Let's Hear it for American Rugged Self Reliance

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

It's pretty easy when you have no competition. Today we have this thing called a global economy.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

I will never grasp this delusion.

You hate the rich b/c they take everyones money.
But you love the government that takes everyones money.

The rich lose money when they don't perform up to standards
The government takes more when they don't perfom up to standards b/c they say they need to expand.

The rich can't send us to die for oil.
The government is doing that in Lybia now

Please explain, in some good detail, why the government is better than rich people.

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules. The people who manage government agencies aren't paid based on a scale of how much value they can squeeze out of every "customer" and, ass-u-me-ing corruption is under control, have no personal stake in the decisions they make other than professionalism.

I for one am glad that the rest of you bastards aren't so cheap that you'll pony up for bureaucrats smart enough to still have most of their teeth.

The best example is Social Security. It's a retirement and disability insurance program. Once you have PAID ENOUGH IN TO QUALIFY, if you file a claim that passes all the rules, you get paid. Retirement claims that meet all the rules can have the first check directly deposited within 4 weeks. Most retirees never have to contact Social Security again if they don't change bank accounts or mailing addresses.

Compare that to a private insurance bureaucracy. Their managers are paid bonuses to convince people to buy coverage and then make sure as few claims as are legally required to be paid are paid. Then your lawyer gets 33.3%

And if it makes a difference to you - if your Social Security disability claim is complicated enough to warrant hiring an attorney, the fee is maxed at $6,000.

You can also thank government for an enforceable 40 hour work week and an enforceable end to slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of a big-government nanny state, I simply believe 'government', is a tool - like a gun or a band-saw and We, The People are losing a little skin learning how to use it. Like any good tool, we shouldn't throw it out just 'cause it hurts learning how to use it.

Step 1. Admit that 'government' is a tool that is here to stay and it SHOULD be used.

Step 2. Simple taxes.

A simple tax code = A fair tax code.

You want another reason to keep 'government' alive and in the tool shed? Imagine the Social Security and IRS data bases in the hands of a for profit organization. I for one sleep much better knowing my private information, work and tax records are guarded by professional bureaucrats, who have sworn a public oath to uphold The Constitution and the people it represents.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What is in my heart is a loathing for people that have a warped perception about the outcomes certain actions should yield. You, for example, seem to be under the misguided perception that simply A job, any job, is supposed to be able to support a family. Well no, it isn't ed. If you believe flipping burgers at mcdonalds or working in a customer service call center, like I do, is going to be enough or should be enought to support a family, you're a fucking moron. Certain skills yield a certain income in the labor market. If what you're doing now isn't enough to support the lifestyle you want or have, YOU need to do something different. Society is under no obligation to bend for you just because you don't want to change or take the extra effort to achieve the lifestyle you want.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not you have a disagreement with employers over their purpose in hiring people. You are working under the premise that your employer's purpose in hiring you is to support you and your lifestyle. NEWSFLASH: Your employer probably doesn't agree with you on that one. His purpose in hiring you is to help him produce something. He pays you based on what the market says the skills you are providing him are worth. What you need to live on is irrelevant to him as it should be. You and a hell of a lot of other people need to stop looking at this problem as 'they' not paying you enough, when the problem really is YOU not DOING enough.

I don't know how old you are Bern but I can remember when the working class needed one income to support a family.

I can remember when a clerk working in department store could support him or herself and didn't have to accept food stamps to feed their families

Americans work longer hours for less purchasing power than ever in my lifetime.

The boomer generation is the most educated generation in history. Additionally they work on average more hours than the WWII generation did.

Yet they are, in relative terms, poorer than their fathter's generation.

With the noteable excpetion of the top tier of the scoio economic class, of course.

They are hands down wealthier than ever.

This trend is now going on over 40 years and it NOT sustainable much longer.

This nation's bandade solutionhas been social welfare programs.

You and I both understand that those solutions won't work in the long run.

But continuing the same policies that created that problem is no solution, either.

There is no policy that did this to people. That's the biggest problem I have with you lefties. You simply refuse to consider that people are the source of their own problems. It's not a policy issue. It's a failure to adapt issue. You talk about these good 'ol days and the way things were. Who promised you things would/should stay that way? Who promised you the skills back in the good 'ol days that provided a certain standard of living would/should have the same value and provide the same standard of living today? That is stupid to believe ed. Yeah people could make a living off of shoeing horses at one time, too.

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the bottom line point is that the US Tax Code is patently unfair, complicated and skewed toward those most able to make campaign contributions.

If you think the current tax code is fair and balanced, efficient and motivating, please post that fact here and I'll understand you. Otherwise, ?

 

[sparky]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

I will never grasp this delusion.

You hate the rich b/c they take everyones money.
But you love the government that takes everyones money.

The rich lose money when they don't perform up to standards
The government takes more when they don't perfom up to standards b/c they say they need to expand.

The rich can't send us to die for oil.
The government is doing that in Lybia now

Please explain, in some good detail, why the government is better than rich people.

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b56e0u0EgQ&feature=player_detailpage]YouTube - Captain Kirk Preamble[/ame]

hadda do it Joe.....

 

[Bern80]

I don't know how old you are Bern but I can remember when the working class needed one income to support a family.

I can remember when a clerk working in department store could support him or herself and didn't have to accept food stamps to feed their families

Americans work longer hours for less purchasing power than ever in my lifetime.

The boomer generation is the most educated generation in history. Additionally they work on average more hours than the WWII generation did.

Yet they are, in relative terms, poorer than their fathter's generation.

With the noteable excpetion of the top tier of the scoio economic class, of course.

They are hands down wealthier than ever.

This trend is now going on over 40 years and it NOT sustainable much longer.

This nation's bandade solutionhas been social welfare programs.

