I completely get life is unfair what I donot get is the GOP/rightwing obsession with making it far more unfair with their dogma that favors those who already have and seeks to take from those who have so little
So how much is enough? Quit with the vagueries. How much of what you earn am I entitled to?
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-19-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:36 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
That's such a crock. There's absolutely nothing ethical about your ideas. You seek to correct what you perceive as unfair practices with even MORE and far worse unfair practices. Your absurd concept of leveling some imaginary playing field punishes more people than it helps. Yeah, real effing "ideal". You're a hypocrite.
And you don't express "details" because you know how clearly they would shine a light on your line of utter BS. You don't even believe the crap you dish out.
Again I ask, how much of what you earn am I entitled to?
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-19-2013).]
Originally posted by ray b: specific's are for small minds I express big ideas and ideals not details
And there you have it. No answers, no clue, no reality.
Specifics and details make everything happen for both failure and success in the real world. The devil is always in the details. This is an epic fail on RayB's part. This is where almost all extremist ideology fails. Right wing extremists may sometimes be made to look greedy and or uncaring but these whacko extreme leftists just plain look like idiots, and rightfully so.
IP: Logged
03:34 PM
fierofool Member
Posts: 12912 From: Auburn, Georgia USA Registered: Jan 2002
no you do not see answers you like that donot fit your preconceived notions and challenge you beliefs
specific's are for small minds I express big ideas and ideals not details
They don't have to be answers I like. I have no right to control any part of your mind by forcing you to speak the words I might want to hear. That's called Freedom of Speech. I have never rated anyone based upon their opinions differing from my beliefs.
People expressing differing opinions is debate or discussion. I've already said that I vote both sides of the fence, so I'm not set in any particular political party. I'd just like to know how you feel about the two situations. I gather from your statements that you already feel that a person has a right to a part of someone else's income or services, but do you feel that you should share 50% or yours with them, under order of the government?
very simplistic view direct from the nut-con talking heads on fox sees 50% taxes asfaik taxes are less then that Except on the top rates=rich and only by adding all city county state sales income property and other taxes and all fed taxes even for the very rich
IP: Logged
04:21 PM
fierofool Member
Posts: 12912 From: Auburn, Georgia USA Registered: Jan 2002
very simplistic view direct from the nut-con talking heads on fox sees 50% taxes asfaik taxes are less then that Except on the top rates=rich and only by adding all city county state sales income property and other taxes and all fed taxes even for the very rich
What?
IP: Logged
04:41 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
... and glad that I re-read your first post. Anyway, I got to thinking ... what do we want to see in a Presidential platform ? We need to tell them what to do. Todd, I agree with your feelings but would like to add to them. I want to see the elimination of the Dept of Education. Billions spent and no difference in results. I also want to see the elimination of Czars. Non Congressional approved morons with a Russian title, . I want to see (I need a buzzword, ) comprehensive voter reform. You need an ID, no R's or D's on the ballots forcing people to know who they are voting for, and the end to "war chests". Does our President need to fund raise on Air Force One when he can not even run for re-election? I want to see tax reform. The elimination of the IRS would be a good start. A flat tax or a fair tax I would have to think about. Something needs to be done about lobbyists buying our elected officials. Everybody needs skin in the game. I want to see an end of riders on pending legislation, which buys votes of other lawmakers. A law should stand on it's own. What else do I got ... I gots to get busy, . I am interested in your thoughts.
I agree with Cliff on alot of his points. I do think it should be a requirement that you have an ID to vote. The elimination of the corrupt IRS would be most excellent.
a person I know gets $15 an hour pay but the work is billed at $100 to the customer
That sounds a bit low to be flat rate, unless that person's skill level isn't that high or he isn't ASE certified. My top mechanic gets paid the higher of his base pay (hours worked X $15 an hour plus overtime), to just be at my shop, and $25 an hour when he is working flat rate. We charge $96 an hour for our shop rate. Our shop rate covers my rent, utilities, wear and tear and maintenance of my equipment, and salaries. I don't get to keep the difference between the shop rate and the flat rate I am paying my mechanics. Being in business is not free, there are many costs I haven't even mentioned that need to be covered by our shop rate. In your example you make it sound like the shop gets to keep $85 out of every $100 they charge. That is nowhere near reality.
