Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Troublemane]

I'm guessing you've seen it explained before, but you won't accept it due to your bias.

Wow, thanks for not descending to your usual personal attacks and "steaming drivel", you normally purvey. You managed to limit it to just a snide, snarky remark! Thanks! We are getting somewhere!

The reason for a progressive tax is that all income is not equally valuable. If you're taking from the money someone uses to buy basic food, clothing and shelter, that's a lot harsher than taking from the money someone uses to buy a boat. With each successive portion of income you make, it gets increasingly less necessary or valuable, and you are more able to contribute more and more without sacrificing anything from your lifestyle.

You are giving an explanation, not a moral justification. If two people own houses, one is 100 square feet while the other is 10,000 square feet, but both people built their own houses---from the sweat of their own brows,---does someone else have the right to come and take half the larger house and give it to the person with the smaller house?

Or to come and force the person who owns the larger house to open his doors and allow 100 people to live there, simply because he has more than enough room?

It's the only real way to raise the money needed to support a decent government.

That seems pretty subjective. What is "decent"? I would think a government which is sustainable, based on the GDP of the governed should be "sufficient", but government which promises more than it can reasonably return is irresponsible at best, tyranny at worst.

And your question is just ridiculous. It's not to prevent people from becoming wealthy, as we can see by the fact that the U.S. and pretty much every other industrialized country has a progressive tax system, and there are loads of wealthy people in all of them. Someone making $2 million and paying 36% in tax is still making $1.28 million. I'd hope that would be enough to become wealthy. The person making $1.5 million and paying 33% in taxes is still making $1,005,000. And those numbers are exaggerated for what Americans pay.

The question is not ridiculous. Your argument that there are wealthy people(many I would point out, like Warren Buffet, fully endorse the progressive tax system), despite there being a progressive tax, does not dispute the premise I put forward that it is there to prevent people from becoming rich. The harder you work, the more taxes you pay, so at some point you are going to stop moving forward.

Now if you were born rich, and have massive wealth (like the Kennedy's), then you have nothing to worry about because you have lawyers and accountants, and money in off-shore accounts, or invested, or in tax shelters, or in tax free municipal bonds, or in TRUST FUNDS, and you can get by without having to show an income.

Or, if you work for a huge corporation and make 1 million per year, you can decide not to collect your salary for that year, and it won't hurt you to badly---you can roll it over into company stock, or buy real estate, and avoid the tax man that way.

But if you are a working stiff (like me) then you notice things like....if I work a 40 hour schedule and then work 30 hours overtime, I make more money than if I work 30 hours STRAIGHT time and 40 hours OVERTIME. Tell me that makes sense?

Or back when I worked two jobs, making $9 per hour each. I was working roughly 80 hours a week, bringing home 38k a year. And at the end of the year, I wound up OWING the government 2,000 dollars. Why? Because they didnt take out enough in each job to add up to the total I owed. NOW I make $23 per hour, and work much easier hours, and take home slightly more per year. But if i could work another job maing as much as I do now, and not worry about the government taking progressively more and more of my check, I would do it.

Under a progressive income tax system, if you work twice as hard you only get back less than what you put in. So what is the incentive to work harder?

What would you define as wealthy? the progressive tax means you don't have to determine that. It means, the more you make, the more percentage you pay. Someone making $100,000 can pay 20% more easily than someone making $35,000 can pay 10%.

Thats pretty subjective. What gives another person the right to determine when someone has enough money? Thats my whole question, what is the moral basis on confiscating someone's hard earned money at an ever-increasing rate? I mean, its not like government will ever run out of projects they want to waste money on, so its obvious they dont see the use of our money as a sacred trust. Why should I care to give them a dime?

 

[Magic Man]

You are giving an explanation, not a moral justification. If two people own houses, one is 100 square feet while the other is 10,000 square feet, but both people built their own houses---from the sweat of their own brows,---does someone else have the right to come and take half the larger house and give it to the person with the smaller house?

Or to come and force the person who owns the larger house to open his doors and allow 100 people to live there, simply because he has more than enough room?

I'm giving a reason why it's the right way to do it, from both sides. From the side of the wealthy person paying more taxes, it's the morally right thing to do to pay more taxes. From the side of the government taking more taxes from the wealthy person, it's the morally right thing to do because it's what's best for the society.

Your examples are irrelevant.

That seems pretty subjective. What is "decent"? I would think a government which is sustainable, based on the GDP of the governed should be "sufficient", but government which promises more than it can reasonably return is irresponsible at best, tyranny at worst.

I'm not sure what most of that has to do with anything. A decent government means a government that functions at least fairly well, meaning it provides the society with what it needs: police, military, economic regulations, and a good living environment for as many people as possible. Why is it that conservatives always latch onto words and decry them as "subjective"? It's not a very good argument.

The question is not ridiculous.

Yes, it is, and it (along with the fact that you see nothing wrong with it) is the reason you get such a harsh reaction. If I thought you just hadn't really discussed this stuff before or that you were asking honest questions to get some information, I'd give you a lot more leeway. Since I know it's just that you're biased and set in your misguided thinking, you get a harsher reaction.