You and I both understand that those solutions won't work in the long run.

But continuing the same policies that created that problem is no solution, either.

There is no policy that did this to people. That's the biggest problem I have with you lefties. You simply refuse to consider that people are the source of their own problems. It's not a policy issue. It's a failure to adapt issue. You talk about these good 'ol days and the way things were. Who promised you things would/should stay that way? Who promised you the skills back in the good 'ol days that provided a certain standard of living would/should have the same value and provide the same standard of living today? That is stupid to believe ed. Yeah people could make a living off of shoeing horses at one time, too.

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the bottom line point is that the US Tax Code is patently unfair, complicated and skewed toward those most able to make campaign contributions.

If you think the current tax code is fair and balanced, efficient and motivating, please post that fact here and I'll understand you. Otherwise, ?

No I don't believe the tax code is fair. Parts of it unfairly favor the wealthy, but you have to admit parts of it also unfairly favor the poor. Don't try to pretend your one of these people that wants a fair tax code. Because you liberals always draw the line of fairness with poor people. Damn near every liberal here has said at a certain low income level you should get a pass on paying income tax. That isn't fair. Fair EVERYONE pays.

The tax code however has nothing to do with earning potential. Ed says U.S. wages are declining and I am simply contesting that is not the fault of corporate america or government. It is a failure of people to see on conscious level that what produced a certain income and standard of living before is not the same as what produces that now. People aren't solving the problem the right way. The most efficient way to get the standard of living you want is to do your market research, determine the value of various skills sets and pursue the one that is going to yield the income you desire. But most young people don't do that. They pursue what they want to pursue and accept the liefestyle that it affords. Which is fine, just don't be one of those people that bemoans your standard of living if there really should be no reasonable expectation that the skills you are currently using will yield the standard of living you want.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is no policy that did this to people. That's the biggest problem I have with you lefties. You simply refuse to consider that people are the source of their own problems. It's not a policy issue. It's a failure to adapt issue. You talk about these good 'ol days and the way things were. Who promised you things would/should stay that way? Who promised you the skills back in the good 'ol days that provided a certain standard of living would/should have the same value and provide the same standard of living today? That is stupid to believe ed. Yeah people could make a living off of shoeing horses at one time, too.

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the bottom line point is that the US Tax Code is patently unfair, complicated and skewed toward those most able to make campaign contributions.

If you think the current tax code is fair and balanced, efficient and motivating, please post that fact here and I'll understand you. Otherwise, ?

No I don't believe the tax code is fair. Parts of it unfairly favor the wealthy, but you have to admit parts of it also unfairly favor the poor. Don't try to pretend your one of these people that wants a fair tax code. Because you liberals always draw the line of fairness with poor people. Damn near every liberal here has said at a certain low income level you should get a pass on paying income tax. That isn't fair. Fair EVERYONE pays.

The tax code however has nothing to do with earning potential. Ed says U.S. wages are declining and I am simply contesting that is not the fault of corporate america or government. It is a failure of people to see on conscious level that what produced a certain income and standard of living before is not the same as what produces that now. People aren't solving the problem the right way. The most efficient way to get the standard of living you want is to do your market research, determine the value of various skills sets and pursue the one that is going to yield the income you desire. But most young people don't do that. They pursue what they want to pursue and accept the liefestyle that it affords. Which is fine, just don't be one of those people that bemoans your standard of living if there really should be no reasonable expectation that the skills you are currently using will yield the standard of living you want.

My personal feeling? EVERY American CITIZEN should be able to earn their first $3 million free of any income tax.

I think the most fair tax code would involve a consumption tax, not an income tax:

7 + 7 on 3

7% sales tax on every purchase + 7% income tax on individual yearly earnings that are in excess of $3 million.

No corporate income taxes, no favoritism, no loop-holes, no IRS bureaucracy to pay for.

That's a fair tax. Buy a new Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - buy a 5 year old Focus, pay less (ass-u-me-ing you're not stupid enough to pay $145,000 for a 5 year old Ford).

This of course is for general revenue only - Social Security should remain a dedicated program, separate from the general fund if it remains at all.

_____

The unfair tax code is definitely a road-block to opportunity - not necessarily for those making nothing, but for those in the middle class. It's the middle class that I'm fighting for - the truly poor is still a small enough segment of the population that they can still be ignored in the tax fight. On paper, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates, but in reality corporations pay taxes in inverse proportion to the number of lawyers they have on staff - Can you not see the road-block to opportunity this presents to smaller corporations, partnerships and proprietors?

The right needs to face the fact that "trickle down" economics is a joke and when you give a few guys with millions a few million more, they stuff it in the bank and head for the Caymans on a yacht where as if you give millions of middle class households a few thousand, they'll go out and spend it on stuff like cars, houses, electronic devices and refrigerators. THAT'S why fair taxes will motivate this economy like the 50's and 60's - it has nothing to do with the truly poor.

 

[Bern80]

My personal feeling? EVERY American CITIZEN should be able to earn their first $3 million free of any income tax.

I think the most fair tax code would involve a consumption tax, not an income tax:

7 + 7 on 3

7% sales tax on every purchase + 7% income tax on individual yearly earnings that are in excess of $3 million.

No corporate income taxes, no favoritism, no loop-holes, no IRS bureaucracy to pay for.

That's a fair tax. Buy a new Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - buy a 5 year old Focus, pay less (ass-u-me-ing you're not stupid enough to pay $145,000 for a 5 year old Ford).

This of course is for general revenue only - Social Security should remain a dedicated program, separate from the general fund if it remains at all.

Works for me.

_____

The unfair tax code is definitely a road-block to opportunity - not necessarily for those making nothing, but for those in the middle class. It's the middle class that I'm fighting for - the truly poor is still a small enough segment of the population that they can still be ignored in the tax fight. On paper, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates, but in reality corporations pay taxes in inverse proportion to the number of lawyers they have on staff - Can you not see the road-block to opportunity this presents to smaller corporations, partnerships and proprietors?

