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.
Pedophilia and going to college are TWO different things. Please do try to keep up.
We're not discussing college. We're discussing ILLEGALS going to college. Pedophilia and entering this country without proper documentation are both crimes. Saying it over and over that IF things were different, they would be citizens doesn't change the fact that they are criminals.
DREAM act will never pass. Which is why this president is resorting to backdoor amnesty, by not enforcing laws on the books with regards to illegals.
It's night time in Seoul...technically 12:26 in the AM. Regardless, I glanced at your post. As most far right post it glosses over history and paints a nostalgic and myopic view of America. Not only that it glosses over current events to state that privatization and deregulation are best (which really caused this crisis as well as the 1920s crisis...also many environmental crises).
That's good that you were able to open up a business at 20. I was busy working trying to finance my college and pay credit cards down since I had to buy, yet another $200 book for the quarter. Do you know why? Because the Republican governor of my state decided that we needed to keep non violent prisoners in jail but cut funding to the UC system. That in turn led to a billion dollar deficit in the nation's largest top tier public school system. Well, that raised tuition. It wouldn't have been too bad if I weren't paid only $8 an hr.
Elite school districts have, on the whole more funding. They even, on the whole, pay teachers more (thus you start off in a poor district and leave once an opening pops up...so you siphon off experienced teachers to better districts...my dad was constantly told he was crazy not to take a job in a better district).
I didn't have time to self study and needed a crash course. Do you know why? Well, admissions are HARDER now. So in order to save up for college you need a job in high school (but not one that consumes too much time) I needed a job that allows me to do volunteer work, track, student government, advanced Biology after school, and chemistry. I would wake up at 5 and go to sleep by 1 or 2 in order to make it into a top school. If my parents were rich and went to an ivy league, I would pull a GWB instead.
Our system is not equal. Go to an inner city school. Check out their textbooks. Check out tutoring opportunities. Hell, find out which schools still have asbestos. My friend's science project was determining radioactivity in schools. Realize that the parents are generally working LONGER hours for less pay.
Your side sees the minority of people who take advantage of the system. Our sees the majority being taken advantaged by the system.
Why can't government be for the people? A government for people, by the people.
Nobody wants to do away with capitalism. It works, but it needs to be regulated so that we don't have a fascist oligarchical society.
Can't you accomplish more when 300 million people are working together on the same goal as opposed to a few disparate charities?
Geez, I was waiting for the "but it's so hard" lament, and you didn't disappoint.
Always excuses, and never seeing that the "can't do" attitude will always hold you down. I didn't have time. It was HARDER. Nope, you just didn't prioritize correctly.
Hello Calibro, I appreciate your detailed reply and am enjoying this debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
It's night time in Seoul...technically 12:26 in the AM. Regardless, I glanced at your post. As most far right post it glosses over history and paints a nostalgic and myopic view of America. Not only that it glosses over current events to state that privatization and deregulation are best (which really caused this crisis as well as the 1920s crisis...also many environmental crises).
What's ironic is that you label my post as far right, even though I obviously prefer individual states to choose their own destiny. That means I'm FOR your system if your fellow citizens choose it!
For example, I am completely for a state like California passing single payer health care, high taxes on the rich, large social safety nets, and any other policies typically determined "socialist". In fact, I don't even care if California went completely communist if all citizens wanted it, as long as they don't impose their Communism on other states and allow citizens to leave the state peacefully if they don't agree with the system. I don't agree with Communism, but I wouldn't impose my views on other people who want that type of government.
How is that not open minded to both sides, compared to your preference of making us ALL have to accept the same kind of government?
I am strongly against many far right policies, especially social policies. I am more libertarian than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
That's good that you were able to open up a business at 20. I was busy working trying to finance my college and pay credit cards down since I had to buy, yet another $200 book for the quarter. Do you know why? Because the Republican governor of my state decided that we needed to keep non violent prisoners in jail but cut funding to the UC system. That in turn led to a billion dollar deficit in the nation's largest top tier public school system. Well, that raised tuition. It wouldn't have been too bad if I weren't paid only $8 an hr.
