RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


"Taxing" posts have me baffled!(46 posts)

"Taxing" posts have me baffled!Live Steam
May 19, 2003 1:50 PM
It find it quite curious why liberals require the government to be accountable for their actions, especially their geopolitical actions, but when it comes to raising taxes and spending money, they have no apparent problems. Can one of you "panty wastes" please explain this unusual anomaly? No "dis"respect intended ;0)
Baffled by your own strawmen!?czardonic
May 19, 2003 2:33 PM
"Unusual anomoly". As opposed to a usual, normal, natural anomoly?

Perhaps you could tell us what problems you think liberals should have with raising taxes and spending money. That way, those of us unfamiliar with your definition of "liberals" and what they are supposed to stand for can play along.
You are one of my favorite posters :O)Live Steam
May 19, 2003 3:06 PM
I am speaking to the people here who have generally professed to be "liberal" and have posted that they do not want a tax cut and also feel that we are taxed appropriately, as in "someone has to pay for all of this stuff the government does". These same people posted during the war that they wanted a detailed explanation of why we had to go to war at this time, etc, etc, etc .... So I would imagine they would want detailed information of why we are taxed the way we are. Why wouldn't they want the government to be accountable for their spending too? We get increases because they say there are shortfalls. Why don't they demand an explanation of where the shortfalls arose from and why we have duplication of services.
Well, Cheney stonewalls any demands for accountability. . .czardonic
May 19, 2003 3:44 PM
. . .and Ashcroft has instricted Justice to drag their feet on FOIA requests. It sure ain't conservatives who have the Bush Administration circling their wagons around Executive Priviledge!

Where on Earth did you get the idea that Liberals are not interested in accountability? What you call an "anomoly" is the natural disconnect between two entirely seperate issues. If "liberals" are not up in arms over the some "duplication of services" (example?), it is because they have bigger fish to fry, i.e. massive graft on the part of the Bush Administration.

Simply put, there is no mystery about the source of budgetary shortfalls unless you are a GOP voter who has been blinded by the smokescreen you've laid down around your own personal government spending sacred cows. Seen the defense budget lately?
"massive graft on the part of the Bush Administration"Live Steam
May 19, 2003 5:56 PM
How about backing this up with some hard facts. If you are referring to the Halliburton deal for well repair in Iraq, it is classified information as per law. The deal was issued by the DOD prior to the attack so that there would be personnel immediately available to secure the fields and perform fire fighting support, should the wellheads be torched ALA Gulf War 1. Lets not get into a pissing match about graft and political favoritism flowing to and coming from the White House. The Clintons were selling nightly stays in the Lincoln Bedroom for starters. Tyson Foods and plenty of other Clinton cronies made out pretty well during his eight years in office. Enron and WorldCom happened on his watch. Were you acting as indignant then? Get real!
I was indignant then. While Bush's hypocrite supporters...czardonic
May 20, 2003 10:25 AM
...clearly have no moral compunction about the kick-backs and cronyism that has become a hallmark of his administration, I have no problem criticizing the various Clinton fiascos. (At least those that were not bald-faced lies told to the American public by Bush's people.) Clinton was a lousy liberal and damaged the reputation of progressive politics.

I guess I should go easy on you, since you clearly have no moral compass and feel that anything goes as long as your guy is in power. It would be cruel to burst your bubble and point out that your heroic cowboy figher pilot is actually a soft, draft-dodging ex-cheerleader.
You are still obfuscating and avoiding the issueLive Steam
May 20, 2003 1:51 PM
I asked you for hard facts about where the cronyism is. Please enumerate the instances you believe fit this description. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

As for the Clinton's "fiascos" you so delicately portrayed them to be, why were they not "bald faced lies" too? Does it depend what "is" is?

My moral compass is just fine my friend. I have not seen any instance where this President or this Administration has broken the law as the previous one did on a regular basis. I have seen this President act like a president and leader. He has taken bold steps that were required given the geopolitical circumstances. I have to believe that if there was any dirt to be exploited, the Dumocrats would be all over it. The best they have been able to do is try to tarnish William Bennett over his legal gambling.
I've provided several examples of Bush's lies and corruption. .czardonic
May 20, 2003 2:10 PM
. . .and it is clear that you will cling to whatever flimsy excuse you can find. It's like they've got a special scrolling bar on Fox News that provides handy pat answers to the latest iteration of the Bush Administration's duplicity.