IP: Logged
10:01 PM
fierofool Member
Posts: 12912 From: Auburn, Georgia USA Registered: Jan 2002
most biz owners think 85% is their share a person I know gets $15 an hour pay but the work is billed at $100 to the customer
The employee doesn't pay rent/mortgage, workers compensation, liability insurance, purchase raw materials, purchase or maintain equipment, pay other support staff that don't produce a product or have the capital investment or risk, so he doesn't get to keep 100% of what he takes in. The employee does. Both pay taxes on their income. Corporations are an entity of their own and pay a different tax rate. An employee who hasn't educated himself, developed the skill and put forth the life's effort doesn't deserve the level of pay his employer enjoys.
So, back to 82 TA and Cliff's comments. Christy might make a good President, however New Jersey has a reputation of being mobster and crime syndicate saturated and it instills a little concern in my mind as to how corrupt his administration might become.
I agree with what CliffW has to say, but I would add that we already have a voter ID law. It just isn't enforced. And removing the D, R, I, G, or any other designation of a candidate from the ballot is a good idea. My state's laws disqualifies any candidate who puts his party affiliation on any campaign sign or brochure. I have no problem with a presidential candidate identifyi8ng with a particular party, but that identification shouldn't be present on the ballot. That way unedcuated and uninformed voters couldn't vote themselves a paycheck based upon party lines.
IP: Logged
10:24 PM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 19087 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
That sounds a bit low to be flat rate, unless that person's skill level isn't that high or he isn't ASE certified. My top mechanic gets paid the higher of his base pay (hours worked X $15 an hour plus overtime), to just be at my shop, and $25 an hour when he is working flat rate. We charge $96 an hour for our shop rate. Our shop rate covers my rent, utilities, wear and tear and maintenance of my equipment, and salaries. I don't get to keep the difference between the shop rate and the flat rate I am paying my mechanics. Being in business is not free, there are many costs I haven't even mentioned that need to be covered by our shop rate. In your example you make it sound like the shop gets to keep $85 out of every $100 they charge. That is nowhere near reality.
print layout design ect
so you think the take for overhead and for the owner is more for a shop but less for a country ?
no your guys take advantage of the working poor your guys do not care about any of them unless there is a buck to be made by you
civilization is NOT ONLY FOR THE UPPER CLASS
I don't take advantage of anyone. I live for myself. I don't live for anyone else. I care about the people who also live for themselves, because we can be mutually beneficial to each other.
Nobody deserves a wage. Nobody is forced to take a wage. Wages are offered, and wages are either accepted or denied.
I fail to see anything unfair in a voluntary acceptance of a wage. Nobody is holding a gun to someone's head and saying "Here, take this job and don't complain."
quote
Originally posted by ray b:
very simplistic view direct from the nut-con talking heads on fox sees 50% taxes asfaik taxes are less then that Except on the top rates=rich and only by adding all city county state sales income property and other taxes and all fed taxes even for the very rich
49% of my wages goes to some form of tax, without including property tax or sales tax. Every single paycheck, 49% is gone.
I'm not a talking head on Fox, Ray. I'm a 22 year old man. 22, not 65 year old business owner.
This is what our country has come to.
So I'll repeat the question others have asked:
How much of my wages are you entitled to? Give me a number.
it is not me or any other individual taking/taxing your pay
it is your country
And in that answer is the rub... People keep talking about being forced to give their money to those too lazy to go out and make their own money. The question "How much of my money is someone else is intitled to?" is a smokescreen at best, and a downright deception at most. We are talking about a countries taxes, not individuals with their hands out at your doorstep and you being forced to give them money mearly because those people say so. If you live under the umbrella of a country and all of what that offers (safety, convienance, protection, insurance, etc.), then you have to be a part of the funding of that system. The reality is, you are paying for the privalage of living under the "American" logo, and all that entails. Some of what you pay for you will agree with and use, some you will not.
All my life I have paid for services I did not use and some I did not agree with. And some that I did use and agree with. But I paid for all of it.
I have never used the Fire Department, but I have paid for it all my life.
Yes, we all know there are perfectly able people on welfare taking advantage of the system. None of us want to give those types of people a dime. That is why we set up a system to weed out those types. Your complaint should be with THAT weeding system, not an excuse why you don't want to pay at all.
Many socities are great. And it's always based on how they treat & protect their people. Not just the secessful people, but also the dregs of that soicity. And everybody that can chip in, does, and by force. Why by force?
Because they wouldn't do it on their own. Everyone wants to keep everything they work for. And they sure don't want to give a part of it to those that are lazy or that they don't think deserves it.
