If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

[HomeAppraiser]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
The bolded parts are what HomeAppraiser chose to omit (probably because it directly contradicts his lies).

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

So, big whoop. The way resident Republicans scream that the rich pay all the taxes in the U.S. you would expect that to be closer to at least 50%.

I'm self employed so I am paying 43% of my income to the thieves.

Why does the VP only get to shell out 27% while little me has to pay so much more?

How is that right?

SAME HERE! Feds, State and FICO = 40% of my AGI!

Plus all of the unseen taxes that REALLY hit us working folks, like taxes on gas and beer so our actually total tax is near half of our income. No sales tax here in Oregon.

jrenz I did not copy the whole page to save space. But, just think what would happen if the news broke that Cheney made this huge profit from of the blood of our wounded and killed sons in Iraq? That is why he HAD to give it away!

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
The bolded parts are what HomeAppraiser chose to omit (probably because it directly contradicts his lies).

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

So, big whoop. The way resident Republicans scream that the rich pay all the taxes in the U.S. you would expect that to be closer to at least 50%.

I'm self employed so I am paying 43% of my income to the thieves.

Why does the VP only get to shell out 27% while little me has to pay so much more?

How is that right?

SAME HERE! Feds, State and FICO = 40% of my AGI!

Plus all of the unseen taxes that REALLY hit us working folks, like taxes on gas and beer so our actually total tax is near half of our income. No sales tax here in Oregon.

jrenz I did not copy the whole page to save space. But, just think what would happen if the news broke that Cheney made this huge profit from of the blood of our wounded and killed sons in Iraq? That is why he HAD to give it away!

So the stock options that he received several years before ever taking office, many years before the war even began, and subsequently donated to charity, was earned off of the casualties of the war? Now I know you're just trying to fabricate lies to make him look evil.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
The bolded parts are what HomeAppraiser chose to omit (probably because it directly contradicts his lies).

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

So, big whoop. The way resident Republicans scream that the rich pay all the taxes in the U.S. you would expect that to be closer to at least 50%.

I'm self employed so I am paying 43% of my income to the thieves.

Why does the VP only get to shell out 27% while little me has to pay so much more?

How is that right?

Because your income is so much smaller, you'd gain no benefit from hiring tax lawyers, whereas he would, and did.

But in the end, it should not be Cheney you're mad at (well, not regarding his taxes), it's the tax system we have in place. And it needs to be reformed.

I, too, and self-employed, and yeah, we get screwed when it comes to taxes. The tax system should be much more friendly to those of us who are self-employed, and even more so to those of us who work out of our home and use A LOT less gasoline than others. My 2yo old car (which gets ~33 mpg) has yet to hit 12K miles, and I've only been self-employed for 3/4 of its life.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Have no insurance and no retirement.

Sounds to me like somebody was too inept in their finances to plan for the future. Maybe you shouldn't have gone bankrupt that one time...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jrenz

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

You are using a fallacy to lie with statistics. It's just like when the fed tries to lie about inflation numbers by telling you that it only went up .05% once you subtract gas and food costs out of the equation. YOU CAN"T! THEY ARE STILL A VARIABLE THAT IS COMPUTED WITHIN THE TOTAL FREAKING SUM!!!

Had Cheney not accepted the position that he is currently in, he would have received those monies directly and would have profited from them (after the taxes due were largely avoided by a team of really slick CPAs and tax lawyers). That is why they had to be included in his return.

Now, the fact that he is a complete and selfish Richard Cranium and has the morals of a slug, affords him that opportunity to take advantage of the worst natural disaster to hit our country in its existence. He finds a tax shelter that was sold to the general public as a "Donate to Katrina charities and get a tax break" type law.

This was, in hindsight, never the intention. If it would have been, then the law would have only covered charitable contributions to Katrina charities. I am willing to bet that, if you were lucky enough to comb over the tax returns of the upper 1% of the wealthy in this country you would find that over 75% did the same. It doesn't matter who they supported or what letter is after their name. The only loyalty they have is to their pockets.