Whether it is the excuse that Cheney has no controlling authority over the Halliburton sweetheart deals, or Bush's claim that he did not have relations with that man (Kenneth "Kenny-Boy" Lay), the blatant double-standards with which conservatives approach politics makes it clear why none of your lot can spot the hypocrisy in Bill Bennet's behavior.

So the previous adminstration broke the law "on a regular basis". Now who is making assertions in the absence of "hard facts"? Clinton lied about something that was nobody's business in the first place, and liberals still raked him over the coals. Bush lies to cover-up a series of cowardly and dishonest acts that put American's in harms way and no conservative can muster the moral courage to even call him on it, let alone convene a special investigation.

If you want to gloat and say that yeah, Bush handing out favors to his buddies and backers but there is nothing the "Dumocrats" can do about it because Bush has manipulated the War on Terror into an unassailable popularity, then fine. But to pretend that the Bush Administration is innocent of cronyism just makes you sound like a dupe.
Ken Lay was and still is ....Live Steam
May 20, 2003 4:02 PM
Clinton's butt boy. His stays in the Lincoln Bedroom are documented. Ken Lay played golf with Bill Clinton. Clinton helped Ken Lay get a $3 billion power plant project in India for Enron. Four days before the deal went through, Enron gave $100,000 to the Democratic party. I wonder what Billy Boy got out of it personally?

"Enron did surprisingly well during the Clinton years," declared NBC News reporter Lisa Myers on the February 25 NBC Nightly News. She explained: "Lay played golf with the President, and Enron received $1.2 billion in government-backed loans for projects around the world. Documents obtained by NBC News show the Clinton administration billed three Enron projects in India and Turkey as success stories, personally pushed by the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. About that time, Enron made its first $100,000 contribution to the Democrats." The Enron debacle happened on his watch as did Global Crossing and the rest.

Clinton lied about the Lewinski affair before a federal judge, but you think it was OK because it was a personal issue. The Whitewater and the Rose law firm scandals were never resolved conclusively because witnesses mysteriously died rather timely deaths - timely for the Clintons that is. We know what happened to Ron Brown. Somebody put a mountain in his way. Anything he knew about deals with Tyson Foods and Enron went down with him.

What did Bush lie about? Oh you are talking about the mass graves and WMD? The WMD are hidden in Iraq or were moved to a neighboring country. You and others wanted more time to discover them rather than the invasion because "it is a large country". Well the country didn't shrink. They will find WMD, but if they don't at least Saddam is no longer in power. Not a bad thing at all.
So Bush deserted his friend <i>and</i> his country.czardonic
May 20, 2003 4:51 PM
Like I said, I am plenty indignant about Clinton's crime (singular) and failures (many). Clinton and myself are not the issue. The issue is whether you have the moral courage to acknowledge and condemn Bush and his administration's lies and corruption. (My money is on the negative.)

Are you saying that Bush had no ties to Ken Lay? Or are you, as you might put it "obfuscating and avoiding the issue"? Maybe Bush refers to all people named "Ken" as "Kenny-Boy".

So Clinton is to blame for not preventing Bush, Cheney and their cronies for defrauding hard-working Americans because it was on his watch? Remind me again who's watch 9/11 occured on. Remind me which President scoffed at the Clinton Administration's warnings about terrorism and decided to ramp up the War on Drugs instead. Remind me which Predsident was loafing on his front porch in Texas while FBI agents all over the country were trying to get his Administration to connect the dots.

What did the Bush Adnministration lie about? They lied about massive amounts of damage done to the Whitehouse by the outgoing Clinton staff. They lied about Air Force One being the target of Flight 93. They lied about the Lincoln being out of helicopter range.

