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.
Please state where I said ANYTHING about the government enacting this as public policy? If anything I want the government LESS involved in our daily lives, not more of it! It's called at some point using personal accountability! Or has personal responsibility and accountability something that we've become allergic to in this country? "Oops I f***** up numerous times and made several poor choices! But gimme gimme gimme, because SOMEBODY has to pay for it!" Same with the bailouts that Bush started, and Obama continued! Sure let's reward the big banks with billions of dollars for their poor business decisions and the Wall Street hacks who gambled with our money! Let's give them MORE money and golden parachutes at the expense of the taxpayers! Wow! That was a brilliant idea!
If you just want to hate fictional women or complete strangers and aren't advocating public policy based on that nonsense, then I don't care to discuss your fiction.
I thought you were interested in policy being enacted on the basis of your fictional beliefs about the lives of complete strangers.
I'd rather spend the money on helping them not get pregnant which is rather cheap than later on down the road having to pay for the kids education, health insurance, and general well being. For someone and I'm not just talking about you btw but for someone who does not like welfare than why not encourage more people to practice safe sex and make things easier for them to get a hold of contraceptives? I would much rather me pay for a condom or a birth control pill then the women/lady/girl have a kid and give it up for adoption considering our foster care system is garbage and most who go in end up coming out deeply troubled and later on from there end up being an even larger burden on us when they end up entering juvy or prison.
I'm not totally against the idea by any means. But what really needs to happen is the restoration of the family unit. Not to mention a little common sense. The parents play a huge roll in instilling morals into their children and teaching them to do the right thing. Does it always work? Of course not. But, you cannot argue that the family unit in this country has suffered. As I've said many times before, I have no problem helping those who are struggling, but they have to want to help themselves.
Why is it called stealing when rich people are taxed but it's called having skin in the game when poor people are taxed?
Why is it called a loophole when a rich person takes advantage of it but it's called gaming the system when a poor person does it. Why do they say good for him when the rich person does it but they say he should be prosecuted when a poor person does it?
Why is it ok for the company to want as much money as they can get but if the unions wants a raise they're accused of being greedy?
Your first and last questions are worthy of discussion. Those in the middle are just completely unrelated to reality. "Loopholes for the rich are NEVER called "gaming the system" when a poor person "does it" poor people generally don’t even come close to paying taxes. In fact, they receive more back from their return than they pay in thru the years. You have made a false accusation.
No one ever suggests illegal behavior is "good" when rich people do it. That is silly nonsense. In fact most liberals point to poverty is the sacred reason why people illegally come to this country and they suggest this is proper behavior. Stop telling stories.
Now for point one. When taxes on the rich exceed their share of the total income earned in the country, they are paying above their fair share. When those same taxes are proposed to be raised, it seems reasonable to me that the suggestion that they are being taken advantage of (stolen from) is a reasonable claim. This happens to be the case. It has been discussed here ad nausium. (Even if I can’t spell ad nausium).
The "skin in the game" reference refers to the FACT that over half of Americans don’t pay taxes and nearly half of Americans receive a tax return check that is greater than the amount they paid into the system. Suggesting they pay something only indicates a desire to insure that everyone has a stake in the well-being of the country and that we do not develop a "they owe me" attitude that will cripple our nation. Skin in the game is an honest way of suggesting we all (even the poorest among us) benefit from being Americans and we all need to be invested.
As for unions and businesses, this is simple. Businesses are in the business of maximizing profits for their shareholders. Unions are in the business of maximizing benefits for their members.
The benefits of the union members cut into the profits of the shareholders therefore the nature of the relationship is adversarial. But just as people like me will accuse the union of being greedy and suggest the business justified in making as much profit as it can, people like you will suggest the business is greedy and the union is justified in maximizing the benefits of its members. This is certainly a two way street. This question smack of hypocrisy.
Why is it called stealing when rich people are taxed but it's called having skin in the game when poor people are taxed?