Your situation is yet another example of why you should advocate voting with your feet or organizing for a mutually agreed change within your own state. If I were in your situation and it was too much to handle, I would move to another state / college that was more affordable or I'd lobby for citizens to agree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Elite school districts have, on the whole more funding. They even, on the whole, pay teachers more (thus you start off in a poor district and leave once an opening pops up...so you siphon off experienced teachers to better districts...my dad was constantly told he was crazy not to take a job in a better district).
I've already given you the DC public schools highest funding in the nation as an example of why more money doesn't work. Bad parenting and bad policies are the issue, which runs away good teachers since they don't want to deal with the discipline problems, unhelpful parents and red tape. I would leave too if the system blamed me for low scores of students who don't want to be educated, and parents/administration don't enforce it.
You will never be able to make all school districts 100% equal unless you allow kids to register at any school. Elite school districts will always outspend through voluntary donations if government money decreases and is moved to poorer ones. They will always out-parent those districts because they will make their kids do their homework and behave in class. The result of these policies is a liberal consequence, not a conservative one. Here are a few examples:
-If school districts didn't restrict poor kids to the local low-performing school, they could transfer to a better one outside the neighborhood with better teachers. In that case there WOULD BE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY if good schools were required to accept students from any neighborhood.
-Bad teachers should be fired easily instead of protected by the teacher's union, instead of giving tenure that's not based on teaching ability.
-Good teachers should be paid more, based on merit, and paid a premium for teaching at a low-performing school (once discipline policy is reformed). That would attract more excellent teachers for poor and low-performing kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
I didn't have time to self study and needed a crash course. Do you know why? Well, admissions are HARDER now. So in order to save up for college you need a job in high school (but not one that consumes too much time) I needed a job that allows me to do volunteer work, track, student government, advanced Biology after school, and chemistry. I would wake up at 5 and go to sleep by 1 or 2 in order to make it into a top school. If my parents were rich and went to an ivy league, I would pull a GWB instead.
You don't HAVE to go to a top college. You could simply go to a good, yet affordable state school and still succeed in life. Going to a top college is a choice and you accept the consequences of that. There's also the option for elite grad school if you rise to the top in undergrad.
Also, you fail to acknowledge the prevalence of merit scholarships. Every year the top 20 students from my VERY low-performing high school obtain multiple offers for full scholarships. This is the worst school in my city and kids who work hard don't pay a cent for college. I was one of those kids. I didn't pay a cent for college, because I obtained a full academic scholarship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Our system is not equal. Go to an inner city school. Check out their textbooks. Check out tutoring opportunities. Hell, find out which schools still have asbestos. My friend's science project was determining radioactivity in schools. Realize that the parents are generally working LONGER hours for less pay.
Actually I DO visit those schools, including the horrible ones I attended. I know what they look like. I'm not saying these kids' situations aren't equal to elite kids. What I am saying is if you want to equalize it, don't FORCE people to pay for it, organize volunteers who want to pay and help, or advocate for it in a state where the citizens want to pony up more money.
The parents work longer hours for less pay because they CHOOSE to accept those jobs. If they didn't like their situation, they could change jobs, go to school at night or online, and move up to a better position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Your side sees the minority of people who take advantage of the system. Our sees the majority being taken advantaged by the system.
I do know that people ARE disadvantaged. My argument is NOT against them having help. My argument is for what kind of help they receive, based on what the helpers (the taxpayers) want. Your argument is to FORCE everyone to pay for the kind of help you want to give.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Why can't government be for the people? A government for people, by the people.
If the majority of the people in a state want to pay taxes for your solution, I'm fine with that. If the majority of the people want my solution, you are against that. Seems like I am for the people and you are only for the people who agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Nobody wants to do away with capitalism. It works, but it needs to be regulated so that we don't have a fascist oligarchical society.