Your question is ridiculous because the reason for wanting a progressive tax structure is to have a fair way to get the taxes necessary to run a decent government. No one wants to prevent people from being wealthy. That's one of those misconceptions you should have already figured out. I don't care that Bill Gates has $54 billion. I don't care whether someone else makes $100 million a year. They just need to pay their fair share of taxes. I don't want to stop that person from making a lot of money. I'm not advocating taking $99.8 million in taxes from them. I'm not advocating taking 90% of someone's pay who is making $500,000 a year. Under the right progressive tax structure some people still get rich, and some people still live very well.

Your argument that there are wealthy people(many I would point out, like Warren Buffet, fully endorse the progressive tax system), despite there being a progressive tax, does not dispute the premise I put forward that it is there to prevent people from becoming rich. The harder you work, the more taxes you pay, so at some point you are going to stop moving forward.

Actually it refutes exactly that. If I wanted to prevent people from becoming rich, I'd want to tax people making over $1 million 80+%. I don't. I want the guy making $1 million a year to make $600,000 after taxes. I want the guy making $50 million a year to make $25 million after taxes. As far as I know making that kind of money will still make you rich.

Now, you have it wrong. It's not the harder you work, the more taxes you pay. It's the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. You can make a lot of money without working very hard. Also, no, you're not going to stop moving forward. You misunderstand the progressive tax system.

Let's use simple values. You pay 10% on the first $50,000 you make, 20% on the next $100,000 you make, 30% on the next $500,000 you make, and 40% on anything above that.

If you make $100,000, you get $85,000 after taxes. If you make $200,000, you get $160,000 after taxes. If you make $1 million, you get $685,000 after taxes. If you then make $1,010,000, you get $1,006,000. You never stop moving forward. Every little bit more you make, you get a chunk of. If you make an extra $10,000, you get $6,000 of it after taxes. It doesn't keep going up so that you just stop making money at a certain point.

But if you are a working stiff (like me) then you notice things like....if I work a 40 hour schedule and then work 30 hours overtime, I make more money than if I work 30 hours STRAIGHT time and 40 hours OVERTIME. Tell me that makes sense?

It doesn't. That's not because of taxes. Let's say you get $10/hour just to make the math easy, and you get time and a half for OT. For 40 normal hours, you get $400, and for 30 OT hours, you get $450, for a total of $850. For 30 hours of regular time, you get $300, and for 40 OT hours you get $600, for a total of $900. Since that all falls in the same tax bracket, you pay the same percentage on both, meaning you make slightly more by working more OT.

Or back when I worked two jobs, making $9 per hour each. I was working roughly 80 hours a week, bringing home 38k a year. And at the end of the year, I wound up OWING the government 2,000 dollars. Why? Because they didnt take out enough in each job to add up to the total I owed.

OK, now you're confusing things. This has nothing to do with progressive tax. This is just an example of you not having them take out enough during the year. It happens. You can fix that, and have them take out more from each check, so that you either don't owe anything at the end of the year, or you get a little bit back. At my last job, I didn't pay attention, and I had to pay a good bit at the end of the year. This job, I checked it out, and made sure I'm paying a little more than enough so that I won't owe anything. But this isn't even related to progressive taxes, and it's also not a problem with the government.

NOW I make $23 per hour, and work much easier hours, and take home slightly more per year. But if i could work another job maing as much as I do now, and not worry about the government taking progressively more and more of my check, I would do it.

This doesn't make sense. If you're making the same amount of money, the government isn't taking more and more of your check. If you found another job making the same amount you do now, you wouldn't have to worry about the government taking progressively more and more of your check, so you'd be inclined to do it. The only time they'd take more of your check is if you made more money, and in that case, you'd still get more money even after taxes.

You make $23 per hour now. Let's say someone offered you the same exact job, same amount of effort per hour, same number of hours, etc, but they offered you $28 per hour. Are you saying you wouldn't take it? Right now, with standard deductions and exemptions for a single person, you take home about $40,645. If you made $28 per hour, you'd take home about $48,140. With the raise you'd pay about 14% of your income rather than 11.6% with the lower income, but you'd still take home an extra $7,500.

Under a progressive income tax system, if you work twice as hard you only get back less than what you put in. So what is the incentive to work harder?

Working hard isn't the issue, income is. You can work twice as hard as someone else and make less money. Now, under a progressive system, you don't "get back less than you put in". Take my example above. Even if for that new job, you had to do some extra work (let's say 10% more work), you'd still take home 20% more. You'd still be getting a good return on your work. Now, if the new job required a lot more work, it might be worth it, but then again, if it required a lot more work, it might not be worth it, even if you paid no taxes at all.

Thats pretty subjective. What gives another person the right to determine when someone has enough money?

Nothing. I never said there is a right to determine when someone has enough money. That's very misleading and inaccurate.

Thats my whole question, what is the moral basis on confiscating someone's hard earned money at an ever-increasing rate?