That being said, Cheney (with MAJOR influence over the ruling party at the time) pressured and/or colluded with Congress to pass it to cover any and all donations knowing that he would be able to get out from under the burden of those forced donations sooner than previously agreed to and, instead of actually having to pay taxes on the EARNINGS, he would receive a refund on most of them.

Can I prove any of this theory? Nope. Can you disprove it either? Nope. But the odds are probably better that I am right in the intentions of Darth...er Dick Cheney.

The effective rate stands at 4.45%.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: jrenz

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

blah blah blah I don't know jack sh!t about finances but I hate Cheney blah blah blah...

The effective rate stands at 4.45%.

If Cheney hadn't been in the position he was in, and profitted from the stock options, he would have paid the whole amount of $2,331,400 witheld from $8,819,006, minus whatever refunds they would have received for miscellaneous stuff.

Guess what! $2,331,400 / $8,819,006 - 28%

You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical conspiracies you want, but numbers don't lie.

Edit: And I don't even know why you are bringing Katrina into this... do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

Truth? Yeah, the conservatives are just soooo, soooo concerned about the poor, that's why they are standing in line to raise the minimum wage.

Really Vic, sometimes I think you wouldn't know the truth if you were drowning in it. Like this statment:

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

The bolded part seems to me to be a more accurate description of the current state of capitalism in this country. I still think that most conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity because of a guilty conscience then any real concern for the less fortunate.

1. John Stossel is not a conservative.

2. Capitalism is the economics of free and voluntary associations. Would you care to explain to me what is selfish or coercive about that? Especially in this context of using government force as "charity"?

I see the truth all too clearly unfortunately. It's you and those like you who are awash in doublethink, slogans, bitterness, hate, force, and half-assed bullsh!t. All those minimum wage arguments we had, I told you repeatedly that I was never opposed to the minimum wage, I just wanted you to explain to me what good it does (because only started from there could we understand how best to improve it). But you never did that (in fact, I would have to volunteer the positives), you would just keep attacking me for daring to even question your rhetoric. This is typical of all of you, sad to say.

LMAO, and you claim to be representing the truth?? Capitalism, by it's very nature needs to have the playing feild leveld every now and then, and IMO that correction is long overdue.

Well, we all live in our seperate realities, but your idea of reality had it's 15 minutes of fame. The Libertarian cause is now nothing but a footnote for the history books.

NEXT!!

You really need to get treatment for that crack problem of yours. That is exactly what happened in that thread, don't make me post screenshots.

And of course you as as innocent and pure as fresh snow at the top of Mount Everest.

Give us a break.

Can we start this playing field leveling agenda you suggest by parceling out your many acres of property, O Wealthy Landowner?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: jrenz

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

blah blah blah I don't know jack sh!t about finances but I hate Cheney blah blah blah...

The effective rate stands at 4.45%.

If Cheney hadn't been in the position he was in, and profitted from the stock options, he would have paid the whole amount of $2,331,400 witheld from $8,819,006, minus whatever refunds they would have received for miscellaneous stuff.

Guess what! $2,331,400 / $8,819,006 - 28%

You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical conspiracies you want, but numbers don't lie.

Edit: And I don't even know why you are bringing Katrina into this... do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Apparently, you don't know as much as you think that you do. Katrina was brought into this because it gave Cheney the loophole that he needed to skip out on a tax burden closer to what the general population has to deal with.

You are not legally allowed to claim deductions of more than 50% of your gross income. Along comes the Republican congress that passes a one year exemption for ALL donations, whether they are related to Katrina or not, that can now be used to offset your gross income by up to 75%.

Cheney used this law to take all of these options at this time, write a check to maximize them to the fullest, collect a refund and drop his effective tax rate.

Maybe you should do a little bit more research before you try to sound like Merril Lynch?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic
Excuse me, but that wasn't his argument, and you made a needless personal attack along with your straw man. ..