Yes some people do want to do away with it, but they are a small minority and aren't relevant to the conversation. I feel you and I are debating what type of capitalism we should have. I choose the capitalism the citizens of a state choose to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Can't you accomplish more when 300 million people are working together on the same goal as opposed to a few disparate charities?
Yes I agree, but if it's being IMPOSED that's not freedom. If it's voluntary and everyone goes for your policies, I'm 100% fine with it. Even if I don't feel your means to the goal is the right one, I can still live with it if the citizens of my state choose higher taxes for it. Or, I would move. One can easily move to another state without anyone's approval. It's very difficult to move to another nation and we need Fed approval for a passport.
The ability of choice to reach our mutual goal of helping others is my primary argument here.
We're not discussing college. We're discussing ILLEGALS going to college. Pedophilia and entering this country without proper documentation are both crimes. Saying it over and over that IF things were different, they would be citizens doesn't change the fact that they are criminals.
DREAM act will never pass. Which is why this president is resorting to backdoor amnesty, by not enforcing laws on the books with regards to illegals.
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus.....
We were, ringwise, we were discussing about going to college. It's odd and really dumb comparing illegals wanting to go to college with pedophilia. I don't expect much from the extreme right nowadays regarding logic. (Comparing pedophilia with people wanting to go to college? That's the comparison you want to make? At what point did you stop and think that maybe that those two things are so dissimilar that they can't be comparable?)
DREAM act will NEVER pass? Now you're a fortune teller? I don't know if it will or won't but I would never make such bold declarations.
Hello Calibro, I appreciate your detailed reply and am enjoying this debate.
What's ironic is that you label my post as far right, even though I obviously prefer individual states to choose their own destiny. That means I'm FOR your system if your fellow citizens choose it!
For example, I am completely for a state like California passing single payer health care, high taxes on the rich, large social safety nets, and any other policies typically determined "socialist". In fact, I don't even care if California went completely communist if all citizens wanted it, as long as they don't impose their Communism on other states and allow citizens to leave the state peacefully if they don't agree with the system. I don't agree with Communism, but I wouldn't impose my views on other people who want that type of government.
How is that not open minded to both sides, compared to your preference of making us ALL have to accept the same kind of government?
I am strongly against many far right policies, especially social policies. I am more libertarian than anything else.
Your situation is yet another example of why you should advocate voting with your feet or organizing for a mutually agreed change within your own state. If I were in your situation and it was too much to handle, I would move to another state / college that was more affordable or I'd lobby for citizens to agree with me.
I've already given you the DC public schools highest funding in the nation as an example of why more money doesn't work. Bad parenting and bad policies are the issue, which runs away good teachers since they don't want to deal with the discipline problems, unhelpful parents and red tape. I would leave too if the system blamed me for low scores of students who don't want to be educated, and parents/administration don't enforce it.
You will never be able to make all school districts 100% equal unless you allow kids to register at any school. Elite school districts will always outspend through voluntary donations if government money decreases and is moved to poorer ones. They will always out-parent those districts because they will make their kids do their homework and behave in class. The result of these policies is a liberal consequence, not a conservative one. Here are a few examples:
-If school districts didn't restrict poor kids to the local low-performing school, they could transfer to a better one outside the neighborhood with better teachers. In that case there WOULD BE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY if good schools were required to accept students from any neighborhood.
-Bad teachers should be fired easily instead of protected by the teacher's union, instead of giving tenure that's not based on teaching ability.
-Good teachers should be paid more, based on merit, and paid a premium for teaching at a low-performing school (once discipline policy is reformed). That would attract more excellent teachers for poor and low-performing kids.
You don't HAVE to go to a top college. You could simply go to a good, yet affordable state school and still succeed in life. Going to a top college is a choice and you accept the consequences of that. There's also the option for elite grad school if you rise to the top in undergrad.
Also, you fail to acknowledge the prevalence of merit scholarships. Every year the top 20 students from my VERY low-performing high school obtain multiple offers for full scholarships. This is the worst school in my city and kids who work hard don't pay a cent for college. I was one of those kids. I didn't pay a cent for college, because I obtained a full academic scholarship.