First, you should learn not to use such loaded terms. It helps discussions like this be more civilized and polite. It's not "confiscating someone's hard-earned money at an ever-increasing rate". It's taxing someone's income at a progressive rate. The moral basis for it (if you really need one) is that it's best for society, and it's the right thing for the people paying taxes to do.

I mean, its not like government will ever run out of projects they want to waste money on, so its obvious they dont see the use of our money as a sacred trust. Why should I care to give them a dime?

This is a completely separate argument. I understand the disenchantment with the way our government spends our money. I agree that it leaves a lot to be desired, but the question "why should we pay taxes at all" is a completely different question than "why should there be a progressive tax structure".

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

LOL, I guess the art of compromise is too much for you. I say this with the nicest of intentions.

What is wrong with agreeing to disagree?

Seriously, if you have something you want done and I have something I want done and we both dislike the others pet project, which is better, to do neither or do both in the spirit of compromise?

Actually, you really don't know me well if you think I'm closed to the idea of compromise. Hell, that's what drives our political process, and it's going to be vital once the next Congress, where each party controls one house, begins. The bigger question is, how come insane levels of tax cuts for the uber-rich have to be part of the deal? What's wrong with going back to the Nixon tax levels, or the Eisenhower tax levels, for the rich?

 

[Troublemane]

Yes, it is, and it (along with the fact that you see nothing wrong with it) is the reason you get such a harsh reaction. If I thought you just hadn't really discussed this stuff before or that you were asking honest questions to get some information, I'd give you a lot more leeway. Since I know it's just that you're biased and set in your misguided thinking, you get a harsher reaction.

Hmmmm, you think because of my differing opinion that I am simply being obtuse and therefore I deserve to be treated "more harshly". which is why you use personal attacks and make no coherent or intelligent sense. You are claiming it is my own fault when you act like a total jerk. Got it. I was just being optimistic. I should have realized all that liberal thinking makes a person believe they can treat anyone with disdain, and the best way to win an argument is to intimidate them by attacking them personally, ...this works especially well on children. But when its someone who has a better understanding of the facts than you do, well, it just makes you look dumb.

Your question is ridiculous because the reason for wanting a progressive tax structure is to have a fair way to get the taxes necessary to run a decent government. No one wants to prevent people from being wealthy. That's one of those misconceptions you should have already figured out. I don't care that Bill Gates has $54 billion. I don't care whether someone else makes $100 million a year. They just need to pay their fair share of taxes. I don't want to stop that person from making a lot of money. I'm not advocating taking $99.8 million in taxes from them. I'm not advocating taking 90% of someone's pay who is making $500,000 a year. Under the right progressive tax structure some people still get rich, and some people still live very well.

Thats still very subjective. Your definition of living well is different from someone elses. The decision of what another person makes being "enough" is totally subjective and based on personal bias, which is why one person deciding for another how much they should own is completely wrong, morally.

First, you should learn not to use such loaded terms. It helps discussions like this be more civilized and polite. It's not "confiscating someone's hard-earned money at an ever-increasing rate". It's taxing someone's income at a progressive rate. The moral basis for it (if you really need one) is that it's best for society, and it's the right thing for the people paying taxes to do.

You've managed to put alot of words in there, but they repeat the same mantra over and over...They [the rich] need to pay more because it is simply "the right thing" to do for "society", which is a totally circular argument. I was expecting at the very least the more familiar "oh, they have benefited most from society so they owe it to give some back", which is a good argument for voluntary charity but not the use of governmental force to seize private property.

By your argument, government (or anyone) could simply decide something was needed for the public good and just take it by force.

This is a completely separate argument. I understand the disenchantment with the way our government spends our money. I agree that it leaves a lot to be desired, but the question "why should we pay taxes at all" is a completely different question than "why should there be a progressive tax structure".

Its not a different argument. If they do not spend the money they take efficiently or wisely, why should they be allowed to take progressively more? When you find someone who uses their credit cards to pay for everything, and you give them an allowance to pay for just the necessities of life, and then find out they are using that money to gamble with, do you then give them even more money? Or do you take it away and tell them they are getting no more until they learn to spend wisely?

Government is that child which needs to learn to spend OUR money more wisely, or it needs to be put into re-hab for overspenders.

 

[Troublemane]

Just a side note, regarding the OP...I think Obama has shown he can compromise quite well. He managed to give the conservatives a major ideological victory by keeping the Bush era tax cuts in place (the State-run media will no doubt try to call them the "Obama tax cuts" now LoL!), and in return the conservatives gave the liberals a couple minor victories...the 911 First Responders, the repeal of DADT, and the START Treaty.
But by far the biggest change was this...Obama telling the Press he had changed his view, essentially. He seems to have realized that it isnt the Dems or the Reps who are "driving the car", its the American People. If this is his genuine view, and he has really taken it to heart , I have to say I am quite impressed. We will see if this really changes how he runs things. If he will try to be an actual leader, no longer a "ruler".