And yes, they lied about evidence of WMD in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. But it doesn't bring any truth to the lies used to justify his overthrow.
Again just allegations and no evidence to support it!Live Steam
May 21, 2003 4:55 AM
"So Clinton is to blame for not preventing Bush, Cheney and their cronies for defrauding hard-working Americans because it was on his watch? Remind me again who's watch 9/11 occured on. Remind me which President scoffed at the Clinton Administration's warnings about terrorism and decided to ramp up the War on Drugs instead. Remind me which Predsident was loafing on his front porch in Texas while FBI agents all over the country were trying to get his Administration to connect the dots."

Your statement above has no basis in fact. Just another shallow and desperate attempt at making your case. It's a poor case at that. No need to respond. You have no way of proving anything you said. Typical of the left though. Attack with as much mud as you can muster and maybe some will stick.
no basis in fact?rufus
May 21, 2003 8:18 AM
i think the facts about this have been pretty well established. if the bush administration wasn't so busy stonewalling an indepth investigation into the events of 9/11, even more might come to light.

show us proof that the clintons had people with certain knowledge "bumped off" as you allude to quite often. if you can't, then cease the innuendo.
Oops! I'm sorry you are correct ...Live Steam
May 21, 2003 10:43 AM
they were all just strange and unfortunate coincidences :O)

"Ahhhh! Hey who put that mountain here?! Ahhh!"

"I thoughI filled that gas tank yesterday! Ahhh!"

"My pills! My pills! I need my heart pills! Ahhh!"

"Man life couldn't be better. I work for the President of the United States of America and have an office in the White House! Nah, this sucks I think I'll check out!!"

"Billing records you say? Hmm, I didn't see any billing records around here in the Presidential residence. Oh you mean those billing records? It must be a right wing conspiracy!"

"Wanna know how to make a killin' in the futures market? I wish I could tell ya' so I could do it again! Then I could really be rich and powerful!"

"See we got this land here ya' see and its under water, uhhumm, I mean near some water and ..."
Fascinating. What else do you hear from the Voices? (nm)czardonic
May 21, 2003 10:49 AM
yes, they are coincidences, until you have proof otherwiserufus
May 21, 2003 4:10 PM
coincidences just like dick cheney's former company getting an open ended, no-bid contract worth possibly $700 billion.

or richard perle lobbying the DOD for companies while also serving as an advisor to rummy.

it must be just coincidence that all these people in the bush administration ties to the oil industry, and it's their former employers who are raking in government contracts hand over fist.
Then who was President on 9/11?czardonic
May 21, 2003 10:06 AM
And who was president when FBI field agents were raising the alarm about suspicous activities involving flight schools? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020515.html)

I have no way of proving what I said, to you. But that is a function of your moral cowardice, not the evidence. You should thank me for the "mud" I am slinging at you and your yellow-bellied president. All the better to bury your head in and hide from the truth.

As I suspected, you don't have the moral courage to face up to the facts. Just like you didn't have the courage to denounce Bush for lying about some bogus threat againt Air Force One to cover up his cowardice on the day of the attacks.
baffled!filtersweep
May 19, 2003 3:00 PM
OK- am I a liberal? I prefer to have as much personal freedom as possible AND have as much money in my pocket at the same time. For some reason, "liberals" who seem to be more likely Democrats, have a better recent track record at balancing the federal budget and maintaining a thriving economy.

"Tax-and-spend liberal" ? I don't think so. I have no problem with privatizing many forms of government, shrinking the government, etc... and I truly believe that we cannot socially engineer a solution to every social problem. I may be something of a liberal, but I'm not a proponent of affirmitive action, generous welfare system, etc... (hey, I would not be opposed to offering welfare bonuses to women who voluntarily are sterilized- but the conservatives won't even allow government money to pay for abortion). I don't have much of an issue with deregulation, but at the same time regard public utilities and even such things as airlines to be part of our infrastructure.

I ask you this: is there such thing as a net tax decrease? If you lower federal taxes, don't state and local taxes generally increase to compensate? I'm not advocating for raising taxes, but let me ask you this- moral issues aside- do we really need to be paying off a war right now? How do you think it will be paid off? What do you think of deficit spending? The conservatives seem to expand the government as much if not more than the liberals.

