I think McCain just became the frontrunner

[immts007]

You think cutting taxes on the 95% of people is going to put more money in your pocket? Think again there, Bubba.

I'm not really worried about my pocket. I'm doing fine. And don't think my tax condition would change much either way.

I do worry about the 85% of American families who make less than me. And yeah, they could use a little help paying for milk and gas and bread right now. They could use a little help making house payments or paying rent, or putting their kids through school. They could use a little help with medical bills. And the threats that business people or the wealthy would stop creating jobs has never really been the case, because they want to keep making money, and they always have, even when their taxes are higher. It makes sense for their very wealthiest to contribute more, logically and ethically. It makes sense to look after the vast majority of people who are the main consumers of the products and services whose profits ultimately provide the vast wealth for the smallest minority of Americans.

[erniebanks]

I'm not really worried about my pocket. I'm doing fine. And don't think my tax condition would change much either way.

You are saying " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

[Smallville]

And yeah, they could use a little help paying for milk and gas and bread right now. They could use a little help making house payments or paying rent, or putting their kids through school. They could use a little help with medical bills.

Yeah, let's make government even bigger. A little help = welfare. Need help making house payments? Buy a little less house.

And the threats that business people or the wealthy would stop creating jobs has never really been the case, because they want to keep making money, and they always have, even when their taxes are higher.

I think that's called raising prices, something I didn't think about in my previous post, thanks for reminding me about that one.

It makes sense for their very wealthiest to contribute more, logically and ethically.

Yes, that's called income redistribution. Or the Robin Hood principle, whatever you want to call it. The wealthiest already contribute more.

[Smallville]

You are saying " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Good read there ernie!

Here's something from a while back that still holds true today. This was written by Neal Boortz about this very subject: LUNCH AT DASCHLE’S DINER* by Neal Boortz Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschle’s Diner on the outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit which dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every day, and every day the final tab will come to the exact same total. The ten meals are priced at $10 each, so the tab was $100. One hundred dollars each and every day. Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at Daschle’s Diner. No sir! At Daschle’s Diner the motto is “From each according to their ability, to each according to their hunger.” So, each man was charged for his meal according to his ability to pay! So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and line up in exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave. The first four men would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A free meal! The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was paying something. Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number seven would pay $7. Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the value of his meal, but he, like those who followed him in line, had been very lucky in life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his meal and for a part of someone else’s. Diner number nine paid $18. Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners. He’s taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when the other diners were home drinking beer, and it has paid off. When number 10 gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill. He forks over $59. One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner in Daschle’s Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Lott's Luncheonette, located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good and the partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner, who controls 51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the price of meals. The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule. They sit down and eat their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into effect and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner. The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before. For the first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a cent. Free meal. Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out with the first four and pays nothing. That’s one more diner on the “freeloader’s” list. Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2. Life is good. Diner number seven? His tab before the price cut was $7. He now gets by with just $5. Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9. He moves ever-so-slightly into the freeloading category. Next is diner number nine. He’s still paying more than his share, but that’s OK, he’s been successful ("lucky") and can afford it. He pays $12. Now --- here comes diner number ten. He, too, wants his share of the $20 price cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52. He saves $7.00 per day! Outside the restaurant there is unrest. The first nine diners have convened on the street corner to discuss the events of the day. Diner six spots diner ten with $7 in his hand. “Not fair!” he screams. “I only got one dollar. He’s got seven!” Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged. “I only got one dollar too! This is wrong!” Diner seven joins the rumblings; “Hey! I only get two bucks back! Why should he get seven?” The unrest spreads. Now the first four men – men who have been getting a free ride all along – join in. They demand to know why they didn’t share in the savings from the $20 price cut! Sure, they haven’t been paying for their meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and they felt that a share of the $20 savings should have gone to them. Now we have a mob. The laws of Democracy – mob rule – take over and they turn on the tenth diner. They grab him, tie him up, then take him to the top of a hill and threaten to lynch him. Proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on, smiles, and offers to spare the tenth diner's life in return for the seven dollars, which he re-distributes among the first nine. The next day nine men show up at Daschle’s Diner for their noon meal. Daschle frowns, as he doesn't know how to charge for it. Apparently diner ten has fled the country. TANSTAAFL.

[immts007]

You are saying " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Well, sort of. Not in quite the same context as the source material. But go ahead and label me a commie/socialist if that's what you want.

How about this: I'm saying It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[erniebanks]

How about this: I'm saying It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[/QUOTE]

So, you are taking a vow of poverty?

[joshtpa]

DD,
You are right, Obama has drastically changed his views in the last 3 weeks. But his "policies" do not work. The Robin Hood Theory just does not work at all. Similar to what was listed before, if you give people that "need" it $5k, they do not pay bills. Look at the Katrina disaster as an outline. FEMA cards were all used frivilously for items that were not needed. Generalization, yes, but true.

Like others have said, the social issues are why many stay to the left side. I agree with some of those social issues based soley on the religious side. But facts for the most part speak for themselves, if we are choosing the lesser part of two evils, I can deal with a small church going speech much more than I can deal with huge tax hikes and my company getting taxed even more. It goes back to basics. Robbing the rich to pay for the poor never works. EVER.

[immts007]

Originally Posted by immts007

How about this: I'm saying It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Dude, I took a vow of poverty the day I decided to get married and have kids.

And the Daschle story only makes sense to me if I believe people are basically irrational a*sh*les.

