Because that's the very definition of fairness -- threating those similarly situated in the same manner. How about this solution for the national debt -- every Republican multi-millionaire give 25% of their net worth to the government and us Democratic multi-millionaires keep our money. Sounds like a great plan to me.Incorrect on the definition of fairness. In a zero sum game, the definition of fairness is more for me, less for you. In a positive sum game, the definition of fairness is more for me, I don't care about you. In a negative sum game, the definition of fairness is more for me, a lot less for you. See Adam Smith.
I can keep donating the same $50k or so per cycle to the Democrats and my Republican colleges have less money in their pocket. So if they keep giving to Republican candidates, but if they do, they feel a much bigger pinch. Sign me up!!!! Don't you think that they'll go for that???!!!!Originally Posted by TexTushHog
- blue3122
- 11-20-2011, 08:55 PM
- Iaintliein
- 11-20-2011, 09:39 PM
"Fairness" is a completely artificial and childish construct. That's why a government of laws must be based on the premise of "equal protection" not "fairness". The notion of government insuring "fairness" is laughable.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-20-2011, 10:12 PM
"Fairness" is a completely artificial and childish construct. That's why a government of laws must be based on the premise of "equal protection" not "fairness". The notion of government insuring "fairness" is laughable. Originally Posted by IaintlieinExactly, we discussed this before, but TTH refuses to learn.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-20-2011, 10:13 PM
"Fairness" is a completely artificial and childish construct. That's why a government of laws must be based on the premise of "equal protection" not "fairness". The notion of government insuring "fairness" is laughable. Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Bush deregulation mania also helped so much... oh wait, no it didn't. Originally Posted by budman33Yes it did.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-20-2011, 10:17 PM
Because that's the very definition of fairness -- threating those similarly situated in the same manner. How about this solution for the national debt -- every Republican multi-millionaire give 25% of their net worth to the government and us Democratic multi-millionaires keep our money. Sounds like a great plan to me.Ah, TTH, TTH, TTH. What to do with you and your liberal-rich guy-guilt ridden-inherited wealth complex. What makes you the arbiter of fairness?
I can keep donating the same $50k or so per cycle to the Democrats and my Republican colleges have less money in their pocket. So if they keep giving to Republican candidates, but if they do, they feel a much bigger pinch. Sign me up!!!! Don't you think that they'll go for that???!!!!
How is it fair for one person to say "I should pay this much, and so should you?" If you really want to be fair, let each person decide for him/herself how much to pay. You have no right to what is in my wallet. You have no idea what it means to me, or what I think is fair.
You really need some therapy.
- joe bloe
- 11-21-2011, 09:26 AM
Slow economic growth how? Are you advocating that we go back to the Trickle Down economics? If so then tell me where were all those "great" jobs during the Bush years? What was the benefit of the Bush Tax cuts if it didn't create jobs nor raise revenue? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Bush cut taxes and for most of his administration the ecomony boomed. John Kennedy cut taxes and the economy boomed. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed.
Obama's plan to raise taxes in the middle of severe recession is economic suicide; or more accurately economic murder.
Supply side economics works every time its used. The facts (as always) are on the side of conservatism.
Democrats don't really want high taxes to increase revenue. They want a confiscatory progressive income tax to equalize wealth; better we should all be poor than to have income inequality.
Obama told ABC "journalist" Charles Gibson that he would be in favor of increasing the capital gains tax even if it didn't increase revenue "in the interest of fairness". He meant that taking money from rich people is inherantly a good thing simply because it makes them less rich.
- Marshall
- 11-21-2011, 09:44 AM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! LIFE'S TOO HARD AND HAS TOO MANY PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!
The Pathology of the Rich Socialist
By Selwyn Duke - December 13, 2009 1:03 AM
People such as George Soros and Michael Moore certainly talk a good game, but the next Mother Teresa they are not. Mother Teresa never criticized the free-market system; wealth just wasn't for her. Soros and Moore are quite the opposite. They will never take a vow of poverty and dedicate themselves to helping the poor. They just want our civilization to take a vow of poverty and become poor.
This has caused many to wonder: How can someone preach socialism while being the most rapacious "capitalist" imaginable? Well, I have a theory about this.