Actually I DO visit those schools, including the horrible ones I attended. I know what they look like. I'm not saying these kids' situations aren't equal to elite kids. What I am saying is if you want to equalize it, don't FORCE people to pay for it, organize volunteers who want to pay and help, or advocate for it in a state where the citizens want to pony up more money.
The parents work longer hours for less pay because they CHOOSE to accept those jobs. If they didn't like their situation, they could change jobs, go to school at night or online, and move up to a better position.
I do know that people ARE disadvantaged. My argument is NOT against them having help. My argument is for what kind of help they receive, based on what the helpers (the taxpayers) want. Your argument is to FORCE everyone to pay for the kind of help you want to give.
If the majority of the people in a state want to pay taxes for your solution, I'm fine with that. If the majority of the people want my solution, you are against that. Seems like I am for the people and you are only for the people who agree with you.
Yes some people do want to do away with it, but they are a small minority and aren't relevant to the conversation. I feel you and I are debating what type of capitalism we should have. I choose the capitalism the citizens of a state choose to have.
Yes I agree, but if it's being IMPOSED that's not freedom. If it's voluntary and everyone goes for your policies, I'm 100% fine with it. Even if I don't feel your means to the goal is the right one, I can still live with it if the citizens of my state choose higher taxes for it. Or, I would move. One can easily move to another state without anyone's approval. It's very difficult to move to another nation and we need Fed approval for a passport.
The ability of choice to reach our mutual goal of helping others is my primary argument here.
Regardless, I appreciate the healthy debate!
Freedom I'm simply saying that sometimes states shouldn't choose their destinies. We've seen that during the civil rights era, slavery, and now with homosexual rights. Should we allow states to cut taxes on rich and raise taxes on the poor because people were misinformed and voted with their feet? I think that's wrong to disenfranchise a group of people because wealthy corporations scared people half to death, then claim it's okay because states right allow them to do so. It's morally dubious to me.
Of course some things should be left up to do the states, however, sometimes group think is too pervasive and different perspectives must be seen.
I'm simply saying that we VOTE for the kind of help as a NATION in order to have parity along geographic lines.
What wrong with that? States rights is a great excuse to disenfranchise...we've seen it time and time again (mostly from the right).
Sometimes there are valid arguments for states rights, usually not when it deals with social issues.
We were, ringwise, we were discussing about going to college. It's odd and really dumb comparing illegals wanting to go to college with pedophilia. I don't expect much from the extreme right nowadays regarding logic. (Comparing pedophilia with people wanting to go to college? That's the comparison you want to make? At what point did you stop and think that maybe that those two things are so dissimilar that they can't be comparable?)
DREAM act will NEVER pass? Now you're a fortune teller? I don't know if it will or won't but I would never make such bold declarations.
As I don't expect logic from the left. Constantly pretending that illegals going to college is just an "education issue", when it is a crime for them to be here in the first place is SOP. I get it. But you either don't, or pretend not to, understand. Let me go reeaalll slow for you here: I'm comparing criminals. That IS the comparison I am making. They are comparable, for purposes of the discussion. Would you rather I have used pot as an example? OK. If pot is legalized tomorrow, the people in jail for possession would still be criminals. There, work better for ya?
As I don't expect logic from the left. Constantly pretending that illegals going to college is just an "education issue", when it is a crime for them to be here in the first place is SOP. I get it. But you either don't, or pretend not to, understand. Let me go reeaalll slow for you here: I'm comparing criminals. That IS the comparison I am making. They are comparable, for purposes of the discussion. Would you rather I have used pot as an example? OK. If pot is legalized tomorrow, the people in jail for possession would still be criminals. There, work better for ya?
It is an education issue. Sorry, but again the fact you are using pedophilia shows that you're not willing to look at other perspectives in solving the problem.
I'm surprised. After all, isn't one of the definitions of conservative "unimaginative and dull"? Well, this post illustrates that point quite well.