[pjsnyc]

...Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners. He’s taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when the other diners were home drinking beer, and it has paid off...

Would the wealthiest of these diners happen to be Ken Lay? And would the freeloaders happen to be those that lose their 401ks? Interesting choice of names - Daschle and Lott...lol

[DDBowdoin]

To say that Palin is a religious fanatic because she belongs to a church with some strange ideas but that Obama is clear from any associations with the Trinity Church is plain hypocrisy...

[immts007]

Robbing the rich to pay for the poor never works. EVER.

Using words like 'robbing' and 'stealing' and 'taking' are so pejorative and misleading. Do you have a problem with paying taxes period? At what point does it become robbing? Wherever you happen to feel like it? If it keeps you from buying a second home? A second $100 bottle of wine? A new set of clubs?

It's easy to use loaded language and say "stealing" never works. EVER. But different economic strategies regarding taxation and governmental strategies can work. I'm not at all suggesting that we return to the marginal tax rates that we saw for most of the last 100 years, but it is interesting to note that during those times from the 40's through the 70's is when we built up our dominance in science and technology and just about every other form of intellectual and economic advancement. The top marginal rate during those times was as high as, believe it or not, 91%!!!! And only briefly lower than 70% I think. Did rich people stop getting rich??? Of course not. Did we have awesome public schools and affordable higher education? Yes we did. Did we have the best roads and highways and transportation system in the world? Absolutely. So that was how it was for most of America's rise to the top. We've been playing this massively reduced taxation game now for only about 20 years. Has it worked well for the USA? I think that is highly debatable. Again, I'm not arguing for anything CLOSE to a 91% top marginal rate, but for pete's sakes, this is about investment in your country, your HOME. At least that's how I see it. I want to see America kick ass again. I'd love to see higher education cost next to nothing for most American kids (like it once did, at least at the public university level). Bleh. I think I'm done.

[immts007]

To say that Palin is a religious fanatic because she belongs to a church with some strange ideas but that Obama is clear from any associations with the Trinity Church is plain hypocrisy...

It is only if you change my words to mean something other than they did. Like above.

I didn't say that Obama was 'clear' of anything. I explained his political strategy in separating himself publicly from Reverend Wright. I also said that after examination of the sermons, I found absolutely nothing threatening or radical or even activist about them. Can you point out what Trinity United wants to see made US policy that is a threat to you or anyone? Can you tell me where they said white people are evil? Or anything like that? Palin's church on the other hand, and Palin herself have made a number of religiously backed opinions about the role of government and military that I find very disturbing. What's more, she is making no move to distance herself from them, nor is any media outlet sounding the sirens about it 3 hours a night every night a la FOX News and the O'Reilly/H&C;/Greta triumvirate.

[ganjagolfer]

To rephrase an old saying:

are you one of those who gets your information from god?

[immts007]

Fascinating. Sarah Palin's best pals. Only one would say she is voting McCain/Palin (despite being pro-choice) and I'm guessing the 5th of "Elite 6" wasn't present because she didn't want to go against her friend on National TV.

Regardless. This woman doesn't even seem to have unreserved the political support of her closest friends.

[erniebanks]

are you one of those who gets your information from god?

No, but I never assume a story as true until I hear all the facts.

There are several sources for information available. (ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, FOX). The one that shuts up first is usually wrong. Of course they never admit error or report the truth after the "item" is proved wrong.

[erniebanks]

[QUOTE=immts007;207166]Fascinating. Sarah Palin's best pals. Only one would say she is voting McCain/Palin (despite being pro-choice) and I'm guessing the 5th of "Elite 6" wasn't present because she didn't want to go against her friend on National TV.

Regardless. This woman doesn't even seem to have unreserved the political support of her closest friends.


I have to assume, all your friends agree with you on every issue.
You must have a very limited group of friends.

[immts007]

I have to assume, all your friends agree with you on every issue.

I agree with

most of my friends on most issues. And vice versa. There is usually a basis for friendship, isn't there? I often found it's common interests and values. We may have differences on when is the best time to plant tomatoes, and whether or not it's neccessary to rezone a portion of the city for residential construction, or whether we want a Walmart. But with things like the role of religion in government, individual liberty, a woman's right to choose, whether or not we should be in Iraq - we pretty much all agree. Some of us are very fiscally conservative and there's enough difference of opinion to make for interesting conversation and debate at dinner parties. But on big picture questions, not a lot. How about you, Ernie? Do you have a lot of close liberal friends?

[joshtpa]

Actually I dont think that is how most decide friendships. Trust and personality traits, as well as shared hobbies, but not political views or anything else. It would make for dull conversation.

As for when do I consider paying taxes robbing? When they are put higher than I HAVE ever paid before. According to all the research I have done, my business and myself will be taxed higher than ever before (not personal taxes mind you, biz taxes) if Obama is elected. This is going strictly on the limited information that the party has given us of course. That to me is robbing the rich to pay the poor.

You call them the needie. Yet like stated before, when the FEMA stuff went out, those people "in need" sure found a way to use their money right? Look at the statistics of what was purchased, it was well talked about and well publicized.

Why should my money (over and above years past) go to support someone that wont get a job? Or maybe they cant afford their home? My answer to that, is find a less expensive home. Its funny how so many people say they cant find work, yet my company deals specifically in hiring and firing and places thousands of people every year and could continue to, if people were looking.