It has often been observed that those who preach liberalism the most practice charity the least, and research bears this out. For example, in a piece titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," self-proclaimed liberal Nicholas Kristof wrote,
Additionally, Schweizer reports on studies showing that Leftists are the embodiment of envy. This finding should come as no surprise, despite liberals' propensity to rail against the rich and preach redistribution of wealth. Because, you see, it's not that they care about the downtrodden so much -- it's just that they're just insanely jealous of those who have more than they do.
But what about advocating socialism? Why would these greedy leftists try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs they crave? To understand this, we have to delve into the psychology of vice.
There is a chasm between the heart and head. It is one thing to know something is wrong; it's quite another to feel it on an emotional level. This is probably why Confucius once said (I'm paraphrasing), "It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know." The heart is both a terrible master and a terribly alluring one, as its fires so often trump the head's cool logic. It is the demagogue of the mind's elections, whose rhetoric is hard to resist because it just feels so right.
Now, let's talk about that seemingly greedy man, George Soros. As a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Nazi-occupied Budapest, Hungary in 1944, he posed as the godson of a government official who had been bribed to protect him. Soros then accompanied his protector while the man would make his rounds confiscating property from Jews who were being shipped off to death camps. During a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros said he felt no guilt over this and explained why, stating, "Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
It's just like in markets...that's an interesting comment. But what is this similarity of which Soros speaks? Is it just that by his lights, in both situations he had to choose between being the predator and the prey? Well, read two more statements Soros made in the interview. When asked about his mercenary currency trading, he said, "I don't feel guilty. Because I'm engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt."
An amoral activity or an amoral man?
And when asked whether he deserved the blame for various nations' financial collapses, he replied, "I am basically there to -- to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of -- of what I do."
No, but he sure looked at the social consequences of what George Bush (whom he called a Nazi in his book) did. But I digress.
It's clear that Soros sees our free-market system as an evil, much like the Nazi system whose death camps he eluded. And I wouldn't be surprised if, just as when he was 14, Soros sees himself as a victim caught in its web (the difference is that in 1944, he actually was a victim, whereas now he is the spider). If he doesn't rape the system, someone else will. Yet he is a victim only of his own greed.
Taking this a bit deeper, it's much like someone in the grip of any vice. It's like a man who just cannot resist the bottle and gets falling-down drunk. He may sometimes have moments of clarity during which he actually hates his vice -- and he may start to hate alcohol itself. At these times he may wish it didn't exist, for then the temptation wouldn't be there. But as long as it does exist, he can't help but partake.
George Soros is a greedy man. Because of this, he cannot be "free" of his vice until the opportunity to make money is gone. He cannot retire, cannot rest, as long as there is another dollar to be made in the evil system. He wishes his "bottle" didn't exist, but as long as it does, he can't help but partake. Thus does he want Profit Prohibition.
This should surprise no one. I once heard of a woman who was told by her Leftist college professor not to give money to charity because it was the government's job. But you see, to liberals, everything is little g's job -- and also its responsibility. In just the way a criminal isn't responsible for his actions because "society made him the way he is," Leftists want the government to fight their temptations for them, and they see a free-market society as being one big occasion of sin. The message is simple: It's not my fault if the government places us in a situation in which we can be immoral. Just as liberals outsource their charitable responsibilities, they outsource their moral ones.
The problem is that it doesn't work. There will always be "the other side" and those "from whom the thing is being taken away." There will always be an "evil system." In communist governments, those in power -- who are more equal than others -- get the new Mercedes, the plush apartment, the fine food, and all the other luxuries any commissar could want. And the George Soroses of the world would always try to be among them, for greed would still lie in their hearts. And it wouldn't be hard for them to rationalize, either. They would simply reason, "If I'm not more equal than others, someone else will be. If I don't do it, someone else will."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!
The Pathology of the Rich Socialist
By Selwyn Duke - December 13, 2009 1:03 AM
People such as George Soros and Michael Moore certainly talk a good game, but the next Mother Teresa they are not. Mother Teresa never criticized the free-market system; wealth just wasn't for her. Soros and Moore are quite the opposite. They will never take a vow of poverty and dedicate themselves to helping the poor. They just want our civilization to take a vow of poverty and become poor.
