General Music Chat

Don't worry about my spelling, punctuation and grammer,this isn't an essay.There's tasteful sarcasim,and then there's your stale annoying sarcasim.

I didn't claim that Canada is socialist,i simply said that Obama's Economic policies were simular too Canada's and other country's(informing you to stop calling his views socialist),so don't put words in mouth.

I suggested that your government(especially the rebublicans) have a fatal track record of wasting tax payers money,is that too confusing too comprehend?And for the record I didn't say you make me sick, just that typical narrow minded mentality(but your good for putting words in peoples mouths....McCain 08!!).

Checkout this link,actually read it..and not fabricate your own version,read about the differences between our economy's and social programe's,if you know how to read and absorb information,you will clearly see the obvious similarities that he wants to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_a ... s_compared

After reading that explain to me how when you call his policies socialism,your not calling mine and other country's socialist.

M

The tax breakdown comes from the National Taxpayers Union

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

It's a nonpartisan group, which advocates for taxpayers, and seeks to achieve goals like "A Balanced Budget Amendment" and our moving to a "flat tax" or "fair tax" system of taxation, etc...

Well I haven't checked the numbers, but my problem with the figures is that it breaks everything down by percentages based on categorical individual wealth. It doesn't state what that top 1 or 5% pay as a percentage of their earnings.

Keeping it simple:
If I make $100 and pay 27% in payroll taxes, then I'm paying $27.

If "Joe Billionaire" makes $1Bil and pays $27Mil in taxes, well, he's paid 99.999% of the national taxes collected compared to me, but in the end, he's only paid 2.7% of his earnings in actual taxes. Do you honestly believe he paid $270Mil in payroll taxes?

The bitch of it all is that he CAN afford to pay 27% far better than the bottom 5%, in fact, it wouldn't affect his lifestyle one bit. However, anyone in the bottom 5% can have their lives wrecked over a few hundred dollars.

What pisses me off is that everyone knows that when you have money, there's 1001 ways to shelter it from taxes. Accountants and lawyers wrote most of the laws governing it and have built in enough loopholes that even though "Joe Billionaire" paid $27Mil in taxes, he basically got away with a level of 'legal' tax evasion that "Joe Poor" never had a prayer of taking advantage of.

Stock dividends- They aren't taxed. Ever. Those corporate stockholders that CEO's make billions for never pay tax. But 401k owners, 'money market' gains on the exact same stocks, pay 100% taxes on not just the gains, but the principle invested as well (when it's cashed out, of course). Mutual funds are nothing more than bundled split share stocks. It's one of hundreds of examples of exactly how the top 5% keep getting richer while the bottom 5% keep getting poorer.

Kramer,


Income tax should not even exist. It is wrong.

You cannot tax "work".

Think about what taxes come from. When you make a "profit" on something, those earnings are taxed. There has been an "increase" in your "net worth" or "wealth".

There MUST be an increase to levee a tax on it.

Why?

Because if there is no increase in your money, then a tax, merely eats away at whatever holdings you have until it is all gone. If you take a chunk of something, and there is no replenishment, then little by little, it continues being reduced in size, until it is gone. Then what? Any rational being understands that everything would then be reduced to ZERO and it would mean the collapse of money or wealth in general.

So, clearly, a tax can only be levied on some INCREASE in monetary wealth or value. This way the government gets their share for our "common welfare" i.e roads and traffic lights and public works, etc...

So then, how can you tax "work"?

As proven, if you tax something where no increase exists, you are only reducing the end result to zero eventually.

When you WORK. There is NO INCREASE.

Someone is paying you for your work.

It is not an INCREASE, but an EQUAL TRADE.

You are TRADING your efforts that day, your work, and IN EXCHANGE, the person who is benefiting from your work, pays you a fee or salary.

It is a MUTUALLY EQUITABLE TRADE.

How do you tax an EQUAL trade?

For example...

If I paid 100 Dollars for a painting, and then sold it to someone else for the same 100 Dollars, then I got my money back in equal measure. I did not gain, and I did not lose. My net worth remained the same. It was an equal trade. However, if I was taxed for that exchange and paid 20 Dollars in taxes on the sale, then I have 80 Dollars left, and ended up decreasing my net worth by 20 Dollars. If I continued in that way, eventually I would go broke.