The right needs to face the fact that "trickle down" economics is a joke and when you give a few guys with millions a few million more, they stuff it in the bank and head for the Caymans on a yacht where as if you give millions of middle class households a few thousand, they'll go out and spend it on stuff like cars, houses, electronic devices and refrigerators. THAT'S why fair taxes will motivate this economy like the 50's and 60's - it has nothing to do with the truly poor.

I don't agree that the tax code, in favoring the weathy in certan aspects, hurts the opportunity of the middle class. For that to be the case the rich have to somehow being using that extra money they're and using it in a way that somehow directly prevents the middle class from achieving more. You're probably right about the wealthy pocketing the money, especially in economically uncertain times, but the question you need to answer is how does that action prevent or eliminate opportunities for the middle class?

It's maybe a moot point to debate considering it seems we actually agree in principle that our tax code needs to be far simpler. Whether trickle down works or not is irrelevent I suppose because we shouldn't be getting to a point where have to use trickle down tax code theory to boost the economy if you favor a tax code that will treat everyone the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any of you self made rugged Americans care to opine on this>

~S~

Equality?

A nation can either equality or prosperity ....but not both.[/






An honest answer , and i can respect an honest answer , even if the stance isn't something i like

Those of you that failed to look up the Gini Coefficent > Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

missed a huge easter egg>
File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's right, the CIA pays a lot of attention to top heavy countries

why?

well, because they have to go in on the heels of the IMF, and do the dirty work, failing that our troops get sent to mitigate the discontent (to term in mildly)

feel free, however, to continue disregarding information your own government considers valid, if not crucial here

That said, PC's statement brings us to what is really the fundamental divide here

Equality OR Prosperity folks.

NOT both

Let's investigate what that sentiment costs then , first off let's consider the term meritocracy>
Meritocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations.

Although meritocracy as a term is a relatively recent invention, the concept originates from the works Plato and Aristotle in Greece, and independently in the works of Han Feizi and Confucius, along with other Legalist and Confucian philosophers. The first Chinese meritocracy was implemented in the 2nd century BC, by the Han Dynasty, which introduced civil service exams evaluating the "merit" of officials.[2]

Meritocracy itself is not a form of government, but rather an ideology. Meritocracy itself is frequently confused as being a type of government, rather than correctly as a methodology or factor used in or for, the appointment of individuals to government. Individuals appointed to a meritocracy are judged based upon certain merits which could range from intelligence to morality to general aptitude to specific knowledge. A criticism of this methodology is that [3] "merit" itself is a highly subjective term, potentially lacking in clarity and therefore open to misuse

obviously the ideology has extended itself to the market, to Congress, to our justice system, as well as our social gesalt if we are to place prosperity over equality right?

simply put, this means the richest, loudest, and usually most self serving rule , win, and prosper, not YOU

sound like a plan for a country's future to you?

something about what's written on a certain collosus (i'll give you this one)
Statue of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or that pledge that ends in 'liberty of justice for all' seems to fly in the face of that......

~S~

Interesting...but based on a less than adept understanding of America, or of human nature. Your premise is
"...simply put, this means the richest, loudest, and usually most self serving rule , win, and prosper, not YOU."



Now, my turn?

I. The meaning of ‘equality’ as defined by Bork, in "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter 4...

1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. The document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom- and the so-prescient Tocqueville foresaw the dangerous morass into which modern liberalism has placed us...

a. 'The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

6. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.

7. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

8. Professor Wildavsky, former president of the American Political Science Association, wrote this in 1991:

“Rising egalitarianism will lower our standard of living, decrease our health, debase public discourse, lower the quality of public officials, weaken democracy, make people more suspicious of one another, and (if it be possible) worse. Worse is the constant denigration of American life- our polity, economy, and society- with no viable alternative to take its place.” Aaron Wildavsky, “The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism,” p. xxx

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the bottom line point is that the US Tax Code is patently unfair, complicated and skewed toward those most able to make campaign contributions.

If you think the current tax code is fair and balanced, efficient and motivating, please post that fact here and I'll understand you. Otherwise, ?

No I don't believe the tax code is fair. Parts of it unfairly favor the wealthy, but you have to admit parts of it also unfairly favor the poor. Don't try to pretend your one of these people that wants a fair tax code. Because you liberals always draw the line of fairness with poor people. Damn near every liberal here has said at a certain low income level you should get a pass on paying income tax. That isn't fair. Fair EVERYONE pays.

The tax code however has nothing to do with earning potential. Ed says U.S. wages are declining and I am simply contesting that is not the fault of corporate america or government. It is a failure of people to see on conscious level that what produced a certain income and standard of living before is not the same as what produces that now. People aren't solving the problem the right way. The most efficient way to get the standard of living you want is to do your market research, determine the value of various skills sets and pursue the one that is going to yield the income you desire. But most young people don't do that. They pursue what they want to pursue and accept the liefestyle that it affords. Which is fine, just don't be one of those people that bemoans your standard of living if there really should be no reasonable expectation that the skills you are currently using will yield the standard of living you want.

My personal feeling? EVERY American CITIZEN should be able to earn their first $3 million free of any income tax.

I think the most fair tax code would involve a consumption tax, not an income tax:

7 + 7 on 3

7% sales tax on every purchase + 7% income tax on individual yearly earnings that are in excess of $3 million.

No corporate income taxes, no favoritism, no loop-holes, no IRS bureaucracy to pay for.

That's a fair tax. Buy a new Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - buy a 5 year old Focus, pay less (ass-u-me-ing you're not stupid enough to pay $145,000 for a 5 year old Ford).