I explained my position and showed that college attainment has an impact on unemployment as well as income. I would just rather have people who are here illegally be fully functioning members of society. I think that's better than the alternative.
No, not comparable since you're neglecting the fact that one you're denying the ability to earn more money and pay more taxes...whereas with pot you're denying the ability to get stoned.
Freedom I'm simply saying that sometimes states shouldn't choose their destinies. We've seen that during the civil rights era, slavery, and now with homosexual rights. Should we allow states to cut taxes on rich and raise taxes on the poor because people were misinformed and voted with their feet? I think that's wrong to disenfranchise a group of people because wealthy corporations scared people half to death, then claim it's okay because states right allow them to do so. It's morally dubious to me.
Of course some things should be left up to do the states, however, sometimes group think is too pervasive and different perspectives must be seen.
I'm simply saying that we VOTE for the kind of help as a NATION in order to have parity along geographic lines.
What wrong with that? States rights is a great excuse to disenfranchise...we've seen it time and time again (mostly from the right).
Sometimes there are valid arguments for states rights, usually not when it deals with social issues.
Good morning,
I agree with you about states not being in charge of Civil Rights, but Civil Rights have nothing to do with poor people or welfare. States were violating the Constitution, that is why the Civil Rights Acts needed to be passed. Being poor does not entitle one to anything in the Constitution. Poor people don't get lynched or discriminated against on the street due to their income status. Also, poor people can stop being poor and become middle class, unlike Black Americans who cannot change their skin color. If you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment that entitles poor people to some special status or redistribution, then you'll have a better argument when comparing redistribution to Civil Rights.
I agree with you on your tax point because I don't think anyone should pay a higher rate based on their income status. However, I'd love to see an example where taxes were "raised on the poor" and they were paying a higher tax rate or even a higher share of the taxes than higher earners. It seems all data shows higher income folks pay much more of the tax share. Poor people usually pay a lower rate, and I'd much rather see everyone pay a flat tax of the same rate.
In regards to social issues, I agree with you in theory, since I don't believe drugs or prostitution should be illegal even though I don't partake in either. But social welfare is a different story, people should decide if they want to provide it or deal with the negative consequences of not doing so. But it should not be up to one ideology to impose it on the entire nation. That's no different than us imposing our "democracy" on other nations around the world. Are you for that? (I'm not)
You can't claim the moral high ground here. Your theory is "tax cuts for the rich" means "tax increases on the poor". Ok, let's say we accept your theory. Are you saying poor people are BETTER than higher income people, hence they DESERVE the higher income folks' money? Let's take emotional examples like greedy Wall Street folks out of this temporarily. Let's consider someone who grew up poor, then worked hard without help to earn their income and didn't cheat anyone. Why do you want to redistribute that person's money? That makes you no better than the "raise taxes on the poor" side, just for a different party.
What makes your viewpoint more moral if you're against redistribution in one direction, while advocating for redistribution in the opposite direction?
This is why I say redistribution should be voluntary. There is no hypocrisy on either side, since the citizens consent to the redistribution.
I'm not calling you evil, I just want you to really think about this and take emotion out of the equation. You are really supporting the same thing you say you're against.
I agree with you about states not being in charge of Civil Rights, but Civil Rights have nothing to do with poor people or welfare. States were violating the Constitution, that is why the Civil Rights Acts needed to be passed. Being poor does not entitle one to anything in the Constitution. Poor people don't get lynched or discriminated against on the street due to their income status. Also, poor people can stop being poor and become middle class, unlike Black Americans who cannot change their skin color. If you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment that entitles poor people to some special status or redistribution, then you'll have a better argument when comparing redistribution to Civil Rights.
I agree with you on your tax point because I don't think anyone should pay a higher rate based on their income status. However, I'd love to see an example where taxes were "raised on the poor" and they were paying a higher tax rate or even a higher share of the taxes than higher earners. It seems all data shows higher income folks pay much more of the tax share. Poor people usually pay a lower rate, and I'd much rather see everyone pay a flat tax of the same rate.