 

[Reverend Rick]

Troublemane, we just don't get it. It was not explained well enough to us or we are too stupid to understand. We don't deserve to have more than anyone else even if we make good life decisions and work harder or smarter. The government allows us to have what we have and we should be thankful they don't swoop in and confiscate our possessions for the greater good.

We cannot be trusted to do the right thing and participate in charities. We should succumb to the will of the people that want to be generous with other people's money.

Once we understand this basic principle and share what we have with all the American people, we should ignore that our borders are unsecured and our collective wealth is being diluted with additional people who come here with nothing.

Never mind the fact that some folks are beyond help and would waste any bounty we bestowed upon them. We should continue to fund their wasteful ways and refrain from even suggesting they get their act together.

We just don't understand that we should live in a world where people are allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences.

 

[Troublemane]

I think the trouble with conservatism is it tends to make people too optimistic about the future, and too generous toward other people. I mean, honestly, the downside of conservatism is it makes conservatives feel so optimistic, they tend to believe that if someone just experiences a little bit of it, well heck, that's all they should need to be won over!

Its hard for conservatives to understand that liberals live lives of quiet desperation, they hold to beliefs about money being evil, and if they have money then they hate themselves, or if they don't then they hate those who do. It makes them full of hate, and then they project that out onto the world. They see that bad things happen in the world, they see inequality, and they then lump the two together---bad things happening are the result of inequality. Therefore, if we abolish inequality we will abolish all bad things.

But the conservative approach is to accept the bad with the good, which is why conservatives, especially religious conservatives, not only pay higher taxes but also give more to charity than any liberal. The liberal thinks the role of government is to redistribute wealth, so charity is "somebody else's job". The conservative never thinks he is doing enough. And that, my friend, is why they have us at a disadvantage. :angel2:

 

[LuisDantas]

You are giving an explanation, not a moral justification. If two people own houses, one is 100 square feet while the other is 10,000 square feet, but both people built their own houses---from the sweat of their own brows,---does someone else have the right to come and take half the larger house and give it to the person with the smaller house?

No, of course not. Not without some external justification anyway.

Then again, such a situation is not in and of itself too dissimilar to the general principle behind taxes. People are not supposed to generally give away part of their earnings for people they don't really know or care about either, but that is what taxes amount to.

I would like to believe that most people pay taxes out of some level of understanding and endorsement of the idea of a Social Contract, but I don't think that is true.

Going back to your two house example, IMO a similar Social Contract logic applies. There is an understanding that taxes are essentially government-sanctioned theft, hopefully morally justified (but we don't really know).

A good enough government will realize that while everyone has individual rights, in practice one needs to balance conflicting demands to decide whose rights will suffer, and to what degree. A very good case exists for attempting to ensure basic needs and rights for as many people as possible, even if it takes higher sacrifice from those who, after all, are understood to be the ones capable of such.

Of course, that is an idealized situation, hard to distinguish in practice from dishonest or incompetent government fund raising.

Or to come and force the person who owns the larger house to open his doors and allow 100 people to live there, simply because he has more than enough room?

Very good question. It really depends on the context. Mainly, from what risks those people are running if he doesn't step in.

That seems pretty subjective. What is "decent"? I would think a government which is sustainable, based on the GDP of the governed should be "sufficient", but government which promises more than it can reasonably return is irresponsible at best, tyranny at worst.

Trouble is, there is no certainty that governments can be sustainable. California's sems to be currently insustainable, for instance. It is not necessarily a problem that can be solved by integrity and ideology alone. Irresponsible government is often the most succesful far as voting goes.

The question is not ridiculous. Your argument that there are wealthy people(many I would point out, like Warren Buffet, fully endorse the progressive tax system), despite there being a progressive tax, does not dispute the premise I put forward that it is there to prevent people from becoming rich. The harder you work, the more taxes you pay, so at some point you are going to stop moving forward.

True. I'm not sure why that would be a problem. There is no good reason why people must always be encouraged to become richer yet.

Now if you were born rich, and have massive wealth (like the Kennedy's), then you have nothing to worry about because you have lawyers and accountants, and money in off-shore accounts, or invested, or in tax shelters, or in tax free municipal bonds, or in TRUST FUNDS, and you can get by without having to show an income.

Or, if you work for a huge corporation and make 1 million per year, you can decide not to collect your salary for that year, and it won't hurt you to badly---you can roll it over into company stock, or buy real estate, and avoid the tax man that way.

It is true that the money comes with many ways of avoiding fiscal responsibility. I'm not sure why you bring that up.

But if you are a working stiff (like me) then you notice things like....if I work a 40 hour schedule and then work 30 hours overtime, I make more money than if I work 30 hours STRAIGHT time and 40 hours OVERTIME. Tell me that makes sense?

Of course not. I don't really expect laws to make sense, anyway.