This of course is for general revenue only - Social Security should remain a dedicated program, separate from the general fund if it remains at all.

_____

The unfair tax code is definitely a road-block to opportunity - not necessarily for those making nothing, but for those in the middle class. It's the middle class that I'm fighting for - the truly poor is still a small enough segment of the population that they can still be ignored in the tax fight. On paper, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates, but in reality corporations pay taxes in inverse proportion to the number of lawyers they have on staff - Can you not see the road-block to opportunity this presents to smaller corporations, partnerships and proprietors?

The right needs to face the fact that "trickle down" economics is a joke and when you give a few guys with millions a few million more, they stuff it in the bank and head for the Caymans on a yacht where as if you give millions of middle class households a few thousand, they'll go out and spend it on stuff like cars, houses, electronic devices and refrigerators. THAT'S why fair taxes will motivate this economy like the 50's and 60's - it has nothing to do with the truly poor.

Did you see the GOP debate last night?

Gary Johnson gave three quick ways to solve unemployment:
1. no corporate income tax
2. no minimun wage law
3. stop extending unemployment insurance..

Opinion?

 

[Big Fitz]

2. I'll believe it if and when the election of 2012 produces a Reagan-like landslide in opposition to the current President.

From your fingers to God's "in-box".

 

[AVG-JOE]

No I don't believe the tax code is fair. Parts of it unfairly favor the wealthy, but you have to admit parts of it also unfairly favor the poor. Don't try to pretend your one of these people that wants a fair tax code. Because you liberals always draw the line of fairness with poor people. Damn near every liberal here has said at a certain low income level you should get a pass on paying income tax. That isn't fair. Fair EVERYONE pays.

The tax code however has nothing to do with earning potential. Ed says U.S. wages are declining and I am simply contesting that is not the fault of corporate america or government. It is a failure of people to see on conscious level that what produced a certain income and standard of living before is not the same as what produces that now. People aren't solving the problem the right way. The most efficient way to get the standard of living you want is to do your market research, determine the value of various skills sets and pursue the one that is going to yield the income you desire. But most young people don't do that. They pursue what they want to pursue and accept the liefestyle that it affords. Which is fine, just don't be one of those people that bemoans your standard of living if there really should be no reasonable expectation that the skills you are currently using will yield the standard of living you want.

My personal feeling? EVERY American CITIZEN should be able to earn their first $3 million free of any income tax.

I think the most fair tax code would involve a consumption tax, not an income tax:

7 + 7 on 3

7% sales tax on every purchase + 7% income tax on individual yearly earnings that are in excess of $3 million.

No corporate income taxes, no favoritism, no loop-holes, no IRS bureaucracy to pay for.

That's a fair tax. Buy a new Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - buy a 5 year old Focus, pay less (ass-u-me-ing you're not stupid enough to pay $145,000 for a 5 year old Ford).

This of course is for general revenue only - Social Security should remain a dedicated program, separate from the general fund if it remains at all.

_____

The unfair tax code is definitely a road-block to opportunity - not necessarily for those making nothing, but for those in the middle class. It's the middle class that I'm fighting for - the truly poor is still a small enough segment of the population that they can still be ignored in the tax fight. On paper, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates, but in reality corporations pay taxes in inverse proportion to the number of lawyers they have on staff - Can you not see the road-block to opportunity this presents to smaller corporations, partnerships and proprietors?

The right needs to face the fact that "trickle down" economics is a joke and when you give a few guys with millions a few million more, they stuff it in the bank and head for the Caymans on a yacht where as if you give millions of middle class households a few thousand, they'll go out and spend it on stuff like cars, houses, electronic devices and refrigerators. THAT'S why fair taxes will motivate this economy like the 50's and 60's - it has nothing to do with the truly poor.

Did you see the GOP debate last night?

Gary Johnson gave three quick ways to solve unemployment:
1. no corporate income tax
2. no minimun wage law
3. stop extending unemployment insurance..

Opinion?

Didn't see it. No corporate income tax is a feature of the tax plan I find most favorable, but with out knowing what tax there will be, I'm not going to sign off on it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

I will never grasp this delusion.

You hate the rich b/c they take everyones money.
But you love the government that takes everyones money.

The rich lose money when they don't perform up to standards
The government takes more when they don't perfom up to standards b/c they say they need to expand.

The rich can't send us to die for oil.
The government is doing that in Lybia now

Please explain, in some good detail, why the government is better than rich people.

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules. The people who manage government agencies aren't paid based on a scale of how much value they can squeeze out of every "customer" and, ass-u-me-ing corruption is under control, have no personal stake in the decisions they make other than professionalism.

I for one am glad that the rest of you bastards aren't so cheap that you'll pony up for bureaucrats smart enough to still have most of their teeth.

The best example is Social Security. It's a retirement and disability insurance program. Once you have PAID ENOUGH IN TO QUALIFY, if you file a claim that passes all the rules, you get paid. Retirement claims that meet all the rules can have the first check directly deposited within 4 weeks. Most retirees never have to contact Social Security again if they don't change bank accounts or mailing addresses.

Compare that to a private insurance bureaucracy. Their managers are paid bonuses to convince people to buy coverage and then make sure as few claims as are legally required to be paid are paid. Then your lawyer gets 33.3%

And if it makes a difference to you - if your Social Security disability claim is complicated enough to warrant hiring an attorney, the fee is maxed at $6,000.

You can also thank government for an enforceable 40 hour work week and an enforceable end to slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of a big-government nanny state, I simply believe 'government', is a tool - like a gun or a band-saw and We, The People are losing a little skin learning how to use it. Like any good tool, we shouldn't throw it out just 'cause it hurts learning how to use it.

Step 1. Admit that 'government' is a tool that is here to stay and it SHOULD be used.

