, and lied the American public into this war and then mismanaged its prosecution in nearly every aspect."

So becuase a paper says it its fact??? If that was as true as the ignorant liberals say it is then he would have already been impeached.

Quote

>What happened to the LIBERALS idea of everbody pay there fare
>share?

What's the "fair share" of a woman with Down syndrome who cannot feed herself? How much will you tax her? Will you be the one to jail her when she doesn't pay?

Good spin billI see you are keeping up with your same old ways! Did you miss the part that said 30 % dont pay taxes??? So now 30 % of the us is women with down syndrome??? Good analigy. Any ways your coment makes no sednce cuase she clearly has a disabiliaty, therfore cant work a regular job and desearves help. We are talking about the type of people the liberal tragity pimps are looking for a vote from that make a living and dont want to pay taxes!

Quote

>Top 5% pay over 50% of income taxes!!!!!! Where is the liberals fare
>share???? I pay taxes for allllooooootttt of people!

You pay taxes for you, and you use the roads, enjoy the protection of the military and use the various free services available to you. Seems fair to me.

Lets go back to the liberals fare share. I have no problem paying my fare share, but why should i pay more so them lazy fucks can sit at home and live on the govt.???

Quote

>Care to put your money where your mouth is?

How about you? You supported the Iraq war - time to put your money where your mouth is and pay for your part of the $600 billion or so we've spent on it so far. You supported Bush - time to put your money where your mouth is and pay for his bailout plan. You have often denigrated others for not supporting America - time to put your money where your mouth is and support it yourself, with more than just words on a forum.

I do put my money where my mouth is! I pay more in taxes than the average american makes!!! I pay way more than my fare share. How about you put your money where mouth is and pay your part of the stupid bailout that your Dem. majority congress suported that you help vote in that you speak so highly of.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,109]

>So becuase a paper says it its fact?

Nope. Heck, per polls, there are a few people who still believe that Bush was honest with us. After all, 20% of the US still thinks he's doing a good job.

Most people have caught on, though.

>If that was as true as the ignorant liberals say it is then he would have
>already been impeached.

Do you think that lying to the public is an impeachable offense? Best consult a copy of the Constitution if you believe that.

>Any ways your coment makes no sednce cuase she clearly has a disabiliaty,
>therfore cant work a regular job and desearves help.

Excellent! Progress! So you agree that SOME people need help, and that it's OK for your tax money to go to help her. "Everyone pays their fair share" does not always hold.

>I have no problem paying my fare share, but why should i pay more so them
>lazy fucks can sit at home and live on the govt.???

Well, as you mentioned above, you are fine with your tax dollars going to support "lazy fucks who sit at home" as long as they are disabled. To paraphrase Churchill, we've agreed on the basic principle, now we're just trying to see where to draw the line.

>I do put my money where my mouth is! I pay more in taxes than the average
>american makes!!!

So do I. So? That doesn't have anything to do with what your "fair share" is. Indeed, if you really had the courage of your convictions, you'd pay more than your "fair share" to support the war you speak so highly of.

Or let's do this. Let's really have everyone pay exactly the same percentage of their salary to support the federal government's expenses. That's the fairest possible system, right? That will move you to the 42.6% federal tax bracket. You OK with that?

>I pay way more than my fare share. How about you put your money where mouth
>is and pay your part of the stupid bailout that your Dem. majority congress
>suported that you help vote in that you speak so highly of.

Ah, I see your error. I am not a Democrat and I do not support the bailout. (Besides, the bailout was proposed by the Bush administration and supported by a great many republicans, so the blame is pretty evenly split on that.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

but it wasn't a handout.

Very little spending is a handout. All of it has a goal, be it to increase supply of doctors, or to encourage certain crop productions, or home ownership, or having children. So again, it comes down to frame of reference.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

>So becuase a paper says it its fact?

Nope. Heck, per polls, there are a few people who still believe that Bush was honest with us. After all, 20% of the US still thinks he's doing a good job.

So if that paper dosent prove anything then why do you mention it??? Maybe cause it proves a point that is false???

Quote

Most people have caught on, though.

You thinkmost have caught onto bush?? Try your majority in congress. They are really stacking up the suport! And hoow long have they been in controll again?!

Quote

>If that was as true as the ignorant liberals say it is then he would have
>already been impeached.

Do you think that lying to the public is an impeachable offense? Best consult a copy of the Constitution if you believe that.

No from what the libs say he actually did alot more like falsify docs. , and inteligence etc.

Quote

>Any ways your coment makes no sednce cuase she clearly has a disabiliaty,
>therfore cant work a regular job and desearves help.