You can talk ecomonic cycles, or just dumb luck, but the Clinton years were good economically.

Are you any better off financially because of Bush's brilliant economic initiatives?

Bottom line- if I raised your taxes by 20% while boosting your real income power by 40% would you complain? Granted these are not any sort of real numbers... but I don't mind taxation that pays off.
"if I raised your taxes by 20% while boosting your real incomepurplepaul
May 19, 2003 3:28 PM
power by 40% would you complain?"

No, but that isn't a realistic scenario. If I cut your taxes by 20% while increasing government revenue by 1% would you complain? I think that's more realistic by the numbers but won't ever happen because: 1)give Congress 1% and they'll spend 10; 2)one entire party exists to demonize the affluent. If it's good for everyone to cut taxes for the wealthy, what would democrats do to marginalize them?

I don't find it odd that those who want accountability for every cent that went for the war don't want similar accountability for social programs. They're called hypocrites. And those who call for accountability for social programs but give carte blanche to the war machine are guilty of same.

Why the hell is it so difficult to find some consistency in government? It's all our money. Why would anyone want to overlook wasteful spending regardless of where it's going?
affluent?filtersweep
May 19, 2003 4:13 PM
What is affluent? At least a millionare these days, and even that isn't much if you are just looking at assets- maybe bringing in a million a year? $100,000/year is nothing, a quarter million a year is STILL middle class. People need to understand that if you really aren't "old money" you just aren't wealthy/rich. You need to have a quite a fortune before you join the "marginalized." At that point, a bit of taxation won't be too much of a hardship anyway...

Accountability? HMOs are sending executives on first class trips all over the world while jacking insurance sky high. The white collar crooks of Eron, Global Crossings, etc. made bank while the little guys went broke. Where is the accountability in the private sector? The issue is pervasive.

I agree- consistency. Most social programs, however, at the local level have an operating budget that is a fraction of the cost of one smart bomb. There are those that would argue that it is OK to give a program that is designed to be constructive a bit of leeway. The feds attach so many strings, rules, regulations, licensing requirements, etc. on how the social programs' money is spent, that there is at least SOME embedded accountability. Half the licensors are downright hostile towards the providers of service (OK, that is something of an exaggeration, but the money isn't just handed over).

The real problem with most of these social programs anyway, is that there are so many people who want to shape the program (or dismantle it) that too many compromises need to be made (when the program is being designed), so when it is done, it is a program that nobody really wanted. It would be as if a dozen headstrong architects had to design a house, and they couldn't agree on anything, so each took a room, and when it was built, nothing matched or flowed together... in short, "it didn't work." But that is the nature of politics.
affluent?purplepaul
May 19, 2003 4:45 PM
According to my liberal friends, you're affluent if you make more than $30,000/year. $100,000/year? You're rich. Of course, these are people who probably take home somewhere around $12,000/year.

In New York City, $200,000/year doesn't get you very far. So, if someone making $200,000/year is complaining to someone making $12,000/year about paying taxes, they're not going to get anything but hostility/accusations of greed. It would be more helpful if both sides would try to understand the other, but I see very, very little of that from the $12,000/year crowd. None of them seem to grasp that it's their choice to make so little and that it's really not someone else's responsibility to support them because they decided to major in Medieval English Poetry. Not that I'd like to see study in that subject die. But you've got to be willing to sacrifice something if you make that choice.

Now, it seems to be a sorry fact of human nature to waste money when it's someone else's. Those social programs waste ridiculous amounts of money not because they're social programs but because it's just too easy to spend more and more when they are no consequences. Few businesses can claim to have cut all possible waste. How is any government program going to? Of course, if I agree with a certain program I'm going to be less upset if money goes to it than if I am critical of it. But if it's a money pit, it would go from being a favored program to a vetoed one, at least if I had anything to say about it. Which I don't.
spendingfiltersweep
May 19, 2003 5:46 PM
Paul- the real issue with spending and grant money is there are enormous disincentives to SAVE money. This year's spending determines next year's funding levels. If you save money, you will likely receive a budget cut. Consequences? Oh there are consequences... it is just that they are all backwards.