Or back when I worked two jobs, making $9 per hour each. I was working roughly 80 hours a week, bringing home 38k a year. And at the end of the year, I wound up OWING the government 2,000 dollars. Why? Because they didnt take out enough in each job to add up to the total I owed. NOW I make $23 per hour, and work much easier hours, and take home slightly more per year. But if i could work another job maing as much as I do now, and not worry about the government taking progressively more and more of my check, I would do it.

But you would still earn more money, I assume. So it is basically a matter of higher taxes making you reach the point of diminishing returns that much earlier and therefore feel less motivated to work as hard.

Under a progressive income tax system, if you work twice as hard you only get back less than what you put in. So what is the incentive to work harder?

Maybe there isn't any. I'm not sure that is a problem. There are other important things in life besides being economically productive, and certainly some are more important than being as productive as possible regardless of other factors.

Thats pretty subjective. What gives another person the right to determine when someone has enough money? Thats my whole question, what is the moral basis on confiscating someone's hard earned money at an ever-increasing rate?

The Social Contract, which proposes that it is the government's duty to take from the richest people in order to have the means for financing social services and projects. The rate must be ever increasing because, as you pointed out yourself, money comes with the ways for avoiding taxes.

I'm not implying that it is a fair situation, mind you. Only that is an unavoidable one.

I mean, its not like government will ever run out of projects they want to waste money on, so its obvious they dont see the use of our money as a sacred trust. Why should I care to give them a dime?

Maybe you shouldn't. But it is unreasonable to expect any government not to demand taxes. Well, I hear there are a few exceptions, but they're very unusual.

 

[Magic Man]

Hmmmm, you think because of my differing opinion that I am simply being obtuse and therefore I deserve to be treated "more harshly". which is why you use personal attacks and make no coherent or intelligent sense. You are claiming it is my own fault when you act like a total jerk. Got it. I was just being optimistic. I should have realized all that liberal thinking makes a person believe they can treat anyone with disdain, and the best way to win an argument is to intimidate them by attacking them personally, ...this works especially well on children. But when its someone who has a better understanding of the facts than you do, well, it just makes you look dumb.

It's very simple. If I thought you were asking honest questions, I'd be much more patient. When you make it clear all the time that you hold your opinion due to bias, and you're already set in your misguided views, you get a different reaction. It's like when a child asks "why" the first two times, you answer them. The third time it starts to get annoying, and by the sixth time they're going to get a much different reaction than the first time or two.

Thats still very subjective. Your definition of living well is different from someone elses. The decision of what another person makes being "enough" is totally subjective and based on personal bias, which is why one person deciding for another how much they should own is completely wrong, morally.

This is completely missing my point and twisting things. It's not surprising, since this is the language that allows conservatives like you to continue to hold your misguided beliefs. Anyway, yes, my definition of living well is different from others', but we can all agree that having more cars than household members, a big house in a really nice neighborhood, along with a beach house, and enough money in the bank that you'll never have to worry about losing your stuff is living well.

And as I've already explained (to you and many others), I'm not deciding what is enough. The point is that the more you make, the less valuable the money is. If you're making $120,000, and someone else is making $35,000, you have a lot more leeway in your spending. Unfortunately, I probably also have to make it clear that I'm not saying the first person should be reduced to the same take-home as the second, or even close to it. You take 25% from the first person, and they still take home $90,000. You take 15% from the second person and they take home $29,750.

So, essentially, your last statement is not even relevant. I'm not deciding how much someone can own. We're all deciding as a society what percentage of what someone brings in they have to pay to the society.

You've managed to put alot of words in there, but they repeat the same mantra over and over...They [the rich] need to pay more because it is simply "the right thing" to do for "society", which is a totally circular argument. I was expecting at the very least the more familiar "oh, they have benefited most from society so they owe it to give some back", which is a good argument for voluntary charity but not the use of governmental force to seize private property.

Well, of course there is that argument, too, but as I said before, this really isn't a moral argument. That's not the best way to frame it. It's an argument about what makes society work. But it still remains that it's the right way to go for the rich to pay a higher percentage because it's good for society.

By your argument, government (or anyone) could simply decide something was needed for the public good and just take it by force.

Nope, but nice try. I know you're intelligent enough to understand the difference between that and what I'm saying.

Its not a different argument.

It's a completely separate argument, as I explained.

If they do not spend the money they take efficiently or wisely, why should they be allowed to take progressively more?

That's not the question. The one question is "if they spend money so inefficiently, why should the take any money at all?". You even said that question in almost those words. The other question is, "if they're going to take money in taxes, why should they be able to do it progressively?". You can make an argument that because they waste a lot of our money, they shouldn't take any of it, at least until they learn to spend wisely. However, that's a question of whether or not they should take money. The question of progressive taxes is a question of how they should take money.

When you find someone who uses their credit cards to pay for everything, and you give them an allowance to pay for just the necessities of life, and then find out they are using that money to gamble with, do you then give them even more money? Or do you take it away and tell them they are getting no more until they learn to spend wisely?

Thank you for illustrating my point. You make my argument for me. This example has nothing to do with progressive taxes, only taxes in general. In this case, you're taking away the credit card completely, not just using a different method of giving them money.