Step 2. Simple taxes.

A simple tax code = A fair tax code.

You want another reason to keep 'government' alive and in the tool shed? Imagine the Social Security and IRS data bases in the hands of a for profit organization. I for one sleep much better knowing my private information, work and tax records are guarded by professional bureaucrats, who have sworn a public oath to uphold The Constitution and the people it represents.

Not it's not. If a biz or corp does something we don't like, they lose money, and either have to change or go broke.
There is no such thing as professionalism in government.
I've known more than a few people getting disability that were not disabled.
link. B/c I have never had, nor met a person that had a claim denied. I'm sure it has occurred, but this is blown way outta proportion.
Instead of a giant band saw, how about we cut down to a hand saw, ya know, something we can control.
The only people that do that are Vets. Government employees don't, and they are not vested in preventing any release b/c they can't be fired.


Try this; Next December, call medicare, see how long it takes to get through.

I worked as a csr with a private ins co that did Med sup part d. ~ once a week I got a call from a member telling me they were not dead. Medicare declared them dead all on their own.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I will never grasp this delusion.

You hate the rich b/c they take everyones money.
But you love the government that takes everyones money.

The rich lose money when they don't perform up to standards
The government takes more when they don't perfom up to standards b/c they say they need to expand.

The rich can't send us to die for oil.
The government is doing that in Lybia now

Please explain, in some good detail, why the government is better than rich people.

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules. The people who manage government agencies aren't paid based on a scale of how much value they can squeeze out of every "customer" and, ass-u-me-ing corruption is under control, have no personal stake in the decisions they make other than professionalism.

I for one am glad that the rest of you bastards aren't so cheap that you'll pony up for bureaucrats smart enough to still have most of their teeth.

The best example is Social Security. It's a retirement and disability insurance program. Once you have PAID ENOUGH IN TO QUALIFY, if you file a claim that passes all the rules, you get paid. Retirement claims that meet all the rules can have the first check directly deposited within 4 weeks. Most retirees never have to contact Social Security again if they don't change bank accounts or mailing addresses.

Compare that to a private insurance bureaucracy. Their managers are paid bonuses to convince people to buy coverage and then make sure as few claims as are legally required to be paid are paid. Then your lawyer gets 33.3%

And if it makes a difference to you - if your Social Security disability claim is complicated enough to warrant hiring an attorney, the fee is maxed at $6,000.

You can also thank government for an enforceable 40 hour work week and an enforceable end to slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of a big-government nanny state, I simply believe 'government', is a tool - like a gun or a band-saw and We, The People are losing a little skin learning how to use it. Like any good tool, we shouldn't throw it out just 'cause it hurts learning how to use it.

Step 1. Admit that 'government' is a tool that is here to stay and it SHOULD be used.

Step 2. Simple taxes.

A simple tax code = A fair tax code.

You want another reason to keep 'government' alive and in the tool shed? Imagine the Social Security and IRS data bases in the hands of a for profit organization. I for one sleep much better knowing my private information, work and tax records are guarded by professional bureaucrats, who have sworn a public oath to uphold The Constitution and the people it represents.

Not it's not. If a biz or corp does something we don't like, they lose money, and either have to change or go broke.
There is no such thing as professionalism in government.
I've known more than a few people getting disability that were not disabled.
link. B/c I have never had, nor met a person that had a claim denied. I'm sure it has occurred, but this is blown way outta proportion.
Instead of a giant band saw, how about we cut down to a hand saw, ya know, something we can control.
The only people that do that are Vets. Government employees don't, and they are not vested in preventing any release b/c they can't be fired.


Try this; Next December, call medicare, see how long it takes to get through.

I worked as a csr with a private ins co that did Med sup part d. ~ once a week I got a call from a member telling me they were not dead. Medicare declared them dead all on their own.

Tell that to Seal Team Six. I double-dog dare ya.

 

[sparky]

Now, my turn?

fair enough.....

I. The meaning of ‘equality’ as defined by Bork, in "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter 4...

first, a review of Bork>

Review of Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah"

Bork, you probably remember, was the Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court who was rejected by the Senate because many felt his views were extremist. If you had any doubt that that controversial decision was a good one, reading this book should convince you how lucky we really were.

The book isn't awful because Bork criticizes university professors (and I'm one), or because Bork criticizes atheists (I'm one), or because Bork criticizes pro-choicers (I'm one of those, too). It's awful because it's illogical, incoherent, uninformed, and inaccurate.

The main thrust of Bork's argument is that two of the most fundamental principles of democracy (namely, egalitarianism and liberty) have been taken to extremes by the bogeyman he calls the "modern liberal", and the very survival of human civilization is threatened as a result. Modern liberalism is a "corrosive agent". According to Bork, "[m]odern liberals ... have a need to lie, and do so abundantly, since many Americans would not like their actual agenda." Chief among the culprits, Bork says, are the universities, feminists, homosexuals, artists, and, of course, atheists and church-state separatists.


radical extereemists who love our country , yet insist our demise is due to 99% of it's citizens is rather 'out there' , not to be confused with conservatist view PC


1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.


uh huh, well, we did have a major to-do about that here, something along the lines of 1/2 million Americans lives spent hashing it out


i think you'll find little dispute in the validation of slavery (one human owning another) being inherently evil anywhere on this rock, yet i do sense a legthly definitional debate on just what the qualifiers might be for 'slave'




2. The document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

equality modified by merit ?

methinks we threw the term into the vernacular vortex here PC

simply posed, if you're a go getter, you should be able to prosper

equal opportunity IS equality in said sense

lack of merit , or as i posted prior, meritocray, is counter productive to equality







3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom- and the so-prescient Tocqueville foresaw the dangerous morass into which modern liberalism has placed us...