In regards to social issues, I agree with you in theory, since I don't believe drugs or prostitution should be illegal even though I don't partake in either. But social welfare is a different story, people should decide if they want to provide it or deal with the negative consequences of not doing so. But it should not be up to one ideology to impose it on the entire nation. That's no different than us imposing our "democracy" on other nations around the world. Are you for that? (I'm not)
You can't claim the moral high ground here. Your theory is "tax cuts for the rich" means "tax increases on the poor". Ok, let's say we accept your theory. Are you saying poor people are BETTER than higher income people, hence they DESERVE the higher income folks' money? Let's take emotional examples like greedy Wall Street folks out of this temporarily. Let's consider someone who grew up poor, then worked hard without help to earn their income and didn't cheat anyone. Why do you want to redistribute that person's money? That makes you no better than the "raise taxes on the poor" side, just for a different party.
What makes your viewpoint more moral if you're against redistribution in one direction, while advocating for redistribution in the opposite direction?
This is why I say redistribution should be voluntary. There is no hypocrisy on either side, since the citizens consent to the redistribution.
I'm not calling you evil, I just want you to really think about this and take emotion out of the equation. You are really supporting the same thing you say you're against.
I'm simply saying the right has a had a horrible track record with social issues. That's all my point was. State rights sometimes have led to poor decisions...I used the civil rights issue as an example. I have NO clue how you did not get that.
The poor do not have the same opportunities to become richer. I like whole boots straps narrative. It's a cute story. I wish it were real. Just like Santa Claus. The truth is that VERY few people who work hard escape poverty. Most who work hard stay poor. It's because they do not have the same opportunities as the rich.
I just don't think we should raise taxes on the poor while cutting taxes on the rich who have gotten collectively richer. The poor have collectively gotten poorer. Is that the segment of the population we should focus on when trying to balance the budget? BTW, it's not a theory...there have proposals for that in OH for example. The federal government stepped in and said that seeing how the poor have collective lost income and have gotten poorer whereas the rich have gotten rich...it's not morally right. A flat tax would not solve the problem. In fact, it would mean that the poor would pay a higher percentage since they consume a higher percentage towards consumer goods.
It is quite different than imposing democracy around the world. First off, states are not sovereign nations. They are bound to the federation. So saying that states should adhere to certain standards is nowhere close to imposing democracy in a sovereign nation.
Helping those that have been screwed is morally better than helping those have done the screwing.
The rich will still have their wealth. In fact, they could become wealthier since they would enable more people to join the ranks of the middle class and thus consume more products.
I don't think that you are in a position to call out emotion when your argument is comparing erasing the wealth gap and invading sovereign nations.
Look, the right really wants to protect the interests of the wealthy only. That's pretty much what the recent budget proposals have signaled.
I'm simply saying the right has a had a horrible track record with social issues. That's all my point was. State rights sometimes have led to poor decisions...I used the civil rights issue as an example. I have NO clue how you did not get that.
I did get what you were saying and I agree on the track record! I simply don't agree that poverty and civil rights are the same and I gave a few examples why. One can't hide or change skin color, and people don't get lynched because of poverty status. I also said that states were violating the Constitution aka, violating federal law when denying Civil Rights. If poverty status was added to the Constitution you would have a valid comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
The poor do not have the same opportunities to become richer. I like whole boots straps narrative. It's a cute story. I wish it were real. Just like Santa Claus. The truth is that VERY few people who work hard escape poverty. Most who work hard stay poor. It's because they do not have the same opportunities as the rich.
That "cute story" is my story. Most people who do not believe the poor can raise themselves up did not grow up poor. Even when I was younger, people could generally tell who would leave the projects and succeed, and who would be left behind and stay in poverty. As I see old classmates on the internet and their current lives, that has generally matched with few exceptions.
