Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Summer, my time of year"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
9,401 posts, read 20,920,611 times
Reputation: 10067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaparral
These twelve words pretty much summarize the kind of thinking that has neutered much of what has previously made this country great.
It makes me sad to hear them spoken by a member of the upcoming generation, who seem all to often willing to trade their essential God-given liberties for an illusion of safety or "protection".
Chap
I agree completely, and the worst part is that the politicians that are currently holding office are too willing to comply, because what they are really after is iron-fisted power. They acquire it through people in the general population who are willing to acquiese to them: they have a Pavlovian attachment to a system of government that is top-down authoritative, and seeks to divide people by race, gender and income. I never want to be included in that arena but it seems as though I am in a minority.
I agree completely, and the worst part is that the politicians that are currently holding office are too willing to comply, because what they are really after is iron-fisted power. They acquire it through people in the general population who are willing to acquiese to them: they have a Pavlovian attachment to a system of government that is top-down authoritative, and seeks to divide people by race, gender and income. I never want to be included in that arena but it seems as though I am in a minority.
Whoa, Nellie. When JBM made that statement ("I would rather be protected by the state than be left alone") I believe it was in the context of same-sex marriage. She would rather the state recognize and protect such marriages and accord the same rights and responsibilities to individuals who enter into those marriages as it does traditional marriages, rather than let them remain unrecognized ("left alone"). So if you object to this kind of involvement by the state, are you saying that NO marriages should be recognized by the state? (apologies to JBM if I've misconstrued). Is marriage part of the "top-down authoritative" system of government you're talking about?
Status:
"Summer, my time of year"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
9,401 posts, read 20,920,611 times
Reputation: 10067
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
Whoa, Nellie. When JBM made that statement ("I would rather be protected by the state than be left alone") I believe it was in the context of same-sex marriage. She would rather the state recognize and protect such marriages and accord the same rights and responsibilities to individuals who enter into those marriages as it does traditional marriages, rather than let them remain unrecognized ("left alone"). So if you object to this kind of involvement by the state, are you saying that NO marriages should be recognized by the state? (apologies to JBM if I've misconstrued). Is marriage part of the "top-down authoritative" system of government you're talking about?
Same sex marriages and other social topics in this vein are what I refer to as "horse$hit issues" or ones that impact a very small portion of the population. They are of little interest to me, or the general population, and I think are intended by the hard left as distractions to what the more mass impacting issues are, which are issues of taxation, those that impact the masses. That is where my passion lies. I want the state to leave me alone, leave my pocketbook alone. I pay enough in taxes, and have no desire to be taxed any longer. I have no issue with same sex marriages, it's not important to me. Once again, the left uses these issues as distractions, because the real campaign is on how much money we are allowed to keep, how much private property we can acquire and desire, through hard work. I am interested in retaining as much of that as possible. So, too, are most people. Not nearly as many care about the issue of same sex marriages.
Same sex marriages and other social topics in this vein are what I refer to as "horse$hit issues" or ones that impact a very small portion of the population. They are of little interest to me, or the general population, and I think are intended by the hard left as distractions to what the more mass impacting issues are, which are issues of taxation, those that impact the masses. That is where my passion lies. I want the state to leave me alone, leave my pocketbook alone. I pay enough in taxes, and have no desire to be taxed any longer. I have no issue with same sex marriages, it's not important to me. Once again, the left uses these issues as distractions, because the real campaign is on how much money we are allowed to keep, how much private property we can acquire and desire, through hard work. I am interested in retaining as much of that as possible. So, too, are most people. Not nearly as many care about the issue of same sex marriages.
So, don't rant on someone's statement on same-sex marriage if it's "of little interest" to you. I think we already know where you stand on taxes.
I would support abolishing taxes for 90% of the population, and taxing only the wealthiest 10%. It ain't gonna happen.
Status:
"Summer, my time of year"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
9,401 posts, read 20,920,611 times
Reputation: 10067
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
So, don't rant on someone's statement on same-sex marriage if it's "of little interest" to you. I think we already know where you stand on taxes.