But it is a problem that must always be addressed, or everyones quality of life suffers. Crime goes up, dead stinking bodies in the street, desease runs rampant, soceity devides into 2 clases, and we are back in the dark ages.
But none of that answers the grandiose question, "How much of my money is someone else is intitled to?". The answer is; "Whatever the government you live under sez it is." Options? Sure!
1. Change it (although I can't imagine even ONE PERSON who wants to give their hard-earned money to someone too lazy to work. That is more then just the majority of people, thats EVERYONE. Yet with all that voting power to vote NOT to give the lazy any money, we are still giving lazy people money. If ALL THOSE voices can't change it, what could?)
2. Leave it. (but good luck. I think any where civilized people are you will find welfare is a intregal part of that civilazation.)
No one is holding a gun to your head. It ain't slavery or imprisonment.
The things you might begin to hate about your country is probibly the very things that make that country, just that it is now being abused or missused. The flaw is not in the idea, it's in the implimentation. The flaw is human.
IP: Logged
12:14 PM
DeV8er Member
Posts: 747 From: Oak Ridge MO Registered: Oct 2004
As long as the sheeple remain hooked on their "Party Line" they will continue to allow the DIVIDE AND CONQUER approach of the political machines to control them via what is often a single-issue Knee Jerk vote of support. The division I see here on this forum is helping keep the seesawing of national policy going. Each time it tilts from one party to the other they do not lose, WE DO! With each movement of the seesaw some of our ability to reclaim control falls over the side, never to be recovered.
and they should take what they need to run the country
And most politicians, if asked how much of your money they need to do what they want/need to do, would answer, if there were no threats of political backlash, anywhere from 75% - 100% of your money is required. As much as I think the man is a spineless jellyfish, John Boehner said something that I agree with as far as taxes go. When Congress or the White House or both get a tax increase, they're just going to spend that and then ask for more. Congress, for the most part, is so disconnected because it's not their money they're spending. It's always a lot more fun to spend other people's money because there's no chance of failure and you losing everything you have. When a billion here or a billion there means nothing to someone, what's your few thousand a year going to mean?
And in that answer is the rub... People keep talking about being forced to give their money to those too lazy to go out and make their own money. The question "How much of my money is someone else is intitled to?" is a smokescreen at best, and a downright deception at most.
I completely disagree (not surprising since I asked the question myself). A "government" is made of bodies of people. When I ask that question, I am asking it in regards to: How much of my money is the Fire Department entitled to? How much of my money is the Police Department entitled to? How much of my money is the welfare department entitled to? How much of my money is the Social Security department entitled to? How much of my money is the military entitled to? How much of my money is anyone entitled to?
It ain't a smokescreen. It's a valid question. How much of my money is someone else entitled to? Anyone else. Any group, any society, any department. How much of my money are they entitled to have?
Again, it ain't a smokescreen. Although I can see your point.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
Yes, we all know there are perfectly able people on welfare taking advantage of the system. None of us want to give those types of people a dime. That is why we set up a system to weed out those types. Your complaint should be with THAT weeding system, not an excuse why you don't want to pay at all.
That is not my complaint, or my question. Yes, I don't want to give able people a dime for no reason. I don't want to be forced to give anyone a dime for no reason. I don't like that our society views altruism as a good trait. Why is it a good trait? Seriously, I want to know! I live for myself. I am in China right now, for some background, and there are many beggars here. I have not given to anyone that has asked. I have given more than I could honestly afford to those of whom I have passed and didn't ask for a dime. They didn't look at me at all. They knew they made their bed, and they were sleeping in it. I gave them money because it made me feel good. No other reason. It made me feel good because I knew they weren't asking for it. They were taking responsibility for their actions and their past. I have done the same in America, but America doesn't paint the same picture that China does. It wasn't altruism. It was mutual benefit. I cannot explain 100% why helping someone who is aware of themselves helps me. It just does. But helping someone who doesn't try, who begs for handouts because he/she doesn't believe in himself... that to me is not good. It is morally wrong.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
Many socities are great. And it's always based on how they treat & protect their people. Not just the secessful people, but also the dregs of that soicity. And everybody that can chip in, does, and by force. Why by force?
Because they wouldn't do it on their own. Everyone wants to keep everything they work for. And they sure don't want to give a part of it to those that are lazy or that they don't think deserves it.
But it is a problem that must always be addressed, or everyones quality of life suffers. Crime goes up, dead stinking bodies in the street, desease runs rampant, soceity devides into 2 clases, and we are back in the dark ages.