a. 'The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

ok, the man died before our civil war here, 1859, the world's turned a few times since then, but we can clearly paint 'ol Al as an abolitionist, or even civil rights leader in the 60's>


Though a supporter of colonialism, Tocqueville could clearly perceive the evils that blacks and Indians had been subjected to in America. Tocqueville notes that among the races that exist in America:

The first who attracts the eye, the first in enlightenment, in power and in happiness, is the white man, the European, man par excellence; below him appear the Negro and the Indian. These two unfortunate races have neither birth, nor face, nor language, nor mores in common; only their misfortunes look alike. Both occupy an equally inferior position in the country that they inhabit; both experience the effects of tyranny; and if their miseries are different, they can accuse the same author for them.[20]

Tocqueville contrasted the settlers of Virginia with the middle-class, religious Puritans who founded New England, and analyzed the debasing influence of slavery:

"The men sent to Virginia were seekers of gold, adventurers without resources and without character, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony...Artisans and agriculturalists arrived afterwards...hardly in any respect above the level of the inferior classes in England. No lofty views, no spiritual conception presided over the foundation of these new settlements. The colony was scarcely established when slavery was introduced; this was the capital fact which was to exercise an immense influence on the character, the laws and the whole future of the South. Slavery...dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress. It enervates the powers of the mind and benumbs the activity of man. On this same English foundation there developed in the North very different characteristics.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


Methinks you confusion is a hand up with a hand out PC, potus's like FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton merely accentuate what every civilized society has to have, a social contract with it's populace

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i would also inteject the pedelum can , and does swing, the Gini Coefficent serving as meter to this









6. The accession of these views, equality vs. freedom, means that there can be no free market, for that would always result in inequalities. Compared to nations such as Sweden, the United States will, by the nature of its economic system, have greater differences in wealth and income.

Aren't we convienetly leaving out the fact that said pendelum can easily swing into oligarhy-ville here?




7. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

8. Professor Wildavsky, former president of the American Political Science Association, wrote this in 1991:

“Rising egalitarianism will lower our standard of living, decrease our health, debase public discourse, lower the quality of public officials, weaken democracy, make people more suspicious of one another, and (if it be possible) worse. Worse is the constant denigration of American life- our polity, economy, and society- with no viable alternative to take its place.” Aaron Wildavsky, “The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism,” p. xxx

he also opines as such>

Wildavsky was a noted scholar on budgeting and budget theory. He is associated with the idea of incrementalism in budgeting, meaning that the most important predictor of a future political budget is the prior one; not a rational economic or decision process undertaken by the state. His book Politics of the Budgetary Process was named by the American Society for Public Administration as the third most influential work in public administration in the last fifty years. In Searching for Safety (1988), Wildavsky argued that trial and error, rather than the precautionary principle, is the best way to manage risks. He noted that rich, technologically advanced societies were the safest, as measured by life expectancy and quality of life.

Aaron Wildavsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One merely needs to juxtapose Aaron's (who passed in Clintonian times) 'quality of life' parameters to the effects of Clinton's nafta passage , as well as Glass Steagal reform to present time to make his case, both gleaming accolades of elitism's rise to power and prominence




People are most conservative on issues they know about- Ann Coulter

most agreeable, which is why i tend to distance myself from radicals like her
~S~

 

[AVG-JOE]

I will never grasp this delusion.

You hate the rich b/c they take everyones money.
But you love the government that takes everyones money.

The rich lose money when they don't perform up to standards
The government takes more when they don't perfom up to standards b/c they say they need to expand.

The rich can't send us to die for oil.
The government is doing that in Lybia now

Please explain, in some good detail, why the government is better than rich people.

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules. The people who manage government agencies aren't paid based on a scale of how much value they can squeeze out of every "customer" and, ass-u-me-ing corruption is under control, have no personal stake in the decisions they make other than professionalism.

I for one am glad that the rest of you bastards aren't so cheap that you'll pony up for bureaucrats smart enough to still have most of their teeth.

The best example is Social Security. It's a retirement and disability insurance program. Once you have PAID ENOUGH IN TO QUALIFY, if you file a claim that passes all the rules, you get paid. Retirement claims that meet all the rules can have the first check directly deposited within 4 weeks. Most retirees never have to contact Social Security again if they don't change bank accounts or mailing addresses.

Compare that to a private insurance bureaucracy. Their managers are paid bonuses to convince people to buy coverage and then make sure as few claims as are legally required to be paid are paid. Then your lawyer gets 33.3%[/COLOR]

And if it makes a difference to you - if your Social Security disability claim is complicated enough to warrant hiring an attorney, the fee is maxed at $6,000.

You can also thank government for an enforceable 40 hour work week and an enforceable end to slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of a big-government nanny state, I simply believe 'government', is a tool - like a gun or a band-saw and We, The People are losing a little skin learning how to use it. Like any good tool, we shouldn't throw it out just 'cause it hurts learning how to use it.

Step 1. Admit that 'government' is a tool that is here to stay and it SHOULD be used.

Step 2. Simple taxes.

A simple tax code = A fair tax code.

You want another reason to keep 'government' alive and in the tool shed? Imagine the Social Security and IRS data bases in the hands of a for profit organization. I for one sleep much better knowing my private information, work and tax records are guarded by professional bureaucrats, who have sworn a public oath to uphold The Constitution and the people it represents.

Not it's not. If a biz or corp does something we don't like, they lose money, and either have to change or go broke.
There is no such thing as professionalism in government.
I've known more than a few people getting disability that were not disabled.
link. B/c I have never had, nor met a person that had a claim denied. I'm sure it has occurred, but this is blown way outta proportion.
Instead of a giant band saw, how about we cut down to a hand saw, ya know, something we can control.
The only people that do that are Vets. Government employees don't, and they are not vested in preventing any release b/c they can't be fired.