Excellent! Progress! So you agree that SOME people need help, and that it's OK for your tax money to go to help her. "Everyone pays their fair share" does not always hold.

Progress on what??? Please show me when i have EVER said no one desearves help. Or when i said i dont think that the some disabled do not desearve help. My point is that the 30 % of people that pay 0 income tax are not disabled!!!!!!! Try reading.

Quote

>I have no problem paying my fare share, but why should i pay more so them
>lazy fucks can sit at home and live on the govt.???

Well, as you mentioned above, you are fine with your tax dollars going to support "lazy fucks who sit at home" as long as they are disabled. To paraphrase Churchill, we've agreed on the basic principle, now we're just trying to see where to draw the line.

So you think that women with downs are lazy fucks??? Thats is a shity point of view Bill. Good job spin master! I have said plenty of times now. Lazy people that can but dont wont to work can starve in the street for all i care!!!!!! Quit spinning.

Quote

I do put my money where my mouth is! I pay more in taxes than the average
>american makes!!!

So do I. So? That doesn't have anything to do with what your "fair share" is. Indeed, if you really had the courage of your convictions, you'd pay more than your "fair share" to support the war you speak so highly of.

Or let's do this. Let's really have everyone pay exactly the same percentage of their salary to support the federal government's expenses. That's the fairest possible system, right? That will move you to the 42.6% federal tax bracket. You OK with that?

Whos speaking highly of the war??? I said i beleive we went in there with the correct intel. and idea. I never said we did everything correct when we got there. I am paying more than my fare share for my party and your partys fuck ups!!!

If everybody paid there fair share it would not be 42% It would prob. by more like 20 to 25%. and i am fine with that.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,109]

>So if that paper dosent prove anything then why do you mention it?

Because what the paper says is true.

>You thinkmost have caught onto bush?

72% have.

>No from what the libs say he actually did alot more like falsify docs. ,
>and inteligence etc.

None of that is illegal.

>Progress on what?

You now agree that sometimes it's OK for your taxes to go to "lazy fucks who sit at home" provided they meet some criteria. So that's a place we can start from.

>My point is that the 30 % of people that pay 0 income tax are not disabled!

Right. Some just lost their husbands to a fire and have no source of income. Some have no income to begin with, so taxing them would be kinda pointless. (Think retirees.) Some are lazy bums who have no good reason to not work, they just don't want to.

I am all for not paying the lazy bums. However, they make up a small percentage of the total, and again it's pointless to place an income tax on someone who makes no money. If you doubt this, ask yourself what 30% of zero is.

> I said i beleive we went in there with the correct intel. and idea.

Right. And now you want someone else to pay for it.

Well, almost every single person in the US is like you. They wanted that war, but they don't want to pay anything extra for it. They want good roads and they want someone else to pay for them. They want to help the poor woman with Down Syndrome but they want someone else to pay. Sure, they are willing to pay their "fair share" as long as it's a really, really small percentage, and as long as someone promises to make it smaller.

Multiply that by everyone in the US, and we have ten trillion dollar debts and insane fiscal policies.

>If everybody paid there fair share it would not be 42%

Do the math. Here are the numbers:

Total tax returns in 2003: 131 million
Household income in 2007 average $50,233
US budget 2007 $2.8 trillion

2.8T / 131m = $21,374 per household
21374/50233 = 42.5%

[JohnDeere 0]

I will quit replying to all of your post since all you do is respond to only what you can spin! Keep living in wonder land, hope its nice there

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,109]

>I will quit replying to all of your post since all you do is respond to only what
>you can spin!

Sorry I added actual numbers. I know they can be depressing.

[Channman 2]

It appears we now have 33 socialist blogging on DZ.Com.

[billvon 3,109]

>It appears we now have 33 socialist blogging on DZ.Com.

No, you have 33 people who believe that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Neocons call this sort of thing trickle-down economics. Few people would call neocons socialists. Free-marketers would agree with this as well; when the wealth is spread around (by, say, reducing taxes and allowing people to keep more of their money) an economy is healthier.

Note that the poll asks nothing about HOW that wealth will be spread around.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>It appears we now have 33 socialist blogging on DZ.Com.

No, you have 33 people who believe that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Neocons call this sort of thing trickle-down economics. Few people would call neocons socialists. Free-marketers would agree with this as well; when the wealth is spread around (by, say, reducing taxes and allowing people to keep more of their money) an economy is healthier.

Note that the poll asks nothing about HOW that wealth will be spread around.

That's kinda like the way I first read the question, i.e. would it be better if everyone was wealthy or only a select few.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)