I'm involved with a project right now (from the PRIVATE sector side) that is a land grab for a new federal funding stream... everyone is getting as much as they can while they can, since it determines the baseline for the county level funding for eternity (at least that is what they are acting on). Literally, "you snooze, you lose." The counties love these because they involve FEDERAL money- they literally act like it is FREE money. The state is right on board, and have done everything they can to eliminate any speed bumps in grabbing contracts. Everyone is holding their breath waiting for the window of opportunity to slam shut, which it always does....

Add to the fact that almost every government job involves a union (ESPECIALLY if the job is even remotely professional) that makes disciplinary actions almost impossible. This system rewards seniority over merit and the "Peter Principle" is in full effect (at least at the mid-management level)... and the rest is history. Ironically, even management belongs to their OWN union, as often as not...
Sad but truepurplepaul
May 19, 2003 6:49 PM
Which is why I find it so hypocritical of those who maintain that it's a problem of "the other side." It is a systemic problem that republicans try to address when it concerns social programs and democrats care about when it concerns corporate welfare. But both ignore it when it is going to put some money in their pockets.

So, I agree with republicans when they want to cut taxes but I'm aware that they are just as responsible as the democrats for the waste that allows liberals to claim that doing so would be harmful. They're right. It would be needlessly harmful, except that I believe no matter how much revenue the government has, it will find a way to squander it with stupidity and carelessness.

I am aware of the disincentives of which you speak. I just can't understand how anyone could feel good about taking that money. But, then, I'm not in that environment. If I were, although I'd like to fantasize otherwise, I'm sure it would become okay too.
Sad but truefiltersweep
May 20, 2003 4:36 AM
These particular contracts are all about further privatization of services typically provided by the state government (through mostly federal funds) that the state was performing at FOUR TIMES the cost than can be done in the private sector. The state has to contend with higher costs related to unions, the crazy RFP system for awarding building contracts (that need to solicit minority contractors when building property), etc...

In other words, people feel good about taking the money because ultimately it saves the taxpayers money over what the state can provide directly.

Again, I think much of the problem with government is related to what makes the US great in the first place- we are a democracy with checks and balances. By the time any budget passes, it has been through so many compromises that it is full of waste and strange provisions.
Sad but trueLive Steam
May 20, 2003 7:38 AM
"By the time any budget passes, it has been through so many compromises that it is full of waste and strange provisions."

Budgets are usually full of "pork" for local politicos in order to get them passed. This is where the waste starts.
affluent?rufus
May 20, 2003 7:31 AM
. None of them seem to grasp that it's their choice to make so little and that it's really not someone else's responsibility to support them because they decided to major in Medieval English Poetry.

now this is completely disingenuous and typical of the right. everyone who isn't earning a lot of money has only themselves to blame. unfortunately, in the real world, circumstances exist that prevent otherwise competent individuals from achieving success, whether it be their background, or where they grew up, or their inability to continue their education, or perhaps even a health condition. the right would have government do little to help these people overcome such obstacles, and keep them in their current straits, and not offer them opportunities to better themselves.
affluent?TJeanloz
May 20, 2003 7:36 AM
So a welfare handout is now an "opportunity to better themselves"? I think conservatives routinely have fallen on the side of programs like the EITC, which truely reward people for working to improve their lot. Let's face it, in life, the buck stops with the individual. If I fail, it's my fault. It's my problem, and you shouldn't have to pay for me.
certain welfare programs are. (nm)rufus
May 20, 2003 7:38 AM
Name one - and I did say "handout" (nm)TJeanloz
May 20, 2003 7:43 AM
Name one - and I did say "handout" (nm)rufus
May 20, 2003 7:59 AM
there's money and programs that allow people who can't afford it to take classes, get a degree, or be re-trained towards getting another job.

i'd i'd even say basic welfare to a degree, if the recipient, rather than working three menial jobs, or just sits at home collecting, instead uses that time to get an education.
I wouldn't consider that welfare, but o.k. (nm)TJeanloz
May 20, 2003 9:23 AM
EITC is certainly a reward but not for working, much.94Nole
May 21, 2003 11:17 AM
Sorry to disagree but as a CPA (Tax Guy) the EITC does not reward people for working. Okay, it rewards them up to the earnings rate of about $1000/month and then begins to go down after that. It is a bell-shaped credit and the more the taxpayer earns after about 10-12K (rough numbers), the credit is reduced til it disappears around 30k give or take.