Again, I disagree! There are societies that were great. America was great when it was founded. It had a lot of flaws in regards to human rights, but the concept was amazing. You can make money? Who knew?!
But as the years went by, some good things happened, and some bad things happened. I was not there for most of it, but I'm here for part of it. Do I want to be forced to give my money to who someone else (the government) deems worthy? HELL NO.
But I will gladly give my hard-earned money to those whom I deem worthy.
I guess that is the crutch.
Who decides how much of my money someone else is entitled to? The politicians. And who votes in those politicians? The public.
So for right now, I will continue spreading my belief, knowing that it is not common and that it is, by some people, considered morally wrong.
That's all I can do.
But I think we agree on that, considering the rest of your post.
Just wanted to throw in my opinion. Yeah, it's just one guy. But the more I talk, maybe one person will listen. I just hope more people can learn to live for themselves, instead of other people. A society that lives for other people is doomed to destruction. I don't want destruction.
And in that answer is the rub... People keep talking about being forced to give their money to those too lazy to go out and make their own money. The question "How much of my money is someone else is intitled to?" is a smokescreen at best, and a downright deception at most. <snip>
It's a completely valid, and IMPORTANT question. To assume otherwise is to suggest that we work for the sole purpose of supporting our government and the country. That's NOT why we work, and it's not the principal this country was founded on. We are NOT slaves to the government. Or at least, we aren't *supposed* to be.
You forget, or don't know, that there were NO personal income taxes in this country until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. And there are those who still to this day argue that an exchange of labor for money is not "profit" (which is what income tax is actually based on) but that there is no actual profit gained form the exchange as they should generally be considered of equal value in terms of the exchange. This country initially survived solely on corporate taxes.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-20-2013).]
It's a completely valid, and IMPORTANT question. To assume otherwise is to suggest that we work for the sole purpose of supporting our government and the country. That's NOT why we work, and it's not the principal this country was founded on. We are NOT slaves to the government. Or at least, we aren't *supposed* to be.
You forget, or don't know, that there were NO personal income taxes in this country until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. And there are those who still to this day argue that an exchange of labor for money is not "profit" (which is what income tax is actually based on) but that there is no actual profit gained form the exchange as they should generally be considered of equal value in terms of the exchange. This country initially survived solely on corporate taxes.
income tax was used by Lincoln to pay for the civil war courts said no later and the 16th was passed later but it was not the first use that was by the GOP under lincoln
btw the 16th was under teddy also GOP so income tax is 100% GOP history
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-20-2013).]
Again, I disagree! There are societies that were great. America was great when it was founded. It had a lot of flaws in regards to human rights, but the concept was amazing. You can make money? Who knew?!
But as the years went by, some good things happened, and some bad things happened. I was not there for most of it, but I'm here for part of it. Do I want to be forced to give my money to who someone else (the government) deems worthy? HELL NO.
But I will gladly give my hard-earned money to those whom I deem worthy.
I guess that is the crutch.
Who decides how much of my money someone else is entitled to? The politicians. And who votes in those politicians? The public.
So for right now, I will continue spreading my belief, knowing that it is not common and that it is, by some people, considered morally wrong.
That's all I can do.
But I think we agree on that, considering the rest of your post.
Just wanted to throw in my opinion. Yeah, it's just one guy. But the more I talk, maybe one person will listen. I just hope more people can learn to live for themselves, instead of other people. A society that lives for other people is doomed to destruction. I don't want destruction.
my money my money my money
there is no my money it is the country's money all of it it used to say US treasury now said fed reserve on it none of it said theBDub on it
there is no my money it is the country's money all of it it used to say US treasury now said fed reserve on it none of it said theBDub on it
Hahahaha good lord you ARE a worthless human being. You personify everything bad in human nature. You are worse than what our founding fathers fought against. You give lazy dirty hippies and communists a bad name.
there is no my money it is the country's money all of it it used to say US treasury now said fed reserve on it none of it said theBDub on it
In effect, you're correct, the money itself is tendered by the federal reserve. But it's value is transferred to the person who has possession of that legal tender. That bill is the government's guarantee of the value of that legal tender. So while the bills themselves may not "belong" to the person holding them, the VALUE of that tender in fact DOES.
So yes, it's my "money" in the sense that the government is indebted to ME for the value of that money, not the other way around.
Edit- so are you saying that we are all slaves to the government? By taking your comment literally, you would be saying that we work for the sole purpose of supporting the government, and that we aren't entitled to keep ANY of what we earn through our labor, that it all belongs to the government, and they just *allow* us to hold on to it and use it? That in reality our labor belongs to the government?