Oh woops, I forgot though, your idea of argument is that for example if someone were to say for example that illicit drug abuse can't be stopped through legislation because legislation doesn't address the supply of illicit drugs, you would come mocking in a sarcastic tone over and over again claiming that that person said the supply of drugs was infinite, and you'd keep doing that just to be a jerk even when it was proven you were wrong. Then... when someone pointed out just how trollishly rude your behavior is, you'd accuse that person of threatening you. And then you'd go back to trolling. Ah yes, that's right... you're that person.

Vic, you really need to crawl back under what rock you came from. I've already indicated I don't care to discuss issues with someone who has behaved as you have, but you post.

And the crap you post: here, you can't go two sentences without going from saying I use a straw man, to making your attack based on the straw man of what you say I would say.

Of course, you get both terribly wrong, but the irony is shameless.

What? You think I'll stop posting because you ask me to? That's hilarious.

Like all the other trolls on ATPN, you have a predictable pattern. Yours is straw man. Everytime some posts something you disagree with, you ignore their post and go off on a longwinded argument about how they posted something else, usually extreme and ridiculous, the easier for you to mock and condescend, and with which to contrast the beauteous light of your beloved agenda (which, of course, can never be viewed critically but only in the most glowing terms). In short, you're a pompous partisan hack.

Oh BTW, telling me that am "terribly wrong" without any proof besides your word is beyond weak.

Vic, the thing is, you are nothing but a windbag, filled with hot air and no substance.

You lie, you name call, you are the two year old who runs around posting the equivalient of "poopoohead" to each of my posts. Unfortunately, the best thing I can do for most of them is to not respond, you can't say a whole lot to the poopyhead poster other than to occassionally point out their problem.

You throw around words like troll and hack, because like the two year old who has learned that yelling POOP or a curse word gets them attention, you find the only power you can get by using them, since you lack any from your actual argument, though you also get some attention by trolling absurd arguments - and shamelessly say anyone else is a troll.

You're the worst poster I know of here; I've had PM saying you are hopefully getting an involuntary vacation for your behavior. Apparently that hasn't happened yet.

So I'll leave it to this post for now as the occassional reminder that you lack the courtesy to refrain from butting in where you are unwanted, my comments to others, which for technical reasons I am unable to exclude you from, the equivalent of a public forum where I don't have security guards to keep the riff raff out. That's your right to be rude, though, but you aren't impressing anyone with the junk you post.

If this has a lack of specifics, it's because there's a lack of specifics in your post to respond to. It's a poopyhead post.

But for the record, I'll also get your following unwanted response to my next post out of the way. I haven't read it yet; I'm going to cut and past and respond now:

The idea that you actually believe this load of BS is comical in the extreme.

Another poopyhead comment lacking any substance. Pretty hypocritical too given your comment previously about a lack of substance in criticism.

If government always follows its duty to the public,

Let's just stop there for a moment, since you yet again use a straw man to post your nonsense - I never said government always *follows* its duty to the public. You are twisting the point I made, in discussing why CEOs are not better to turn to for charity to replace the government in meeting society's social services needs. I made the point that they have different agendas and government *has* a duty to the public. Your changing my words into a straw man that it *always follows* the duty sets you up to nit pick.

because that is "far, far more effective in many areas," then why is the public always complaining about government, and why is government always doing things the public disapproves of? Or are you telling me that you love the Bush admin and all that it has done because govt. follows it duty to the public?

So, your question is, with the hundreds of billions of dollars our government spends on services, why there are any complaints from the public about those services?

Are you that clueless? Name me any service provided by any group in society to another involving billions of dollars and millions of people for low budgets as we typically have with tax-based programs about which there is no complaint. Because there are many complaints about healthcare, should we let the infomercial 'diet pill' sellers take over all health care in America, the way you are agreeing to respond to any complaints about government services be replaced by the tiny amounts available from private charity?

What do you not grasp about the difference between the sliver of money available from charity compared to the far larger need which is met through democratically elected government, what do you hate so much about democracy that any time the public votes for programs for the public good you are there to hate them?