So please don't use the EITC as an incentive-based program. It isn't. Most that come into our retail store-front tax offices purposely quit work during the year to prevent getting phased out of the credit.

EITC is wealth redistribution in it's purest form. Give large checks to people who don't pay taxes. (I won't call it a "refund", because they didn't pay anything in that they are getting back.)
"this is completely disingenuous and typical of the right."purplepaul
May 20, 2003 8:33 AM
Well, I have several responses. First, many, many people COULD be making more money but they choose not to. Their reasons are many, but sometimes it boils down to they don't want to sell out to the man. Or they preceive more lucrative jobs as being boring. Or the corporate world as evil. At one point, I've thought all those things.

Second, we're not really talking about providing the basics for anyone. Everyone has their basic needs met. They have a place to live. They have food. They have healthcare. They have an education. Now, it may not rival the quality of the truly affluent. But should it? Should we strive to equal that quality, there'd be no reason to be successful. And I'd argue that that is where the left gets it wrong.

There should be perks for being successful and affluent. But in trying to take away those perks, through taxation or moral browbeating, and giving everyone the same opportunities regardless of their situation, they take away any motivation to progress.

America's poor live so much better than most of the rest of the world. Hell, our prisoners get dental care and air conditioning. Should we have to provide a new Mercedes for every man, woman and child too? At what point is society giving enough?
for most it is a conscious choiceDougSloan
May 20, 2003 8:41 AM
I could easily double or triple my income if I sacrificed time with my family, cycling, and screwing around here. I could hunker down and work 12 hour days and spend the remaining time developing business. But, I don't want to make that trade. Life it too short and "living," versus just making money, is far more important.

I think for many people they reach that point somewhere, and maybe it's not even a conscious choice. The fiance of our 20 year old nanny works as a mechanic. He could go elsewhere and make a bit more money if he would get his certifications, but he chooses not to spend the time or money it would take to do so. He likes to go water skiing and tinkering on his trucks. He's making probably $12 and hour, but he could be making $30 or $40 even. Maybe he will someday, maybe not, but he's certainly making a choice. Everyone, barring a physical or mental disability, makes those kinds of choices all the time.

Those are the kinds of things I think we conservatives/libertarians/right wingers are talking about.

Doug
more typical right ...sacheson
May 20, 2003 9:34 AM
Well, I have several responses. First, many, many people COULD be making more money but they choose not to. Their reasons are many, but sometimes it boils down to they don't want to sell out to the man. Or they preceive more lucrative jobs as being boring. Or the corporate world as evil. At one point, I've thought all those things.

Are you suggesting that everyone who isn't making more money are doing so based on their choice? Are you saying that there's something wrong with individuals who choose a lifestyle over economic gratification? I don't understand where your argument is going here.

What about those who COULD be making more money, but aren't because of their employer's greed?

Everyone has their basic needs met. They have a place to live. They have food. They have healthcare.

And EVERYONE has a place to live, food and healcare? Where do you live? Sounds nice. Maybe we'll all have the opportunity to live in your Eutopia someday.

America's poor live so much better than most of the rest of the world. Hell, our prisoners get dental care and air conditioning.

Are all prisoners poor? Wow. That's some interesting news.

Should we have to provide a new Mercedes for every man, woman and child too? At what point is society giving enough?

Oh, come on. If you're going to make an argument, don't be so absurd about it. Yet one more Republican argument tactic - the extreme solution is the only answer. Yeah, we want EVERYONE in the US to have a Mercedes. Where the obvious answer to your rediculous question is "NO" everyone doesn't deserve a car, let alone a nice car, your point has nothing to do with basic liberties that are available to the well-to-do and are denied to groups of Americans that don't have the financial strength of the top 20%.

