“Basic human decency” does not extend to giving up a major chunk of your assets to support strangers who cannot be bothered to take care of themselves. For decades. Hundreds of thousands of those strangers.
With pants on there would be no cottage cheese in view.
You will have to quote whatever I said that led you to believe that I oppose increasing taxes on the rich.
Again, I don’t know what you are misunderstanding. I have very few if any actual political views, and the subject at hand is that the heaviest tax burden falls on the middle class. Specifically, the “stupid liberal idea” is that if we keep giving layabouts more and more money and services, they will suddenly decide to become useful members of society, and that they will not be teaching their children by example that living on the dole is a legit way of life. If the liberals want to keep supporting all these people, then they are just going to have to find a way to tax the rich and quit trying to destroy the middle class. Unless the goal is to end up with a country of 1% of the population with all the money, and the rest scrabbling around in the dirt?
We can be drowning in taxes and still not paying more than we can afford, tho what you quoted was meant to encompass all of the middle class, not just me and spouse. Also, what we can afford and what we should be paying are two completely different things - we are paying far more than what the press says that Romney is for example.
Cute tho that you think the best way to make sure that no one has an opinion you don’t like is to suggest ways that would make sure they couldn’t be heard. And the things you make up? Our “investment portfolio” consists of our IRAs, so they aren’t being taxed, yet. I’m sorry that your counterargument is so weak that you have to resort to these tricks.
The statement regarding those who are increasingly unable to afford the burden is about the middle class. Are you unaware that carries a heavier tax burden than the rich?
OK, so when you say “Not to mention the people that made what anybody could consider good choices, but had the bad luck of having the industry they worked in collapse, or any other reason beyond their control make their choices moot.” you mean what percentage of those folks we should automatically assume made responsible choices and when their industry collapsed, they had six months of bills in savings, marketable skills, hadn’t purchased cars or a house they couldn’t afford, hadn’t rushed into have three kids in three years or any of the other things people do on credit because they have been told they “deserve” anything they want, when they want it?
Or, did you mean the way that it read, that all people who were suddenly laid off because their plant closed get a free pass no matter how stupid they had been with their money prior to then?
Uh, well, I hadn’t mentioned the property tax, but it would be idiotic for us to try to sell our house in today’s market, AND we would end up paying even more in property taxes anyway. And yes, it is “your” fault our taxes are so high if you (as you appear) agree with all the liberals here that we should provide free services to anyone who asks.
This is what I don’t get about you all. Can you not see the growth in the poor and the decline of the middle class? Not only are all of your welfare programs not working, they are dragging more people down into the land of the poor. Add to that the entitlement mindset that is far too common these days, and you have people on one hand with their hands out and on the other people who are busy spending themselves into trouble.
Considering what the Christians believe in these days, I’m not sure they care about the poor at all. Besides, the the US we aren’t supposed to be making decisions based on religion…:smack:
Listen, and understand. That’s the Curlinator out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until this thread is dead.
Maybe it would have made the debate clearer if you had mentioned up front that you reside in Bizarro America where (among other things) the amount of property taxes you pay goes up the less property you own.
Proposition 13, passed in 1978, restricts property taxes to 1% of assessed value, and only allows property to be reassessed when it changes hands.
That means that a person who owns a $4 million mansion in La Jolla or San Francisco, and who has owned that property since the mid-1970s, might well be paying no more in property tax than someone who last year forked over $600,000 for a suburban three-bedroom.
The standard English meaning of my words that you quoted neither explicitly states nor even implies a percentage, let alone “all people”. It simple states the existence of those people.
I am agnostic. When someone shows proof of the existence of a demigod named Jesus, I’ll believe in him. Until then, I’ll settle for reality, and reality says government should not give out welfare because they’ll screw it up. And we, as a society, should be more generous in our private donations.
Yes, we should be more generous, but sadly, we are not. There are too many selfish greedy bastards in society who would give nothing if taxes were not mandatory.
"Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses - are they still in operation? "
“Should?” Reality doesn’t say anything about should, it says what is. Should is dictated by personal morality and may or may not (as it certainly is in your case) have anything to do with what actually is.
Maybe we should donate privately more generously, but that doesn’t mean we do. The money only shows up when we are legally required to pay taxes.
Wow, I just read this entire page and failed to find a single stupid liberal idea mentioned at all. The conservative stupid idea thread is so much easier.
WTF is the White House thinking? Yes, Netanyahu can be an asshole, but Obama can take the meeting and call him an asshole in private, rather than giving Romney some badly needed ammo to win Florida.
Shunning our allies is a time honored Republican tradition, now they are going to get all upset when a Democrat does it?
Is Mitt Going to apologize for America for this infraction?
Since when does the President have to submit to the demands of foreign leaders?
Anyway Netanyahu requested the meeting with less than two weeks notice for a time period where Obama is already scheduled to meet with other foreign leaders. It’s entirely possible they couldn’t meet for logistical reasons. Netanyahu still gets to have a meeting with the Secretary of State on this short notice which is more than we’d extend to other countries. I’m not sure why people think the President should drop his schedule for Netanyahu.
This is a parallel thread. In the Republican stupidity thread we discuss Republican stupidities; in this thread Republicans show up to utter new stupidities!
Please do take pity though. They’re like the Bruce Willis character in Sixth Sense, who: … didn’t know his idea was stupid. (spoiler-protected for Republicans … and those who’ve not yet seen the movie)
Sending the VP or SecState to meet with foreign dignitaries who have annoyed you is pretty much standard practice. In any event, I seriously doubt anyone - Palm Beach Jews included - is going to change votes over this.