If the dark nefarious CEO's have no duty to the public, then how do they get people to buy their products? Take a business course. FFS.

Hey, whaddya know, another straw man - "no duty to the public" of course they have no duties to the public, you again twist what I said to set you up for the absurd response.

They have the duty to follow the law, for example. As for things benefitting the public, we need to distinguish between their role as CEO and as private citizen; recognize that in their role as CEO, they have far less duty to the public than you might think. Much of the things they do in the public interest are really things they need to do to protect the shareholders. Does putting out dangerous products help the shareholders when customers stop buying their brand? No, so they put out safer ones.

That's not adequate of course; we have all kinds of unsafe products and dishonest advertising that would happen if not for the laws to protect consumers.

So we're talking about CEOs as private citizens - and as such, they *cannot begin* to addres the need for social services the government provides. Just look at the numbers to see how absurd your point is. They are able to provide a fine *supplement* to the social services society needs, and that's it.

This exchange with you was as always a waste of our and the forum readers' time because you bring absurd points to the post.

poopyhead?


Listen, pal, your posts are a joke, based on many false premises which -- unfortunately -- you believe with just as much fervor as a fundie who thinks that Jesus is a-comin' to save him any day now. I point out your false premises, and instead of addressing what I bring up, you (like steeplerot, etc.) delve into wild accusations of partisanship, hackery, etc. like that garbage has any meaning whatsoever in real life. And then you go back to preaching your religion again. So what recourse do you leave for me but to point and laugh at you? Seriously.


edit: BTW, I take it as a compliment that your argument at this point is that you think I should be silenced.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic
poopyhead?

Yes, that's the one word summary of the posting you do.

Listen, pal, your posts are a joke, based on many false premises which -- unfortunately -- you believe with just as much fervor as a fundie who thinks that Jesus is a-comin' to save him any day now.

Hey, another straw man in lieu of any substance, you have maintained almost a 1:1 ration of straw men to sentences; crows may go extinct soon.

I point out your false premises

Not one yet, feel free to try.

and instead of addressing what I bring up, you (like steeplerot, etc.) delve into wild accusations of partisanship, hackery, etc. like that garbage has any meaning whatsoever in real life. And then you go back to preaching your religion again. So what recourse do you leave for me but to point and laugh at you? Seriously.

Learn to reason? Read a good book? Be silent when ignorant? Listen to those who know more than you? Ask questions? Avoid the name calling that's baseless?

(Note how you ignored the example I gave you of responding to even the little 'substance' in one of your posts, and you again post hot air lacking any substance here?)

But keep up the straw men, the straw farming industry relies on you at this point.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic
poopyhead?

Yes, that's the one word summary of the posting you do.

Listen, pal, your posts are a joke, based on many false premises which -- unfortunately -- you believe with just as much fervor as a fundie who thinks that Jesus is a-comin' to save him any day now.

Hey, another straw man in lieu of any substance, you have maintained almost a 1:1 ration of straw men to sentences; crows may go extinct soon.

I point out your false premises

Not one yet, feel free to try.

and instead of addressing what I bring up, you (like steeplerot, etc.) delve into wild accusations of partisanship, hackery, etc. like that garbage has any meaning whatsoever in real life. And then you go back to preaching your religion again. So what recourse do you leave for me but to point and laugh at you? Seriously.

Learn to reason? Read a good book? Be silent when ignorant? Listen to those who know more than you? Ask questions? Avoid the name calling that's baseless?

(Note how you ignored the example I gave you of responding to even the little 'substance' in one of your posts, and you again post hot air lacking any substance here?)

But keep up the straw men, the straw farming industry relies on you at this point.

Uh... your "substance" was some great nefarious generalization about the evil of CEO's and corporations. In case you were unaware, generalization is always wrong (pun intended). As such, it wasn't worth addressing.