Should we limit how wealthy one can be? Hell no. BUT when you have a trend of greedy individuals using, abusing, and ruining good, hard working Americans in their own pursuit of obnoxious wealth, someone needs to step in. That usually means the government, and that usually means a larger and more expensive infrastructure. Very few people feel there should be a larger, more costly Federal Government, but abuses of the system by the elite in this country are often the root of the institution the love to criticize.
more typical left...purplepaul
May 20, 2003 1:35 PM
Are you suggesting that everyone who isn't making more money are doing so based on their choice? Are you saying that there's something wrong with individuals who choose a lifestyle over economic gratification? I don't understand where your argument is going here.

There's nothing wrong with choosing one's lifestyle without regard to economic gratification. But don't go looking for a handout when you don't have as much as others. Yes, I do believe that a sizable portion could be making more money than they do, but don't for whatever reasons. If a person could be making more money but for their employer's greed, they are free to work elsewhere where the pay would be commensurate with their worth. If there is nowhere else where they could be paid more, then they've just discovered their worth in the marketplace.

And EVERYONE has a place to live, food and healcare? Where do you live? Sounds nice. Maybe we'll all have the opportunity to live in your Eutopia someday.

Come on over to the USA and you'll be given subsidized housing, subsidized food and free healthcare should you not be able to afford it. You probably won't be living in a penthouse on Park Ave., eating at 5 star restaurants or staying in a private hospital room, but you won't be left to die on the side of the road. So, I'd say the basics are provided. Prisoners are entirely dependent upon the state for their care and we care for them well. Some would say too well.

"NO" everyone doesn't deserve a car, let alone a nice car, your point has nothing to do with basic liberties that are available to the well-to-do and are denied to groups of Americans that don't have the financial strength of the top 20%.

What are the basic liberties that are reserved for only the rich? We provide lawyers for the accused. Are they as good as the best lawyers money can buy? No. But as long as the accused's rights are being respected, their basic rights are being respected. I would be interested to hear what you consider to be a "basic liberty."

I'd also like to hear more about these "greedy individuals using, abusing, and ruining good, hard working Americans in their own pursuit of obnoxious wealth" because what you're describing sounds illegal (like fraud or insider trading). Therefore, it would already be taken care of by the government.

There is a strong movement on the left to redistribute wealth. Are you not in agreement with that?
oh, the drama.sacheson
May 20, 2003 2:19 PM
1) I agree. If you choose to not pursue wealth, then you shouldn't look for handouts from the government. But I ask you, what's a better use of government money - offering someone a chance for a college education - or - offering people like David Rockefeller, Sam Donaldson, Ted Turner, etc. fat "farm" subsidies. What costs the government more money?

2) Sorry to burst your bubble, but housing is not given to every American. Again, I hope we can all live in your clouded world someday.

3) Basic liberties afforded to the rich ... HMMM ... where do I start? Different criteria when applying for a loan. Chances (like good 'Ol GW) to obtain an upper-crest education, even though you clearly didn't achieve that opportunity from busting your arse, different standards in prosecution for similar crimes ... shall I go on?

4) WorldComm, Enron, QWest, etc. (and to a certain extent Harken Energy). And my point wasn't that government doesn't pursue these individuals, my point is their abuse of power is A FACTOR in the size and extent of our government. Do you REALLY think Kenneth Lay would have contributed half a million dollars to GW's campaign fund if he didn't think he'd net something from it? Do you REALLY think GW would have done anything about it if there wasn't so much popular support from it? If you do, then I suggest you look at some historical financial records of the man you tout so highly.

Understand, I'm not the commie, pinko-f4g liberal you'd like to think I am. I simply thought your argument defending the conservative platform was weak.
oh, the drama.purplepaul
May 20, 2003 2:41 PM
I believe the gov. spends many orders of magnitude more on corporate welfare than welfare to individuals. I hate that more than any money that's being wasted on welfare cheats.

Here in NYC, there are very, very few homeless people. And those who are usually have some kind of serious mental problem. So, given the number of poor people in the US, there should be millions sleeping in our parks. Why aren't they? Because we pay for them to live.