Phil,

We are getting into trouble in this conversation, because what we are discussing is all over the board.

When I speak of special measures to address institutional abuses, I am referring to things like blacks endured historically, from slavery to Jim Crow laws.

Those were INSTITUTIONAL abuses and required special measures to correct. These are not fixed through "honoring the individual", when the laws themselves REQUIRE that you be treated differently than others (i.e. Jim Crow laws, making segregation of "coloreds" from "whites" the law)

They required special measures. In that case, the special measures being the federal government passing laws, like the civil rights act, and then upholding it with force, which occurred when the National Guard was called up to defend a single little black girl trying to go to a white school, with that state's governor (Wallace) standing in the doorway to stop her.

Just as I said before, these were NOT fixable in the way you described.

As I said, what occurs historically, is that people are demeaned and belittled and made to be less than human, then blamed for our problems, which helps unite the haters as a group, and it becomes then, a cultural phenomenon.

In the case of civil rights, there were already plenty of laws (concerning individual rights) that could have applied to the crimes against blacks, but because this abuse was INSTITUTIONAL (I wish you would BREATH and really think this through for a second) Because the abuse was INSTITUTIONAL, it is then TOLERATED culturally. And those laws become meaningless, because the PEOPLE who are in this culturally entrenched institutional abuse, ignore them, or believe they apply to whites and not blacks. What do you do as a black person? Take the discriminating businesses to court? As you know, the cops were a part of this, the judges, just about everyone!

Once again, when abuses are institutionalized and then entrenched culturally, it then becomes A WAY OF LIFE for an entire community, or in this case, an entire region of the country! When something is a WAY OF LIFE, it is FAR MORE DIFFICULT to change this behavior. It is a part of culture now. The majority of the people are down with this, as are the cops and courts. That is in effect a whole society needing changing.

That was NOT going to be changed by trying to uphold individual rights.

It required NEW LAWS and then an OUTSIDE FORCE (Federal Government) to enforce these laws, in order to accomplish this.

Slavery was "completely" abolished in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

But Jim Crow laws were not done away with until 1965.

That's 100 years.

Because the abuses were institutionalized, even 100 years after the slaves were supposedly "freed", blacks in many states were STILL made to eat and drink in separate places. Still made to sit in the back of the bus. etc...


Now...


You say that it should be "individual" based, so that everything is equal, and we are not singling out any particular group, but you tell me, how do you protect these "individuals", through the law, WITHOUT mentioning "race"..

Explain that to me, cause it can't be done.



Hopefully you can see from above, that sometimes specific groups need specific protections, because they are being SPECIFICALLY targeted.


Protections are required for some disadvantage.


If you and I are equal, I can defend myself properly. I don't need protection.

I can protect myself.

If however, you CANNOT sufficiently protect yourself, then you are at a disadvantage and need some special protection to EVEN things out.

The Constitution makes provisions for a COMMON DEFENSE, because a family of five cannot defend themselves against some invading ARMY. So the government makes provisions for a military to meet the challenge, to even the odds, to allow for the possibility of SURVIVAL.

Similarly, when blacks were targeted AS A GROUP, and the community in power ALLOWED and even PROMOTED the abuses, then something has to make things right, to even the odds, to give them a FAIR CHANCE at success or advancement.

Nothing else is fair.

One group cannot be PURPOSEFULLY disadvantaged for the benefit of some other group.

The more laws we write to comfort these special interest groups,

More laws?

Not sure how we got here.

I posted an article that expressed that "all women are losers" when they tolerate abuses of ONE SINGLE woman, namely Palin, even if they disagree with her. Because NOT SAYING SOMETHING, NOT ADDRESSING IT, not only makes the other women complicit, but it is a stamp of approval from OTHER WOMEN that it is ok to call a woman the "C" word.


So, you jumped on the idea of grouping women together.

How about just respect for EVERYONE?

That solves the problem.

I pointed out that your strategy, while the sentiment may be right, in practical application, it will not work.

I pointed out a historical example of this: Slavery - Jim Crow.

Somehow you have taken all my points and turned them into a treatise on a culture of "victimization".

How did we get from REAL CRIMES and REAL ABUSES, to you going off about a culture of victimization?