BTW, I like how you've switched to rubberband argument ("I'm rubberband, you're glue... "). That's very mature of you. The reason most people will revert to that tactic is because no one can possibly piss them off more than themselves.

edit: the bolded is hilarious in its irony.

 

[Craig234]

Utter lack of substance, but with falsehoods, again. See the pattern? Your continuing to post the nonsense and those posts where I say it's nonsense are a drain to the forum. Unless you get even worse, I'll let your next weak reply speak for itself without response. Enjoy the last word.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Utter lack of substance, but with falsehoods, again. See the pattern? Your continuing to post the nonsense and those posts where I say it's nonsense are a drain to the forum. Unless you get even worse, I'll let your next weak reply speak for itself without response. Enjoy the last word.

Your != you're

Sorry, pet peeve of mine from people who tell me to "listen to those who know more than" I do.

Thanks for the last word. I'll expect you to prove your supposed honesty and shut up now.

edit: and really, I just wanted to quote your post here for posterity, because your sole argument is that you want me silenced. That IMO speaks for itself.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234
A lot of good people are duped by the right-wing republicans in to voting republican. They donate to charity.



By the way, one of the effects of repealing the estate tax would be to devastate charitable donations.

1. Wrong. work hard for what you got and give as well is the mantra of many I know call themselves Conservative (neither I or most of my friends accept the Republican or Democrat title). Why do "liberals" have to portray their opponents as dimwitted? Can you not accept the fact that your views are not accepted by a majority? Are you so insecure in your views that you must name call/slander those who do not hold similar views?

2. Not true at all. The Estate tax is double taxation and steals the rightful earnings of a family. I for one think the children of ANYONE should be entittled to the earnings of their parents should the parents deem them worthy. To say that the government own that wealth, or the work of those people is a crime. You are essentially claiming that ALL you worked for is not your own. Are you really sure you want to follow that to its rightful conclusion?

Why then would you be enttitled to keep any of your wealth beyond what the government will take when you pass away? Huh? If its okay to take from your family then why not now? Huh????

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Apparently, you don't know as much as you think that you do. Katrina was brought into this because it gave Cheney the loophole that he needed to skip out on a tax burden closer to what the general population has to deal with.

You are not legally allowed to claim deductions of more than 50% of your gross income. Along comes the Republican congress that passes a one year exemption for ALL donations, whether they are related to Katrina or not, that can now be used to offset your gross income by up to 75%.

Cheney used this law to take all of these options at this time, write a check to maximize them to the fullest, collect a refund and drop his effective tax rate.

Maybe you should do a little bit more research before you try to sound like Merril Lynch?

Maybe you should make sure your research is correct before you go lecturing people.

After all was said and done, his charitable contributions had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on his effective tax rate. Any "tax manipulation" was done to maximize the amount of money going to the charities designated.

Bottom line, since I know you won't bether trying to understand what us adults are talking about...

Cheney paid $529,636 in taxes in 2005
Cheney had an income of $1,961,157 in 2005, after 100% of his stock proceeds went to charity
$529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

So tell me how he benefitted again? Jesus Christ... you're in the running for being as financially inept as Dave.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
1. Wrong. work hard for what you got and give as well is the mantra of many I know call themselves Conservative (neither I or most of my friends accept the Republican or Democrat title).

And its the mantra of many I know that call themselves Liberal as well.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Why do "liberals" have to portray their opponents as dimwitted?

Why do you have to make ignorant generalizations about 50% of the population.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Can you not accept the fact that your views are not accepted by a majority?

That huge 52% majority as compared to the tiny 48% minority?

Originally posted by: Shivetya
2. Not true at all. The Estate tax is double taxation and steals the rightful earnings of a family.

Ever heard of capital gains tax? Thats what you will have to pay if there is no estate tax. If you inherit any debt, capital gains tax can easily top the estate tax.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234
A lot of good people are duped by the right-wing republicans in to voting republican. They donate to charity.



By the way, one of the effects of repealing the estate tax would be to devastate charitable donations.