A loan is a basic liberty? Going to Yale is a basic liberty? Getting a dream team legal defense is a basic liberty? Sorry, I don't at all agree. And as for your argument about Bush getting an opportunity that he didn't deserve, well, now you understand how unfair affirmative action is.

I have no argument with point number 4 except that you seem to have a skewed view of my support for Bush. He's not my hero. He's doing better than I thought he would have because my expectations were so low. But at no time was I trying to tout him or excuse the republicans for their share in the size of government or the graft committed by it.
oh, the drama.Live Steam
May 20, 2003 4:07 PM
"I agree. If you choose to not pursue wealth, then you shouldn't look for handouts from the government. But I ask you, what's a better use of government money - offering someone a chance for a college education - or - offering people like David Rockefeller, Sam Donaldson, Ted Turner, etc. fat "farm" subsidies. What costs the government more money?"

You forgot to add Al Gore to your list of liberals receiving government farming handouts - I mean subsidies :O)

Oh and Ken Lay was Clinton's buddy. I don't think he's been in the Lincoln Bedroom since they left :O)
agreed ...sacheson
May 20, 2003 8:13 PM
... I didn't differentiate Liberals from Conservatives in pointing out those with subsidies. If the individuals I cited are more conservative, I apologize.

I've never spoken highly of Gore or Clinton on this site, so don't play me out to be part of "that team".

And Ken is anyone's buddy who might have some luxuries to extend. He's the greedy pig-type I was referring to.
agreed ...Live Steam
May 21, 2003 5:14 AM
No need to apologize. The individuals you cited are all liberal democrats. I just added another duplicitous one to the list.

You are correct about Ken Lay. He is a whore and will belly up to the bar with anyone who he believes he can curry favors from. I think Bush is smart enough to recognize that. Some on this board, and one in particular has tried desperately to link Bush and Cheney with some sweetheart deals to certain companies. I think they are both too smart to get involved in anything that would even look inappropriate. The HAL deal was awarded by the DOD under secrecy because it was part of the war effort, and as such had national security implications. It was the law to keep the contract sealed. Not a conspiracy. Halliburton is the only American company that could perform all the services that were required, including well head fire fighting. There are other companies that can perform some of the services, but not all of them. Foreign companies were not considered for obvious reasons.

Bush and Cheney are already rich men. They aren't looking to use their office to get rich like the last imposter did. I say imposter because he portrayed himself as a man of the people, but was really just some self-serving fraud looking to fill his pockets and get a little head, uhhumm I mean get ahead :O)
in addition ...sacheson
May 21, 2003 1:10 PM
... to the Halliburton thing, I was once employed by Schlumberger. Arguably the only true competitor to HAL in a variety of offerings.

Adding to your argument of HAL being the only qualified American company to perform the necessary services, if the only other qualified company is French, I think their government has done its part in removing them from contention.
agreed ...sacheson
May 21, 2003 1:06 PM
... I didn't differentiate Liberals from Conservatives in pointing out those with subsidies. If the individuals I cited are more conservative, I apologize.

I've never spoken highly of Gore or Clinton on this site, so don't play me out to be part of "that team".

And Ken is anyone's buddy who might have some luxuries to extend. He's the greedy pig-type I was referring to.
"panty wastes" - doesn't sound very good. (nm)terry b
May 19, 2003 3:03 PM
'Panty waste'... The complete definition...rwbadley
May 19, 2003 4:09 PM
The residue remaining in the panty after removal of same.

The disposal of a perfectly good panty before it's worn out.

The wasted breathing effort of a dog. (get it? panting waste? get it? eh? eh?) ;-)

A liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, epithet for the other party. Basically meaning "you are like the stuff left over in the panty of a 300 pound Ubangi woman that has not ever bathed nor changed panty"

;-)RW
So much for my appetite, no dinner tonight ;-) (nm)terry b
May 19, 2003 5:06 PM
I am saving this post for posterity! LOL :O) nmLive Steam
May 19, 2003 5:47 PM