Government is that child which needs to learn to spend OUR money more wisely, or it needs to be put into re-hab for overspenders.

I agree completely that government spending needs to get under control. Again, that's a different question than progressive taxes, though.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think the trouble with conservatism is it tends to make people too optimistic about the future, and too generous toward other people. I mean, honestly, the downside of conservatism is it makes conservatives feel so optimistic, they tend to believe that if someone just experiences a little bit of it, well heck, that's all they should need to be won over!

Its hard for conservatives to understand that liberals live lives of quiet desperation, they hold to beliefs about money being evil, and if they have money then they hate themselves, or if they don't then they hate those who do. It makes them full of hate, and then they project that out onto the world. They see that bad things happen in the world, they see inequality, and they then lump the two together---bad things happening are the result of inequality. Therefore, if we abolish inequality we will abolish all bad things.

But the conservative approach is to accept the bad with the good, which is why conservatives, especially religious conservatives, not only pay higher taxes but also give more to charity than any liberal. The liberal thinks the role of government is to redistribute wealth, so charity is "somebody else's job". The conservative never thinks he is doing enough. And that, my friend, is why they have us at a disadvantage. :angel2:

My problem with Liberals are, they never have seen a dollar they did not want to spend on something. They often ask us why we need so much money? It is like they can't understand the peace of mind one has when they have money put back for a rainy day. They don't understand the importance of food storage or raising and canning your own food.

It is not about income either. It has always been about living below your means and saving and investing. People often say they cannot afford to save and invest. I say you cannot afford not to.

These same people go to the movies every weekend and have smart phones in their pocket. They wear designer clothes and go out to eat.

 

[Magic Man]

(the State-run media will no doubt try to call them the "Obama tax cuts" now LoL!),

Why would they do that in China? You're not implying there is anything close to state-run media in the U.S., are you?

and in return the conservatives gave the liberals a couple minor victories...the 911 First Responders,

It's sad that this is considered a victory for liberals. This should have been a no-brainer, especially for republicans. If anything, it should be a victory for them, since they're the ones constantly using 9/11 as a patriotic buzz word to stir up support.

 

[Magic Man]

Troublemane, we just don't get it. It was not explained well enough to us or we are too stupid to understand.

Actually, it's neither of the above. It's that you choose not to get it. You like your demonization of the other side, and your anger at people trying to "take what's yours". Trying to actually understand what we're saying would mean a complete shift in thinking for you guys, and it's clear you're too set in your ways for that. I know you're both intelligent enough to understand. That's the sad part.

We don't deserve to have more than anyone else even if we make good life decisions and work harder or smarter. The government allows us to have what we have and we should be thankful they don't swoop in and confiscate our possessions for the greater good.

And this is what I mean. No one has said anything like this. No one is saying people can't have more than others. In fact, I've said clearly and specifically many times that I want some people to have more than others. Having a progressive tax (which is what we're discussing) doesn't mean everyone has the same. I've given examples before, and I'll do it again.

$35,000/year X 10% = $31,500 take home pay
$70,000/year X 15% = $59,500 take-home pay
$150,000/year X 20% = $120,000 take-home pay
$2 million/year X 40% = $1.2 million take-home pay

It seems to me, you're still making significantly more at each income level, even after paying a higher percentage of taxes.

We cannot be trusted to do the right thing and participate in charities. We should succumb to the will of the people that want to be generous with other people's money.

You're actually correct on the first one. Counting on people to give to charities to solve problems like unemployment, poverty and medical bills is definitely not a good way to go. The second sentence is just stupid nonsense.

Once we understand this basic principle and share what we have with all the American people, we should ignore that our borders are unsecured and our collective wealth is being diluted with additional people who come here with nothing.

Nope. We should address that situation. But "our collective wealth" is not being "diluted with additional people who come here with nothing". I mean, if we just gave them a path to citizenship, they could contribute a lot more to our economy and government. But that's too much to ask, I guess.

Never mind the fact that some folks are beyond help and would waste any bounty we bestowed upon them. We should continue to fund their wasteful ways and refrain from even suggesting they get their act together.

Man, you're just full of misunderstandings, aren't you? I had hoped after this much time of correcting them for you, you'd have learned a little bit, but I guess not.

You're more than welcome to suggest these people get their acts together. You're welcome to help develop a plan to either get them to do that, or to weed them out of the group. What we're saying is that they're always going to be there, but they're not a huge portion of the people who need help. What we're saying is that we should help the people who need it, even if that means helping some people who don't deserve it. If you can find a way to separate the two completely to make sure we only help those who deserve it, go right ahead.

However, I find it funny that conservatives talk about this, even though it's as subjective as anything else. I get the response that my assertions are subjective, and yet deciding who deserves help is as subjective as anything I've suggested.

We just don't understand that we should live in a world where people are allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences.