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-20-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:56 PM
PFF
System Bot
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 24108 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
As long as the sheeple remain hooked on their "Party Line" they will continue to allow the DIVIDE AND CONQUER approach of the political machines to control them via what is often a single-issue Knee Jerk vote of support. The division I see here on this forum is helping keep the seesawing of national policy going. Each time it tilts from one party to the other they do not lose, WE DO! With each movement of the seesaw some of our ability to reclaim control falls over the side, never to be recovered.
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but do you think that simply because someone has a different letter next to their name other than R or D, that they'll somehow be any different? Poop by any other name...
Personally, the party that they're part of is merely semantics that allows for a more appropriate grouping of larger ideas. I think it has more to do with the individual. I think that simply because they are from a 3rd party is no better than a Republican assuming the candidate is good because they have an "R" next to the name.
IP: Logged
03:59 PM
fierofool Member
Posts: 12912 From: Auburn, Georgia USA Registered: Jan 2002
Replying to rayb's statement that a government should be able to take enough of your money to run the country and also in part to several of Boondawg's comments,
Government's purpose is to provide for the people as a whole what the individual cannot provide. Those being things like national defense to protect the country from invasion, national infrastructure like US and Interstate Highways, among many other things. It's purpose isn't to feed and support the masses, provide healthcare or telephones or transportation to a doctor's office. Yes, there are times when circumstances require the government stepping in to help keep people alive, such as a pandemic or the Great Depression. but for so many persons to become dependent on a government handout funded by higher and higher taxation when the nation was prospering is where the problem begins for me.
Like BDub, I will resist when someone comes to me and demands part of what I have, be it monetary, material or intellectual. But I will gladly offer to anyone whom I see in need, whether it be just a helping hand, a fast food burger, or clothing from my closet, if I have something to give, but they need to get up and try to continue on their own instead of coming back with their hands out, expecing more.
I just returned from taking a small pickup truck load of clothing from our closets to someone who lost their home and possessions in a fire. Their need was not due to their laziness, but by an act of nature.
Had not the welfare system been established, we certainly wouldn't have as many people on the tax funded welfare payroll, just because they would know that they had to make it on their own without the rest of the nation supporting them. I guess what I'm saying is that if they knew they had to depend upon themselves they would have made better life choices.
See you all in a week. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
IP: Logged
04:48 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Originally posted by theBDub: I am in China right now, for some background, and there are many beggars here. I have not given to anyone that has asked. I have given more than I could honestly afford to those of whom I have passed and didn't ask for a dime. They didn't look at me at all. They knew they made their bed, and they were sleeping in it. I gave them money because it made me feel good. No other reason. It made me feel good because I knew they weren't asking for it. They were taking responsibility for their actions and their past. I have done the same in America, but America doesn't paint the same picture that China does. It wasn't altruism. It was mutual benefit. I cannot explain 100% why helping someone who is aware of themselves helps me. It just does. But helping someone who doesn't try, who begs for handouts because he/she doesn't believe in himself... that to me is not good. It is morally wrong.
Many of the beggars I saw would write their story in chalk on the sidewalk and sit there quietly without making eye contact for the most part. I have given to many, not worrying if their story was BS or not.
Also have helped pay for a few cancer surgeries through a couple of friends there who run a small charity. Most were working single mothers. Every bit I give goes directly to the hospital.
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 06-20-2013).]
IP: Logged
05:37 PM
NoMoreRicers Member
Posts: 2192 From: Spokane, WA Registered: Mar 2009
And in that answer is the rub... People keep talking about being forced to give their money to those too lazy to go out and make their own money. The question "How much of my money is someone else is intitled to?" is a smokescreen at best, and a downright deception at most. We are talking about a countries taxes, not individuals with their hands out at your doorstep and you being forced to give them money mearly because those people say so. If you live under the umbrella of a country and all of what that offers (safety, convienance, protection, insurance, etc.), then you have to be a part of the funding of that system. The reality is, you are paying for the privalage of living under the "American" logo, and all that entails. Some of what you pay for you will agree with and use, some you will not.
All my life I have paid for services I did not use and some I did not agree with. And some that I did use and agree with. But I paid for all of it.
I have never used the Fire Department, but I have paid for it all my life.
Yes, we all know there are perfectly able people on welfare taking advantage of the system. None of us want to give those types of people a dime. That is why we set up a system to weed out those types. Your complaint should be with THAT weeding system, not an excuse why you don't want to pay at all.