What was the difference? The ones who are still poor were not motivated in school, had bad parenting and didn't overcome it (not the fault of rich folks or something they can solve without taking the kids away), or embraced the hood lifestyle at a young age. The ones who are doing well now stayed away from bad influences or rejected it at a young age, even when it was inside their household.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
I just don't think we should raise taxes on the poor while cutting taxes on the rich who have gotten collectively richer. The poor have collectively gotten poorer. Is that the segment of the population we should focus on when trying to balance the budget? BTW, it's not a theory...there have proposals for that in OH for example. The federal government stepped in and said that seeing how the poor have collective lost income and have gotten poorer whereas the rich have gotten rich...it's not morally right. A flat tax would not solve the problem. In fact, it would mean that the poor would pay a higher percentage since they consume a higher percentage towards consumer goods.
You're going to have to show me where tax rates are going up on the poor before I can accept your argument. Also, you're going to have to counter the fact that most people under a certain income receive a check for more than they put in every year, including federal taxes and social security/medicare (FICA) contributions. So how are poor people being affected when the "rich" obtain tax cuts if they have a net profit from the tax system?
I see a flat tax as a fairer system since everyone pays the same rate. Why shouldn't it be the same? the rich DO pay more under that system and there's no loopholes. Using your logic, we should make sales taxes and gas taxes lower for the poor too since it consumes a higher percentage of their income. Or do you accept those forms of flat taxation as fair? There's really not much of a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
It is quite different than imposing democracy around the world. First off, states are not sovereign nations. They are bound to the federation. So saying that states should adhere to certain standards is nowhere close to imposing democracy in a sovereign nation.
States are only bound to federation based on what is in the Constitution. See the Tenth Amendment. Notice that welfare is distributed on the state level, which support my argument that it is a state issue, sovereign or not. The only reason it is more uniform is because the fed government gives states their money back and attaches strings. Giving states their money back, with attached strings are a form of imposing. A more efficient system would be to reduce federal taxes for federal issue and let states raise taxes to cover their own welfare systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Helping those that have been screwed is morally better than helping those have done the screwing.
You are framing your argument as if only rich people screw poor people and poor people never screw taxpayers through crimes and welfare fraud. Most of the time, they don't even intersect, since we are talking about poor people accepting welfare from the government who live far away from high earners and most likely don't work for or interact with them.
Fact is, both poor and rich have good and bad actors. I'm against anyone riding the system. If I were in charge, I'd get rid of corporate welfare and tax loopholes for them and others.
Many on this forum have given examples of how many poor screw the system. I lived among many growing up, especially women who received government help and housing for themselves and children, while the fathers made good money working and lived/ate for free. If they were married, they would not have qualified. I don't even need to get into more examples because they are easy to find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
The rich will still have their wealth. In fact, they could become wealthier since they would enable more people to join the ranks of the middle class and thus consume more products.
It's possible, but with higher federal tax rates needed to implement your plan, it's also possible the wealthy will work hard to hide, reduce and shelter their income or invest overseas. Study tax history and see how many people were in the highest tax bracket the year before and after taxe rates were lowered. It's amazing how so many top bracket folks appeared out of thin air.
Either way, you speak of wealth, but we don't have a wealth tax outside of the estate tax. The people who really get hosed are high income earners who aren't necessarily wealthy or rich. It's possible to be a millionaire and earn $30,000 a year from your investments, shelter the rest offshore, and get taxed at a lower rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
I don't think that you are in a position to call out emotion when your argument is comparing erasing the wealth gap and invading sovereign nations.
I was using the comparison for imposing values on others, since many on your ideological side are against imposing our values on other nations. I was hoping you could see the comparison and understand why not everyone accepts your method. That's not emotion, it's simple analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
Look, the right really wants to protect the interests of the wealthy only. That's pretty much what the recent budget proposals have signaled.
You are right. That is yet another reason why I'm not "the right", I am primarily libertarian and concerned with individuals, unless groups are being discriminated against.
Last edited by Freedom123; 04-27-2011 at 12:19 PM..
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.