As far as women go...


What is it you want me to address?

Can you repeat it for me?

I don't think I can read through 7 pages of this thread to remember.

Kramer,


I posted about why income tax is wrong, in general, but meant to point something else out...


You also said that you wanted to see whether Rich people were paying a higher PERCENTAGE RATE of their own income as poorer people.

The answer is yes.

Our tax rate rises as our incomes do, with some ceiling where it stops.

We have a progressive tax or graduated tax system here.

So, richer people DO pay a higher percentage of their OWN income than we do.

But...


They shouldn't have to.

That is wrong also.

What are taxes for?

They are collected to provide ALL OF US common services that are usually too large for individuals to accomplish.

For example, Bill Gates might be rich enough to create his own power plant for producing electricity for himself personally, but you and I aren't!

So collectively, we pay into a system as a GROUP, and receive SERVICES for these payments.

How is it fair that rich people pay such an inequitable percentage of taxes, when THEY DO NOT RECEIVE MORE SERVICES for their having paid a larger share.

In other words, as you read before, the top 1% of wealthy people pay 40% of the taxes in this country. But they do NOT receive 40% of the services in this country.

How is that right?

They tolerate it already, and yet Obama wants to charge them even more. This is evil, quite frankly. It is a policy of coveting. It isn't fair by any stretch of the imagination. It is coveting (wanting what someone else has, and looking for a chance to take it). He is eyeing a very attractive pile of SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY and he wants to get his hands on it.

Is that a moral value?

Looks like theft to me.

How can you justify what will happen in our court system if we continue these trends to write "specialty protection laws?"

What "specialty protection laws?" have I advocated?

How can you say that someone who performs a violent act against a woman is worthy of more punishment than one who hurts anyone else?

WTF? Who said that?

I never said anything like that.

How can you possibly justify protecting any one group over others?

What are you smoking bro?

I said that "special laws" are sometimes needed to protect disadvantaged groups. These laws (Civil Rights Act) are not protecting "one group OVER others", they are protecting "one group FROM another".


Our constitution promises us EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

When one group LORDS OVER another group, then that other group is DENYING them by FORCE their opportunity to pursue happiness.

You are twisting this into a debate over Affirmative Action or something. But I wasn't talking about affirmative action.

Somehow we crossed lines here.

We can discuss affirmative action if you want, but I was talking about basic human rights, like the issue of Slavery for example. Special laws were required to free slaves (Emancipation Proclamation) and then again to protect them from systemic abuses (Civil Rights Act).

Are you disagreeing with either of those examples of how one group merited special attention? If so, why?

Why do you seem to think it's so much worse for someone to call Palin the "c" word than to call Obama a "terrorist?"

I don't.

When did I condone Obama being called a terrorist?

your argument is based solely on your emotions concerning women's issues, & not anything at all that requires any action on the part of our law-makers.

I didn't recommend any changes in our laws.

Um...after bragging about his agreement with Bush over 90% of the time, more than any Republican, McCain himself tells me that he is promoting four more years of Bush-like rule.

Figures like this are misleading.

It sounds really damaging to say that McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. Without understanding this in more detail, some people would infer that this means that McCain supported 90% of Bush's policies throughout his administration. But this inference is incorrect.

The figure quoted so much is from 2007.

In THAT year, McCain voted in line with Bush 95% of the time.

Bush's presidency has been 8 years though, not one.

In 2005 McCain only voted 77% of the time in line with Bush, and only 67% of the time with his party.

Obama on the other hand, voted with his party 96% of the time, or more, EVERY YEAR he has been in the Senate.

btw...

Obama voted in line with Bush 40% of the time.

McCain has said on film that he voted with/for Bush (Bush's policies) 90% of the time.

The average over Bush's entire presidency would be less than that.

In the 80's

McCain voted MORE in line with Bush at the end of Bush's administration and LESS in line with him in the earlier part of Bush's Administration.


But none of that says what McCain will do when HE is president.

As Senator, all McCain can do is offer his own bills and vote in support of, or in opposition to, other Senator's bills.

But McCain cannot sign them and make them law, the President does that.

As President then, Bush signs Bills he agrees with, into Law.