1. Wrong. work hard for what you got and give as well is the mantra of many I know call themselves Conservative (neither I or most of my friends accept the Republican or Democrat title). Why do "liberals" have to portray their opponents as dimwitted? Can you not accept the fact that your views are not accepted by a majority? Are you so insecure in your views that you must name call/slander those who do not hold similar views?

2. Not true at all. The Estate tax is double taxation and steals the rightful earnings of a family. I for one think the children of ANYONE should be entittled to the earnings of their parents should the parents deem them worthy. To say that the government own that wealth, or the work of those people is a crime. You are essentially claiming that ALL you worked for is not your own. Are you really sure you want to follow that to its rightful conclusion?

Why then would you be enttitled to keep any of your wealth beyond what the government will take when you pass away? Huh? If its okay to take from your family then why not now? Huh????

I always hear people crying how the estate tax is double taxation. Lots of things are double taxation. The paycheck you earn every week is taxed and then when you spend what you have left over you are generally taxed on your purchases. Why does nobody complain about that?

I personally am for the estate tax because I am for the most part against handouts and giving your children your estate which they didn't earn is exactly that.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.

LOL! QFT

.. but the answer is also: liberals have no real moral ground to stand on besides a fluxuating set of morals they make up and call humanism.. so they arent accountable to anything, they cant possibly be a hypocrite, so they dont give any money.

Conservatives believe the family system and charity is the way to go for the common good.. and faith based orgs, which is a freedom liberals just hate with passion. To them, religon is "outdated".

Liberals think the gov't is the answer to EVERYTHING. And that people are to stupid to take care of their own people/nation/families.


Cliffnotes: Conservatism FTW

 

[Locut0s]

Got to make up for all that evil somewhere.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

Truth? Yeah, the conservatives are just soooo, soooo concerned about the poor, that's why they are standing in line to raise the minimum wage.

Really Vic, sometimes I think you wouldn't know the truth if you were drowning in it. Like this statment:

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

The bolded part seems to me to be a more accurate description of the current state of capitalism in this country. I still think that most conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity because of a guilty conscience then any real concern for the less fortunate.

1. John Stossel is not a conservative.

2. Capitalism is the economics of free and voluntary associations. Would you care to explain to me what is selfish or coercive about that? Especially in this context of using government force as "charity"?

I see the truth all too clearly unfortunately. It's you and those like you who are awash in doublethink, slogans, bitterness, hate, force, and half-assed bullsh!t. All those minimum wage arguments we had, I told you repeatedly that I was never opposed to the minimum wage, I just wanted you to explain to me what good it does (because only started from there could we understand how best to improve it). But you never did that (in fact, I would have to volunteer the positives), you would just keep attacking me for daring to even question your rhetoric. This is typical of all of you, sad to say.

LMAO, and you claim to be representing the truth?? Capitalism, by it's very nature needs to have the playing feild leveld every now and then, and IMO that correction is long overdue.

Well, we all live in our seperate realities, but your idea of reality had it's 15 minutes of fame. The Libertarian cause is now nothing but a footnote for the history books.

NEXT!!

You really need to get treatment for that crack problem of yours. That is exactly what happened in that thread, don't make me post screenshots.

And of course you as as innocent and pure as fresh snow at the top of Mount Everest.

Give us a break.

Can we start this playing field leveling agenda you suggest by parceling out your many acres of property, O Wealthy Landowner?

Ah, so now you imply I'm a communist. LMAO!! You appear to be getting desperate.

In the first place I'm just a small guy, a glorified hobby farmer, not a wealthy landowner. I put my operation together in my spare time as my retirement program and I had to drive 50 miles (one way) just to get to the farm so I was basically just a week-end farmer. I did almost all of my own work too. We didn't have any retirement program where I was working/punching a clock and it was before 401k's and IRA's were on the scene. Of course, I loved to hunt and one of the perks of being a landowner is having a place to hunt.