Try this; Next December, call medicare, see how long it takes to get through.

I worked as a csr with a private ins co that did Med sup part d. ~ once a week I got a call from a member telling me they were not dead. Medicare declared them dead all on their own.

Try telling your bank that you don't like the new fee and if they don't adjust your account you'll leave and take your money. They'll laugh. Big business does not need to care about customers. Try writing a letter to your insurance company explaining how the expense SHOULD be covered, as you understand the policy. They'll point to fine print and laugh at you.

You have no idea what you're talking about. EVERY federal employee from the president on down has to take the oath of office before being seated at their desk. And MANY of those employees you slander so easily ARE military vets.

 

[sparky]

etta>

I'd love to hear Bork, Al & Aaron opine on how their doctrine worked out in relation to our current wealth redistribution in America (pick any)

Google

 

[Two Thumbs]

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules. The people who manage government agencies aren't paid based on a scale of how much value they can squeeze out of every "customer" and, ass-u-me-ing corruption is under control, have no personal stake in the decisions they make other than professionalism.

I for one am glad that the rest of you bastards aren't so cheap that you'll pony up for bureaucrats smart enough to still have most of their teeth.

The best example is Social Security. It's a retirement and disability insurance program. Once you have PAID ENOUGH IN TO QUALIFY, if you file a claim that passes all the rules, you get paid. Retirement claims that meet all the rules can have the first check directly deposited within 4 weeks. Most retirees never have to contact Social Security again if they don't change bank accounts or mailing addresses.

Compare that to a private insurance bureaucracy. Their managers are paid bonuses to convince people to buy coverage and then make sure as few claims as are legally required to be paid are paid. Then your lawyer gets 33.3%

And if it makes a difference to you - if your Social Security disability claim is complicated enough to warrant hiring an attorney, the fee is maxed at $6,000.

You can also thank government for an enforceable 40 hour work week and an enforceable end to slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of a big-government nanny state, I simply believe 'government', is a tool - like a gun or a band-saw and We, The People are losing a little skin learning how to use it. Like any good tool, we shouldn't throw it out just 'cause it hurts learning how to use it.

Step 1. Admit that 'government' is a tool that is here to stay and it SHOULD be used.

Step 2. Simple taxes.

A simple tax code = A fair tax code.

You want another reason to keep 'government' alive and in the tool shed? Imagine the Social Security and IRS data bases in the hands of a for profit organization. I for one sleep much better knowing my private information, work and tax records are guarded by professional bureaucrats, who have sworn a public oath to uphold The Constitution and the people it represents.

Not it's not. If a biz or corp does something we don't like, they lose money, and either have to change or go broke.[/COLOR]
There is no such thing as professionalism in government.
I've known more than a few people getting disability that were not disabled.
link. B/c I have never had, nor met a person that had a claim denied. I'm sure it has occurred, but this is blown way outta proportion.
Instead of a giant band saw, how about we cut down to a hand saw, ya know, something we can control.
The only people that do that are Vets. Government employees don't, and they are not vested in preventing any release b/c they can't be fired.


Try this; Next December, call medicare, see how long it takes to get through.

I worked as a csr with a private ins co that did Med sup part d. ~ once a week I got a call from a member telling me they were not dead. Medicare declared them dead all on their own.

Tell that to Seal Team Six. I double-dog dare ya.

Compare them to government workers.

I triple dog dare you

However, your fine line is correct, but we both know we were not talking about the military.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Because government, at least here in America, is under the control of We, The People - at least in theory - and has to obey the rules. The people who manage government agencies aren't paid based on a scale of how much value they can squeeze out of every "customer" and, ass-u-me-ing corruption is under control, have no personal stake in the decisions they make other than professionalism.

I for one am glad that the rest of you bastards aren't so cheap that you'll pony up for bureaucrats smart enough to still have most of their teeth.

The best example is Social Security. It's a retirement and disability insurance program. Once you have PAID ENOUGH IN TO QUALIFY, if you file a claim that passes all the rules, you get paid. Retirement claims that meet all the rules can have the first check directly deposited within 4 weeks. Most retirees never have to contact Social Security again if they don't change bank accounts or mailing addresses.

Compare that to a private insurance bureaucracy. Their managers are paid bonuses to convince people to buy coverage and then make sure as few claims as are legally required to be paid are paid. Then your lawyer gets 33.3%[/COLOR]

And if it makes a difference to you - if your Social Security disability claim is complicated enough to warrant hiring an attorney, the fee is maxed at $6,000.

You can also thank government for an enforceable 40 hour work week and an enforceable end to slavery.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favor of a big-government nanny state, I simply believe 'government', is a tool - like a gun or a band-saw and We, The People are losing a little skin learning how to use it. Like any good tool, we shouldn't throw it out just 'cause it hurts learning how to use it.

Step 1. Admit that 'government' is a tool that is here to stay and it SHOULD be used.

Step 2. Simple taxes.

A simple tax code = A fair tax code.

You want another reason to keep 'government' alive and in the tool shed? Imagine the Social Security and IRS data bases in the hands of a for profit organization. I for one sleep much better knowing my private information, work and tax records are guarded by professional bureaucrats, who have sworn a public oath to uphold The Constitution and the people it represents.

Not it's not. If a biz or corp does something we don't like, they lose money, and either have to change or go broke.
There is no such thing as professionalism in government.
I've known more than a few people getting disability that were not disabled.
link. B/c I have never had, nor met a person that had a claim denied. I'm sure it has occurred, but this is blown way outta proportion.
Instead of a giant band saw, how about we cut down to a hand saw, ya know, something we can control.
The only people that do that are Vets. Government employees don't, and they are not vested in preventing any release b/c they can't be fired.


Try this; Next December, call medicare, see how long it takes to get through.

