You really think it even possible, much less likely, that there are no ramifications to the Bush tax cuts other than saving you some cash? Come on now.
Here’s a few of the most frickin’ obvious, Mr. Proudly and Self-Proclaimedly “Informed”: Reduced government revenue with no offsetting reduction in expenditures, nor with the real possibility of doing so. Increased deficits. Increased borrowing. Increased debt service required in future years (unless you don’t think default would have any "ramifications). Increased taxation required to pay the debt service. Reduced private capital availability for commercial investment, it being drawn toward government securities instead. Slowed economic performance as a result of both higher future taxation and lower investment. Increased inflationary pressures, equaling loss of value of your precious portfolio. It might itself be a target of a future government forced to raise taxes to avoid default. Your own children and grandchildren get to pay for your moment of pleasure.
You could have tried the path of *enlightened * self-interest; surely you’ve heard of it - the concept that if the situation is better for everyone it will be better, and more stably and assuredly, for you too. But apparently we can put you in the “Heehee, Bush cut my taxes, so I’m voting for him!” category, along with all the other selfish and, yes, ignorant yahoos whose principles were on the market for a one-time payment of $300, to be paid by their children.
Assuming you’re not speaking hypothetically, but of your own experience, I gotta wonder if you really made your own wealth. No public school for you? No loans? No grants? No assistance of any kind?
The question of course being, are you really benefiting? As Elvis has very nicely pointed out, this may not be the case.
Ok so we can remove all doubt that you’re selfish. For some reason you seem proud of this.
Yes, Rick, you’re ignorant of the world around you, and the people in it. Probably something to do with your self absorbed selfishness, it’s all a rich tapestry.
That’s like the master asking his ungrateful and uppity slave, “Just where do you think you would be if I had not provided you cornmeal, creek water, and a shed to sleep in?”.
So if only I knew something about the world around me and the people in it, I would sympathize with them and would feel differently?
I was pretty sure we’d get to this point. “Ignorant=doesn’t agree with me.”
I could equally well characterize you as a thief. You’re willing to reach into my pocket and take my money, money I earned, and use it to help out malcontents and defectives, habitual failures that can’t manage to earn what I earn.
But I would never do that, because I recognize that you and I simply disagree on the value of redistributing wealth in this way, and that your motives are good ones, even if - in my view - inefficient.
You do not extend me the same courtesy. You assume that everyone who sees what you do must interpet everything as you do, and failure to do this is ignorance.
“Selfish” – this is actually better, because it’s simply an accusation that my approach is motivated by self-interest rather than magnaniminity. This is a defensible position to take - in a sense, my approach is selfish.
I’m not arguing for or against any of these policies. I’m saying that your attitude is one of “I’m right and you’re a moron.” with respect to a VERY complex issue. That’s a rather conceited position to take, when you are talking to informed and intelligent people who happen to disagree with you.
I think Bricker is wrong on the whole gay marriage thing. I haven’t seen a decent argument against it, but I can also understand that it’s very much a matter of opinion. Our disagreement doesn’t automatically make him a jerk or a bigot or a fool, even if he’s clearly wrong.
That’s all I’m trying to say, and I apologize in advance if I do not respond back to this thread, I am going on vacation tomorrow and might not get a chance to reply before I go.
I knew we would too, as if me mislabeling you ignorant when you’re actually selfish really changes anything. But I know the little game here to prove that you’re not ignorant by some textbook definition.
Hey homeboy, I make a wage (not a bad one for now either) and pay taxes as well, do keep that in mind. So don’t give me this thief garbage, because if you want to say I’m robbing your money, I’ll come right back at you robbing my quality of life.
Well I’d say “good” and “inefficient” in the same sentence is a bit oxymoronic, but then we’d go off on yet another definitional tangent, and I don’t want that.
Not when you say things such as "You’re willing to reach into my pocket and take my money, money I earned, and use it to help out malcontents and defectives, habitual failures that can’t manage to earn what I earn."
(bolding mine)
Sheeeesh, you must be a real lady-killer.
I do? Where did you get that from?
[sub]actually I don’t expect people to always interpret things the same[/sub]
Hey man, if you want to look in the mirror and say that over and over to yourself, by my guest. It still doesn’t change the fact the many people commonly interpret behavior like yours as ignorance.
I’ve often wanted to vote for a Libertarian candidate; but they always seem to nominate wackos. I’ve puzzled over why they do that. I’ve finally come to the conclusion that libertarian and nutjob are basically the same thing.
Actually, it is your political enemies who feel threatened by the notion of peaceful honest people being free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. That’s why you must fight so hard for “rights” that fall from the table like crumbs.