Man, it gets tiring correcting all of your misconceptions, but I keep fighting the good fight. No, you shouldn't live in that world. The world you should live in is one where society actually cares about all of its members, not just the upper 2%. No one wants people to be allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences. What we want is what you'd do for your brother. I assume if your brother made some poor personal choices, and needed help, you'd be there to help him. Better yet, act as if those people are your children. Children make poor decisions all the time, even as adults, but good parents are supposed to be there for them, even if they don't deserve it.

I find your approach to things sad in most people, but especially sad in someone who supposedly is a follower of Jesus's teachings. Jesus wouldn't care why the person needed help. All he cared about was helping them. If someone asks for your coat, give them your tunic, too. You should either stop calling yourself a follower of him, or start abiding by his teachings.

 

[Magic Man]

I think the trouble with conservatism is it tends to make people too optimistic about the future, and too generous toward other people. I mean, honestly, the downside of conservatism is it makes conservatives feel so optimistic, they tend to believe that if someone just experiences a little bit of it, well heck, that's all they should need to be won over!

Its hard for conservatives to understand that liberals live lives of quiet desperation, they hold to beliefs about money being evil, and if they have money then they hate themselves, or if they don't then they hate those who do. It makes them full of hate, and then they project that out onto the world. They see that bad things happen in the world, they see inequality, and they then lump the two together---bad things happening are the result of inequality. Therefore, if we abolish inequality we will abolish all bad things.

But the conservative approach is to accept the bad with the good, which is why conservatives, especially religious conservatives, not only pay higher taxes but also give more to charity than any liberal. The liberal thinks the role of government is to redistribute wealth, so charity is "somebody else's job". The conservative never thinks he is doing enough. And that, my friend, is why they have us at a disadvantage. :angel2:

Wow, that is horridly warped view of things, although not surprising. I won't take long to debunk it, since it's not going to get through to anyone I want it to anyway.

I think instead, you should just say "It's hard for conservatives to understand liberals". And that's the major problem. There's nothing optimistic about conservatism. Liberals don't live lives of quiet desperation, and they don't hate money or think it's evil. All I have to do is point to Bill Gates for a blatant example of that. I'm not sure where the whole "equating bad things with inequality" comes from. Inequality is a bad thing that happens, and it should be stopped. Those other bad things should be limited as much as possible.

I'd like to see support for the claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. I'd also like to see support for the claim that conservatives pay higher taxes than liberals. It seems to me you're confusing rich people and conservatives. They are not the same thing. The liberal thinks the role of government is to provide the best possible environment for its citizens, which includes regulating the economy. The conservative thinks change should not happen, unless it benefits the rich.

And no, we don't have you at a disadvantage. Basically, a liberal wants everyone to be as happy as possible, and conservative just wants things to be as shallowly fair as possible, regardless of how it helps or hurts everyone. The conservative ideology appeals to people who like to get their ideas from others, while the liberal one appeals to people who like to use reason and compassion to form their own ideas. And that's why conservatives have us at a disadvantage. So much of the population likes to be told what to think, and not think for themselves. They also like to pretend that things aren't fair, and they love to feel persecuted and angry at something.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Actually, it's neither of the above. It's that you choose not to get it. You like your demonization of the other side, and your anger at people trying to "take what's yours". Trying to actually understand what we're saying would mean a complete shift in thinking for you guys, and it's clear you're too set in your ways for that. I know you're both intelligent enough to understand. That's the sad part.

Typical Liberal Elitism. Is this what they teach at Universities now, indoctrination? Is free thinking and reaching your own conclusions "not getting it"? You act like a person can only reach one logical conclusion, your personal opinion. I believe nothing short of socialism is your agenda, but you do give me hope that one day you will think differently. I understand what you are saying just fine, you are wrong however about me being angry. You accuse me of demonising, and yet you do the same thing. You act as if we Conservatives lack compassion or do not see a need for a social contract. Where we part company is when you want to extend these contracts and live in a nanny state.

And this is what I mean. No one has said anything like this. No one is saying people can't have more than others. In fact, I've said clearly and specifically many times that I want some people to have more than others. Having a progressive tax (which is what we're discussing) doesn't mean everyone has the same. I've given examples before, and I'll do it again.

$35,000/year X 10% = $31,500 take home pay
$70,000/year X 15% = $59,500 take-home pay
$150,000/year X 20% = $120,000 take-home pay
$2 million/year X 40% = $1.2 million take-home pay

It seems to me, you're still making significantly more at each income level, even after paying a higher percentage of taxes.

You are under the false assumption that I don't value each and every dollar the same. I have a problem with under performers paying 10% while others pay 40% IMHO it is draconian.

You're actually correct on the first one. Counting on people to give to charities to solve problems like unemployment, poverty and medical bills is definitely not a good way to go. The second sentence is just stupid nonsense.

Cutting off someones unemployment gets them off their butts and makes them find a job. I support 6 months of unemployment, not several years. No wonder we have high unemployment rates, no one has an incentive to go to work.

Nope. We should address that situation. But "our collective wealth" is not being "diluted with additional people who come here with nothing". I mean, if we just gave them a path to citizenship, they could contribute a lot more to our economy and government. But that's too much to ask, I guess.