I would support abolishing taxes for 90% of the population, and taxing only the wealthiest 10%. It ain't gonna happen.
I think the question should be asked of JBM, then. My interpretation was that JBM wanted to be protected by the state, in general. I will amend my position as well: I would like to be protected by the state as well, when it comes to the presence of law enforcement and national defense. When it comes to everything else, however, such as free flow of commerce, and taxation, I want the state out of it. I think that position, incidentally, is consistent with the Constitution.
I would support abolishing taxes for 90% of the population, and taxing only the wealthiest 10%.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. We're well on our way to your utopia (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 - broken link).
At this point in time, almost half (47%) of US "taxpayers" pay no taxes or actually receive back more than they pay in. The top 10% pay 73% of all income taxes collected.
BTW, a fairly large chunk of that top 10% is made up of small local business owners/sole proprietors, not the wealthy fat-cats lighting cigars with $100 bills that some may try to portray them as. In other words, the same folks from whom you would like to bleed even more money are the same ones that most "progressive" types purport to support.
Kinda hard to keep people in your employ, or even stay in business, with Uncle Sam's hand digging ever deeper into your pocket.
So, don't rant on someone's statement on same-sex marriage if it's "of little interest" to you. I think we already know where you stand on taxes.
I would support abolishing taxes for 90% of the population, and taxing only the wealthiest 10%. It ain't gonna happen.
and why should the top pay all the taxes? Isn't that socialistic or is it communistic?
I am always amazed at those who say "hey you out there, you workied hard for your education and you worked hard to succeed in life now it is time to give it to those who have chosen to sit on their butts and do nothing. " Even more, what about those who worked hard to build a small business, just to be taxed out of business?
Status:
"Summer, my time of year"
(set 8 days ago)
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
9,401 posts, read 20,920,611 times
Reputation: 10067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaparral
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. We're well on our way to your utopia (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 - broken link).
At this point in time, almost half (47%) of US "taxpayers" pay no taxes or actually receive back more than they pay in. The top 10% pay 73% of all income taxes collected.
BTW, a fairly large chunk of that top 10% is made up of small local business owners/sole proprietors, not the wealthy fat-cats lighting cigars with $100 bills that some may try to portray them as. In other words, the same folks from whom you would like to bleed even more money are the same ones that most "progressive" types purport to support.
Kinda hard to keep people in your employ, or even stay in business, with Uncle Sam's hand digging ever deeper into your pocket.
Chap
The Democrat Party would love to get that percentage that pay nothing up to 51%.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. We're well on our way to your utopia (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 - broken link).
At this point in time, almost half (47%) of US "taxpayers" pay no taxes or actually receive back more than they pay in. The top 10% pay 73% of all income taxes collected.
BTW, a fairly large chunk of that top 10% is made up of small local business owners/sole proprietors, not the wealthy fat-cats lighting cigars with $100 bills that some may try to portray them as. In other words, the same folks from whom you would like to bleed even more money are the same ones that most "progressive" types purport to support.
Kinda hard to keep people in your employ, or even stay in business, with Uncle Sam's hand digging ever deeper into your pocket.
Chap
Heard it ALL before. Oh, the poor rich people!!! If you don't like taxing the top 10%, then make it the top 2%.
The wealthy liberals I know are proud to pay their taxes and give back.
And I'm really glad my elderly mother and her friends in assisted living are part of the 47% who are not paying taxes. That's right, Nita, mostly they sit on their butts doing nothing, in between eating and playing bingo. She gets to deduct the cost of her assistance with ADL's (activities of daily living) and a portion of her rent, effectively canceling out her taxes. Really, I think it's the people who have the hardest jobs who make the least money. A lot of the wealthy have inherited money they didn't work for (an ex of mine falls into that category-- never had to hold down a job in his life, really put a strain on the relationship). "Behind every great fortune is a great crime," as the saying goes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