Many socities are great. And it's always based on how they treat & protect their people. Not just the secessful people, but also the dregs of that soicity. And everybody that can chip in, does, and by force. Why by force?
Because they wouldn't do it on their own. Everyone wants to keep everything they work for. And they sure don't want to give a part of it to those that are lazy or that they don't think deserves it.
But it is a problem that must always be addressed, or everyones quality of life suffers. Crime goes up, dead stinking bodies in the street, desease runs rampant, soceity devides into 2 clases, and we are back in the dark ages.
But none of that answers the grandiose question, "How much of my money is someone else is intitled to?". The answer is; "Whatever the government you live under sez it is." Options? Sure!
1. Change it (although I can't imagine even ONE PERSON who wants to give their hard-earned money to someone too lazy to work. That is more then just the majority of people, thats EVERYONE. Yet with all that voting power to vote NOT to give the lazy any money, we are still giving lazy people money. If ALL THOSE voices can't change it, what could?)
2. Leave it. (but good luck. I think any where civilized people are you will find welfare is a intregal part of that civilazation.)
No one is holding a gun to your head. It ain't slavery or imprisonment.
The things you might begin to hate about your country is probibly the very things that make that country, just that it is now being abused or missused. The flaw is not in the idea, it's in the implimentation. The flaw is human.
Boonie! I really enjoy 95% of your posts and threads! But this is one of the most authoritarian evil things I've ever read.
IP: Logged
06:25 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
But this is one of the most authoritarian evil things I've ever read.
Then you seem to have missed the point.
To keep this country going, it needs money. Where does that come from? Us. We pay for the services we use & like, as well as the ones we don't use or like. It's an all-inclusive deal.
If you love your country and the umbrella it provides you to operate under, you should be proud to contribute to keep it going. You may not like the deal, but that’s what it is. This country provides services to it's citizens, and those citizens that are able to must pay for those services. Because WE are that government. WE make the rules we live by. And those are the rules WE made.
Yes, it has gotten out of control, and is abused just like stuff always gets after awhile, but that is because of the crooks within & without. It just needs to be cleaned up, tweaked a bit, and put right back to work.
And for the record, when it comes to politics & this country, I am probably the freest person here. Having no affiliation, I have nothing to protect or promote, except the country (and its people) itself.
It's fugged up by the same usual suspects that always fuggs sh!t up, but it's still a great country with great people and great promise. And we will persevere, just like we always do.
If you don't think anyone has a right to bill you for "Services", just stop paying your taxes. If you don't like some of the items you are paying for, there is a process for that too.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 06-20-2013).]
IP: Logged
07:12 PM
Aug 19th, 2013
cliffw Member
Posts: 36740 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... what do you guys (asking from both sides here) think of Christie? Here's how I see it... he's socially liberal, or either that just doesn't think it has a place in the government (probably the right idea) ... Discuss...
I believe that most people who think they are gay, are legitimately gay (not a choice)... but I think this really treads a fine line between what's acceptable and unacceptable for the government to get involved in family business.
IP: Logged
05:24 PM
jmclemore Member
Posts: 2395 From: Wichita Ks USA Registered: Dec 2007
Originally posted by Boondawg: The reality is, you are paying for the privalage of living under the "American" logo, and all that entails.
quote
Being born is a privilege ? We have to pay for the right of freedom of speech ? I could go on.
No matter which party, Somebody has to pay the cost of having a Government, the resentment comes when some want the government to redistribute "earnings" to those who could "earn" but choose not to.
I don't want to hear "what about the poor" from anyone because the poor don't need assistance. It's those who are not "able" to participate, such as the elderly(not unwilling, unable) , disabled and children who's parents are genuinely trying but falling short. The problem for me isn't Taxes or Genuine Assistance, it's elected officials wasting of taxes and government assistance programs that do a better job recruiting than the "Unions" do.
The Government will be funded some how. if not by taxes, they'll just skim some off the top every time they crank up the print press. Which would make it harder to SEE how much it effects us.
As for the topic (Chris "hug buddy" Christie).... clear enough?
Who else thinks giving everyone a hug equals good publicity? This Guy! Click to show
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-19-2013).]
. 
) comprehensive voter reform. You need an ID, no R's or D's on the ballots forcing people to know who they are voting for, and the end to "war chests". Does our President need to fund raise on Air Force One when he can not even run for re-election?