Some he will sign, some he won't. McCain as president however, would have his own criteria for what he would or would not, sign into law.

McCain has been a tireless advocate for GOVERNMENT REFORM - CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, etc... etc...

But as only one Senator, out of 100, he has not had the support to get this done.

As president, he would be in a FAR MORE POWERFUL and PUBLIC position to get this done.

Not to mention that the mood of the country means that American Citizens themselves are FINALLY READY to reform government.

Who better to do that? When HE is the one who has worked so tirelessly for it? Sometimes you wonder whether a politician will really support the things he claims he will, once in office. Clearly that is not a question for McCain, since he has been an advocate of these reforms his entire career in politics.


Many Americans, are ignorant of all the nuances of Congressional workings.

This has often allowed Obama's people to basically lie about McCain's politics or beliefs. For example, let's say a bill was introduced to do something that seemed so great, maybe increase funding for some children-related issue. McCain votes against it.

The charge is then: "McCain voted against funding (whatever it is)! McCain is against children!"

What they may not tell you however, is...

McCain voted against the Bill because he had his own bill addressing the same issue, which he felt was better, because it was not loaded with PORK!

So he votes against the other plan, because he is trying to gain support for his own bill, which would address the same issue, while also saving the taxpayer additional millions of dollars in pork, that the original sponsors of the bill had snuck in there.

So, not only was McCain "FOR CHILDREN" but unlike the original bill's sponsors, he was also PROTECTING THE TAXPAYER!"

But they won't tell you that part.

They'll just repeat the slogan: "John McCain is against Children" and leave out the real reasons he may have voted against the bill.

That's politics. Happens all the time and is very dishonest.

McCain ends up voting against bills all the time if they are laden with pork. That is why, some, want to give the president the "Line Item Veto" power. Because then THE PRESIDENT could veto "parts" of a Bill and not have to trash the whole thing. This could avoid politicians sneaking in pork to some degree, because the president could then eliminate that one item, and still keep whatever benefit the bill was originally designed to do, in place.


But back to McCain being different than Bush...


I think McCain would be different from Bush in many respects.

McCain is a reformer.

He is a watchdog against pork spending.

McCain is also an opponent of corporate influence in the political process, which is why he wants to pass Campaign Finance Reform laws, so he can stop it.

McCain has been right, time and time again, over knowing which military strategies are sound and which ones are not. On this front alone, he has argued with George Bush's policies, and even Ronald Regan's, who McCain admired greatly. McCain ended up being right, and George Bush and Ronald Reagan were WRONG! This reveals a sharp instinct where military issues are concerned, and the President is Commander in Chief after all, so this is very important.

John McCain has far more character than George Bush or any of his opponents in this election.

McCain's character is really almost beyond reproach.

When a man has such strength of character that he is willing to die rather than betray it...

How do you not trust someone like that to be honest with you? To work for you? To keep your best interests at heart?

When a person has such character that he is willing to die rather than betray it, you need not fear, that this man has a secret selfish agenda he is hiding from everyone. That person is transparent where his country is concerned. He would not betray the very people he was willing to die for.

Trying to relate womens rights to the holocaust?
Woops...

tsk tsk tsk

The holocaust was used as an example of how a group dynamic allows people to do things they would not normally do.

There is a similar group dynamic going on with the Palin hatred.

The similarity of the two examples is of "group dynamic" and not "magnitude"

You don't honestly believe, that I think insulting Palin is on par with murdering 6 million people do you?

McCain voted against the GI bill. He threw veterans under the bus big time on that one.

He opposed the original version of this bill, because it created a new benefit that would allow state college tuition and a living stipend for veterans after only a few years in service.

This would create lower retention rates in the military.

That would be a big problem, because if someone joins the military and receives this huge benefit after only a few years of service, but then leaves the military too soon as a result, then someone else has to fill his shoes, and be trained and gain the experience the one leaving already had.

This would be WONDERFUL for someone in the military, on an individual level. Less service more benefits! But it would be HARMFUL to the military itself.

You want a reasonable retention rate, because the longer they stay in, the more experienced and qualified they are, and when the military is full of qualified people with experience, this is what makes us have an effective and capable defense force.

McCain favored a sliding scale system, so that your benefits increase the longer you stay in.