I worked as a csr with a private ins co that did Med sup part d. ~ once a week I got a call from a member telling me they were not dead. Medicare declared them dead all on their own.

Try telling your bank that you don't like the new fee and if they don't adjust your account you'll leave and take your money. They'll laugh. Big business does not need to care about customers. Try writing a letter to your insurance company explaining how the expense SHOULD be covered, as you understand the policy. They'll point to fine print and laugh at you.

You have no idea what you're talking about. EVERY federal employee from the president on down has to take the oath of office before being seated at their desk. And MANY of those employees you slander so easily ARE military vets.

I've left many banks b/c I did not like the way they worked. And more than one insurance company was tossed by my employer b/c I worked with my co-workers to dump them. They lost money, I got better goods and services, the government can't be fired.
I am a Vet. I've had to had to deal with state and Fed employees, any oath they take is not taken seriously

I consider Vets, Vets, and government employees, employees.

Don't fine line me.

 

[Big Fitz]

No I don't believe the tax code is fair. Parts of it unfairly favor the wealthy, but you have to admit parts of it also unfairly favor the poor. Don't try to pretend your one of these people that wants a fair tax code. Because you liberals always draw the line of fairness with poor people. Damn near every liberal here has said at a certain low income level you should get a pass on paying income tax. That isn't fair. Fair EVERYONE pays.

The tax code however has nothing to do with earning potential. Ed says U.S. wages are declining and I am simply contesting that is not the fault of corporate america or government. It is a failure of people to see on conscious level that what produced a certain income and standard of living before is not the same as what produces that now. People aren't solving the problem the right way. The most efficient way to get the standard of living you want is to do your market research, determine the value of various skills sets and pursue the one that is going to yield the income you desire. But most young people don't do that. They pursue what they want to pursue and accept the liefestyle that it affords. Which is fine, just don't be one of those people that bemoans your standard of living if there really should be no reasonable expectation that the skills you are currently using will yield the standard of living you want.

My personal feeling? EVERY American CITIZEN should be able to earn their first $3 million free of any income tax.

I think the most fair tax code would involve a consumption tax, not an income tax:

7 + 7 on 3

7% sales tax on every purchase + 7% income tax on individual yearly earnings that are in excess of $3 million.

No corporate income taxes, no favoritism, no loop-holes, no IRS bureaucracy to pay for.

That's a fair tax. Buy a new Ferrari, pay Ferrari tax - buy a 5 year old Focus, pay less (ass-u-me-ing you're not stupid enough to pay $145,000 for a 5 year old Ford).

This of course is for general revenue only - Social Security should remain a dedicated program, separate from the general fund if it remains at all.

_____

The unfair tax code is definitely a road-block to opportunity - not necessarily for those making nothing, but for those in the middle class. It's the middle class that I'm fighting for - the truly poor is still a small enough segment of the population that they can still be ignored in the tax fight. On paper, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates, but in reality corporations pay taxes in inverse proportion to the number of lawyers they have on staff - Can you not see the road-block to opportunity this presents to smaller corporations, partnerships and proprietors?

The right needs to face the fact that "trickle down" economics is a joke and when you give a few guys with millions a few million more, they stuff it in the bank and head for the Caymans on a yacht where as if you give millions of middle class households a few thousand, they'll go out and spend it on stuff like cars, houses, electronic devices and refrigerators. THAT'S why fair taxes will motivate this economy like the 50's and 60's - it has nothing to do with the truly poor.

Did you see the GOP debate last night?

Gary Johnson gave three quick ways to solve unemployment:
1. no corporate income tax
2. no minimun wage law
3. stop extending unemployment insurance..

Opinion?

Three excellent suggestions in many ways.

1. No corporate income taxes. Prices would drop by that amount to consumers encouraging more spending, producing more taxes for gubmint (lucky buggers) through sales taxes bolstering local and state growth. Businesses could hire more and increase production creating a positive spiral of growth. The feds will just have to suck hind tit and cut more spending AS THEY OUGHT TO.

2. No minimum wage. What an awesome idea. If you're too goddamn dumb to know not to take a job that does not sustain yourself, you deserve what you get. The market will find it's own floor, and in some jobs, it will be more, in others, it will be less. Regardless, jobs that do not DESERVE the costs of a minimum wage that is too high (Hello there fast food counter jockeys and other zero skilled trained monkey jobs) can fall to their appropriate levels that both people will work for, provide qualified (hah!) help for, or find appropriate employees (hello teenagers, the retirees will be quitting soon) Price floors and ceilings are bad bad BAD. Ask yourself this. Are you stupid enough to work at a gas station overnight for 4.25 an hour? I thought not.

3. Stop extending unemployment insurance. Well no SHIT! If you make people comfortable and happy or at least give them a price floor in which they won't accept a new job or look for one, people will sit on public assistance till you force them off. I know of 3 personal cases in which friends do exactly this. One finally started getting temp work because his benefits started running out. Yes it's harsh, and cruel, but you know what? Most people who have a modicum of self worth bust their ass to get off Unemployment and become producers again, not moochers. Nothing but good could come of this and nobody's going to be 'dying in the street' and leave their corpses to walk over. If they do start that, contractors will be in business cleaning up the bodies. Let's hear it for free market capitalism!

 

[Big Fitz]

7 + 7 on 3

7% sales tax on every purchase + 7% income tax on individual yearly earnings that are in excess of $3 million.

I have to disagree on only 1 point. No taxation floor. EVERYONE pays the income tax. Otherwise you violate due process and equal representation (oh wait, we do that anyway... but no reason to continue it). The rich minority will spend much more than a poor person anyway, and 7% of 3 million plus is STILL hundreds of times more than 3% of $20k But since many more people are in poverty, that tax burden is very light and group is very large. Let's hear it for bulk pricing!