I'm ready to give folks a path to citizenship, just as soon as our borders are 100% secure.

Man, you're just full of misunderstandings, aren't you? I had hoped after this much time of correcting them for you, you'd have learned a little bit, but I guess not.

When you wake up and smell the coffee, you will realise you hold the minority opinion and are not the great superior teacher your delusions of grandeur lead you to believe.

You're more than welcome to suggest these people get their acts together. You're welcome to help develop a plan to either get them to do that, or to weed them out of the group. What we're saying is that they're always going to be there, but they're not a huge portion of the people who need help. What we're saying is that we should help the people who need it, even if that means helping some people who don't deserve it. If you can find a way to separate the two completely to make sure we only help those who deserve it, go right ahead.

However, I find it funny that conservatives talk about this, even though it's as subjective as anything else. I get the response that my assertions are subjective, and yet deciding who deserves help is as subjective as anything I've suggested.

I help many folks who do not deserve help each week. I don't want their children to suffer because their parents are irresponsible.

Man, it gets tiring correcting all of your misconceptions, but I keep fighting the good fight. No, you shouldn't live in that world. The world you should live in is one where society actually cares about all of its members, not just the upper 2%. No one wants people to be allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences. What we want is what you'd do for your brother. I assume if your brother made some poor personal choices, and needed help, you'd be there to help him. Better yet, act as if those people are your children. Children make poor decisions all the time, even as adults, but good parents are supposed to be there for them, even if they don't deserve it.

I guess you have never heard of tough love, or being an enabler.

I find your approach to things sad in most people, but especially sad in someone who supposedly is a follower of Jesus's teachings. Jesus wouldn't care why the person needed help. All he cared about was helping them. If someone asks for your coat, give them your tunic, too. You should either stop calling yourself a follower of him, or start abiding by his teachings.

This is a low blow even for you Matt. You know that I believe in charity and practice what I preach. I just don't believe the federal government is the best at helping people. So let me get this straight, you now see yourself not only as the person who teaches conservatives the error of their ways but also believe you stand in judgement of who is worthy of following Jesus as well?

 

[Troublemane]

I'd like to see support for the claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals...

Read this, you might find something of interest here.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Just a side note, regarding the OP...I think Obama has shown he can compromise quite well. He managed to give the conservatives a major ideological victory by keeping the Bush era tax cuts in place (the State-run media will no doubt try to call them the "Obama tax cuts" now LoL!), and in return the conservatives gave the liberals a couple minor victories...the 911 First Responders, the repeal of DADT, and the START Treaty.

OMG...except for the "state-run media" comment, we agree on something!

But by far the biggest change was this...Obama telling the Press he had changed his view, essentially. He seems to have realized that it isnt the Dems or the Reps who are "driving the car", its the American People. If this is his genuine view, and he has really taken it to heart , I have to say I am quite impressed. We will see if this really changes how he runs things. If he will try to be an actual leader, no longer a "ruler".

To each his own. I think Obama had his reasons for getting all that legislation through the lame-duck session.

Troublemane, we just don't get it. It was not explained well enough to us or we are too stupid to understand. We don't deserve to have more than anyone else even if we make good life decisions and work harder or smarter. The government allows us to have what we have and we should be thankful they don't swoop in and confiscate our possessions for the greater good.

We cannot be trusted to do the right thing and participate in charities. We should succumb to the will of the people that want to be generous with other people's money.

Once we understand this basic principle and share what we have with all the American people, we should ignore that our borders are unsecured and our collective wealth is being diluted with additional people who come here with nothing.

Never mind the fact that some folks are beyond help and would waste any bounty we bestowed upon them. We should continue to fund their wasteful ways and refrain from even suggesting they get their act together.

We just don't understand that we should live in a world where people are allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences.

My problem with Liberals are, they never have seen a dollar they did not want to spend on something. They often ask us why we need so much money? It is like they can't understand the peace of mind one has when they have money put back for a rainy day. They don't understand the importance of food storage or raising and canning your own food.

It is not about income either. It has always been about living below your means and saving and investing. People often say they cannot afford to save and invest. I say you cannot afford not to.

These same people go to the movies every weekend and have smart phones in their pocket. They wear designer clothes and go out to eat.

Just in case you've forgotten.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how many people who cite a graph like that understand what phase lag is?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I wonder how many people who cite a graph like that understand what phase lag is?

Not sure we all do. Could you please explain?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure we all do. Could you please explain?

Influences acting upon a cyclic phenomenon actually lead the results. Delayed response is called phase lag.
Example:
The more sunlight falling on Revoltistan, the warmer it gets. But temperature reaches its maximum a month or so after the longest day.
This is because even as the days begin to shorten, we're still accumulating heat after a winter of cooler temperatures. Other systems (eg,
politics, economics, mechanical & electrical systems) behave similarly, so one must be careful about establishing cause & effect correlations.

 

[Apex]

I wonder how many people who cite a graph like that understand what phase lag is?

Or a lack of a sufficient number of data points.