McCain agreed that the old G.I. Bill was insufficient, and needed an overhaul to keep pace with the costs of education today. The old (1984) G.I. Bill only pays $1100 per month for a maximum of 3 years toward school. This amount is not covering the cost of a college education in 2008. But the new Bill not only increased this benefit, so that state college as well as a living stipend are provided for, but it DECREASED the amount of time needing to be served to receive it.

So benefits are going WAY UP, but service to the military goes down.

Good trade?

Obama and the liberal media would have you believe that McCain does not support veterans.

But McCain wanted a balance between increasing support to veterans while not damaging the military as a result.

That makes more sense to me than what the Democrats were trying to do.

No, Craig. The mere fact that I can protect myself doesn't mean that the crime committed against me is any less offensive than for one who cannot. It is offensive. 'Nuff sed. It should be stopped if possible, or punished if it cannot be stopped, by an equal measure of law. You're willing to overlook the fact that, although I am a man, I actually may not be able to protect myself any better than your average woman or child or mentally challenged person. I may be of a religious persuasion that means that I cannot by my beliefs raise my hand to another. Or I may be ill or injured in ways that cannot be readily seen. Or I may be in a sad state of mental health or temporary mind-set that simply makes me desolve, to fall apart, when attacked, thus making self-protection impossible for me. There is no way to know by simply looking at a potential victim whether or not they can "handle" the situation. The mere fact that I am a man doesn't automatically mean that I am any more or less able to protect myself than anyone else, so don't give me that age-old silly argument that any crime against a woman is worse than one committed against a man. Aggression & harm hurt anyone they are perpetrated upon. And don't you DARE make punishments for aggression against me of lesser value than you would for any other citizen! That is simply unAmerican, at best. Are we not supposed to all be equal in the eyes of the law?

Now that we have all of these fine laws to protect ourselves from each other, let's simply enforce them, & do so equally across the board. A wife that slaps her husband is no worse & no better than a husband who slaps his wife. It is an act of aggression that hurts & humiliates another. If there is more damage by one or the other, that simply means that there should be greater restitution for the greater damage.

I would also challenge your evidently shared view with Helen Whatserface that the wearing of this shirt, or the allowance of same, will lead to more violence against women. I find that when anyone has such an axe to grind, it makes them naturally take the possible effects of such actions to far too great extents in their mind. Then of course they simply must get us all up in arms over their cause.

Sorry, but I won't jump on your bandwagon. If that makes me insensitive &/or sexist &/or to be of less worth as a human being in your mind, I can live with that.

You also said that you wanted to see whether Rich people were paying a higher PERCENTAGE RATE of their own income as poorer people.

The answer is yes.

Our tax rate rises as our incomes do, with some ceiling where it stops.

We have a progressive tax or graduated tax system here.

So, richer people DO pay a higher percentage of their OWN income than we do.

But...


They shouldn't have to.

I know what the progressive tax code means/is. You use the blanket statement that since it exists, rich people pay a far greater percent than poor people do. You failed to mention any of the variables such as tax shelters, loopholes, dividends, etc... and how they play into those percentages. The progressive tax code became completely negated at some point, and I'd bet if we could find some examples of corporate millionaires, I bet you will find many of them have found ways to legally shelter their money safely in various programs, investments, offshore accounts, etc..

The only ones who really seem to be unable to get around paying 100% taxes are the middle class, poor; Moviestars/entertainment folks, and lottery winners. Everyone else is in charge and livin large.

Trying to relate womens rights to the holocaust?
Woops...

tsk tsk tsk

The holocaust was used as an example of how a group dynamic allows people to do things they would not normally do.

There is a similar group dynamic going on with the Palin hatred.

The similarity of the two examples is of "group dynamic" and not "magnitude"

You don't honestly believe, that I think insulting Palin is on par with murdering 6 million people do you?

No.
That was just a terse, smarta$$ way of trying to point out to you... be cautious of reaching too far in an effort to make a point.


I got your point.

lol,Palin hatred groups? How about her respectable Racist Rallies?,now there's a group of people i'd love to support and be associated with,how much do you want to bet that The Phelps Family is ALLL for McCain/Palin?.Man American elections are worst then reality TV shows.lol