In the second place, I rented the farm out to a big farmer this year. I have 1000 acres and he farms 100,000 acers. Yes, that's right 100 times what I was farming. He brings in South African workers on work visas to do his work and he and a foreman just drive around in their air-conditioned pickups managing the help. They did the crappiest job of farming that my land has ever seen too. I wouldn't have lasted 5 years if I farmed that poorly.

So, if you think about it, in a job that can't be outsourced I can't even operate my own farm in my own country without having to compete with cheap foreign labor. Now what was that you were saying about a level playing field? :laugh:

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Crusader
liberals have no real moral ground to stand on besides a fluxuating set of morals they make up and call humanism.. so they arent accountable to anything,

Wrong.

Originally posted by: Crusader
they cant possibly be a hypocrite, so they dont give any money.

Wrong.

Originally posted by: Crusader
faith based orgs, which is a freedom liberals just hate with passion.

Wrong.

Originally posted by: Crusader
To them, religon is "outdated".

Wrong.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Liberals think the gov't is the answer to EVERYTHING. And that people are to stupid to take care of their own people/nation/families.

Wrong.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Have no insurance and no retirement.

Sounds to me like somebody was too inept in their finances to plan for the future.

Maybe you shouldn't have gone bankrupt that one time...

My retirement was stolen by the same outfit and people that stole and drove Enron down.

I didn't personally go bankrupt.

Maybe you should ask or do better research next time before spouting misinformation.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Have no insurance and no retirement.

Sounds to me like somebody was too inept in their finances to plan for the future.

Maybe you shouldn't have gone bankrupt that one time...

My retirement was stolen by the same outfit and people that stole and drove Enron down.

I didn't personally go bankrupt.

Maybe you should ask or do better research next time before spouting misinformation.

So you worked for Enron?

As terrible a thing that happened to the Enron employees who lost their retirement nesteggs, the fact is that they were poorly vested in putting all of their life savings into one basket. With adequate preparation, diversification, and minimal management, retiring comfortable with a sizeable nestegg is pretty much foolproof.

Some people refuse to take the steps necessary to secure their own future, however, and choose to put the onus on others for their failures.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.

LOL! QFT

.. but the answer is also: liberals have no real moral ground to stand on besides a fluxuating set of morals they make up and call humanism.. so they arent accountable to anything, they cant possibly be a hypocrite, so they dont give any money.

Conservatives believe the family system and charity is the way to go for the common good.. and faith based orgs, which is a freedom liberals just hate with passion. To them, religon is "outdated".

Liberals think the gov't is the answer to EVERYTHING. And that people are to stupid to take care of their own people/nation/families.


Cliffnotes: Conservatism FTW

"Conservatives believe the family system and charity is the way to go for the common good.. and faith based orgs, which is a freedom liberals just hate with passion. To them, religon is "outdated".

Liberals think the gov't is the answer to EVERYTHING. And that people are to stupid to take care of their own people/nation/families.
"

Have you been around the last 6 years? The conservatives(republicans) have used government as a solution for everything.. even interfering with states' rights issues such as Schiavo...

Faith based organizations are a "freedom" to you? Huh?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Have no insurance and no retirement.

Sounds to me like somebody was too inept in their finances to plan for the future.

Maybe you shouldn't have gone bankrupt that one time...

My retirement was stolen by the same outfit and people that stole and drove Enron down.

I didn't personally go bankrupt.

Maybe you should ask or do better research next time before spouting misinformation.

So you worked for Enron?

As terrible a thing that happened to the Enron employees who lost their retirement nesteggs, the fact is that they were poorly vested in putting all of their life savings into one basket. With adequate preparation, diversification, and minimal management, retiring comfortable with a sizeable nestegg is pretty much foolproof.

Some people refuse to take the steps necessary to secure their own future, however, and choose to put the onus on others for their failures.

WTF? Dave never worked for Enron. He was systems administrator for Georgia Public Schools, and he got fired, sued, and (IIRC) prosecuted for secretly installing distributed computing programs on a large number of the school computers.