Because skin in the game involves paying 1% tax while stealing involves paying 40% tax.
Quote:
Why is it called a loophole when a rich person takes advantage of it but it's called gaming the system when a poor person does it.
It isn't. The terms do not refer to the same behavior.
Quote:
Why do they say good for him when the rich person does it but they say he should be prosecuted when a poor person does it?
I don't, and neither does any conservative I know. But in keeping with the liberal narrative that we want to make the rich richer and hate the poor, liberals ascribe things to us that we do not actually believe.
Many of the common beliefs about conservatives are in this category. They do not actually come from conservatives themselves. They come from liberals describing conservatives, and doing it in a biased manner.
Quote:
Why is it ok for the company to want as much money as they can get but if the unions wants a raise they're accused of being greedy?
For the company, because the purpose of a company is to generate a profit. Businesses aren't charities. If it doesn't make enough money, it can't expand. And if it loses money, it will go bankrupt.
For the union in the private sector, because everyone's job relies on the company being successful. And it isn't a problem with wanting a raise. The problem is with extorting a raise that the company cannot afford, making the company less competitive in the marketplace, preventing the company from expanding and creating new jobs, and making the company's products and services cost more for lower quality. See Hostess. See GM.
For the union in the public sector, the union simply shouldn't exist at all. The public sector is not an appropriate place for unions. For two reasons. First, the people determining the wages and benefits for people in the public sector are often elected officials. Unions make contributions to political campaigns. This makes it legal for the union to bribe the official with campaign contributions to agree to whatever they ask for. Second, the money being paid to public sector employees is tax money, not company money. The "company" is a government department that isn't in a competitive marketplace and the "owners" are the taxpayers themselves, who have to foot the bill but don't have input into the negotiations. So while the government official doing the bargaining has a duty to those taxpayers to make the best use of their money possible, almost all of the usual pressures on a manager to actually perform that duty are absent.
The fact that unions in the public sector are a bad idea used to be acknowledged by both Republicans and Democrats. However, JFK issued an executive order allowing them, they started contributing to the Democrat party, and Democrats have been protecting them ever since, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest inherent in them. Democrats elected by the people to represent the people, end up using the peoples' tax money to give public sector unions more pay and more benefits than the people who pay those taxes get themselves.
If you just want to hate fictional women or complete strangers and aren't advocating public policy based on that nonsense, then I don't care to discuss your fiction.
I thought you were interested in policy being enacted on the basis of your fictional beliefs about the lives of complete strangers.
Stop playing by the typical liberal playbook with hyperbole, deflection, insults and twisting words! Do you or do you not deny that this is happening everyday in this country?
I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you and is automatically racist, hates women, hates gays, and by golly must be a Republican! Well guess what, I am not a Republican anymore than I am a Democrat, and in fact despise them for the damage that BOTH of them have caused this country, along with their corporate cronies!
You're missing the point. Why shouldn't people bear the consequences of their own irresponsibility?
How don't they? Oh based on your ignorant opinion about the lives of complete strangers? LOL.
conservatives continue to have hateful feelings about the lives fictional people or complete strangers and want the government to legislate on that basis. Pathetic
what they should do is one flat tax across the board for everyone, including illegals....it is high time they to start paying their fair share....
but one flat tax for everyone, and a government that knows what they are doing, and how to financially stop pork barrel spending....
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.
Or has personal responsibility and accountability something that we've become allergic to in this country? "Oops I f***** up numerous times and made several poor choices! But gimme gimme gimme, because SOMEBODY has to pay for it!" Same with the bailouts that Bush started, and Obama continued! Sure let's reward the big banks with billions of dollars for their poor business decisions and the Wall Street hacks who gambled with our money! Let's give them MORE money and golden parachutes at the expense of the taxpayers! Wow! That was a brilliant idea!
Well guess what, I am not a Republican anymore than I am a Democrat, and in fact despise them for the damage that BOTH of them have caused this country, along with their corporate cronies!