This has caused many to wonder: How can someone preach socialism while being the most rapacious "capitalist" imaginable? Well, I have a theory about this.
It has often been observed that those who preach liberalism the most practice charity the least, and research bears this out. For example, in a piece titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," self-proclaimed liberal Nicholas Kristof wrote,
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.Then there is a fascinating article by Peter Schweizer, titled "Don't listen to the liberals -- Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows." In defense of this thesis, the author presents some scientific findings and then a bit of anecdotal evidence, writing,
Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.The article also cites one Linda Hirshman, who "tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises."
Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal that Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and more likely agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."
You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. "He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known -- and that's saying a lot," claims Urbanski.
Additionally, Schweizer reports on studies showing that Leftists are the embodiment of envy. This finding should come as no surprise, despite liberals' propensity to rail against the rich and preach redistribution of wealth. Because, you see, it's not that they care about the downtrodden so much -- it's just that they're just insanely jealous of those who have more than they do.
But what about advocating socialism? Why would these greedy leftists try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs they crave? To understand this, we have to delve into the psychology of vice.
There is a chasm between the heart and head. It is one thing to know something is wrong; it's quite another to feel it on an emotional level. This is probably why Confucius once said (I'm paraphrasing), "It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know." The heart is both a terrible master and a terribly alluring one, as its fires so often trump the head's cool logic. It is the demagogue of the mind's elections, whose rhetoric is hard to resist because it just feels so right.
Now, let's talk about that seemingly greedy man, George Soros. As a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Nazi-occupied Budapest, Hungary in 1944, he posed as the godson of a government official who had been bribed to protect him. Soros then accompanied his protector while the man would make his rounds confiscating property from Jews who were being shipped off to death camps. During a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros said he felt no guilt over this and explained why, stating, "Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
It's just like in markets...that's an interesting comment. But what is this similarity of which Soros speaks? Is it just that by his lights, in both situations he had to choose between being the predator and the prey? Well, read two more statements Soros made in the interview. When asked about his mercenary currency trading, he said, "I don't feel guilty. Because I'm engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt."
An amoral activity or an amoral man?
And when asked whether he deserved the blame for various nations' financial collapses, he replied, "I am basically there to -- to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of -- of what I do."
No, but he sure looked at the social consequences of what George Bush (whom he called a Nazi in his book) did. But I digress.
It's clear that Soros sees our free-market system as an evil, much like the Nazi system whose death camps he eluded. And I wouldn't be surprised if, just as when he was 14, Soros sees himself as a victim caught in its web (the difference is that in 1944, he actually was a victim, whereas now he is the spider). If he doesn't rape the system, someone else will. Yet he is a victim only of his own greed.
Taking this a bit deeper, it's much like someone in the grip of any vice. It's like a man who just cannot resist the bottle and gets falling-down drunk. He may sometimes have moments of clarity during which he actually hates his vice -- and he may start to hate alcohol itself. At these times he may wish it didn't exist, for then the temptation wouldn't be there. But as long as it does exist, he can't help but partake.
George Soros is a greedy man. Because of this, he cannot be "free" of his vice until the opportunity to make money is gone. He cannot retire, cannot rest, as long as there is another dollar to be made in the evil system. He wishes his "bottle" didn't exist, but as long as it does, he can't help but partake. Thus does he want Profit Prohibition.
This should surprise no one. I once heard of a woman who was told by her Leftist college professor not to give money to charity because it was the government's job. But you see, to liberals, everything is little g's job -- and also its responsibility. In just the way a criminal isn't responsible for his actions because "society made him the way he is," Leftists want the government to fight their temptations for them, and they see a free-market society as being one big occasion of sin. The message is simple: It's not my fault if the government places us in a situation in which we can be immoral. Just as liberals outsource their charitable responsibilities, they outsource their moral ones.
The problem is that it doesn't work. There will always be "the other side" and those "from whom the thing is being taken away." There will always be an "evil system." In communist governments, those in power -- who are more equal than others -- get the new Mercedes, the plush apartment, the fine food, and all the other luxuries any commissar could want. And the George Soroses of the world would always try to be among them, for greed would still lie in their hearts. And it wouldn't be hard for them to rationalize, either. They would simply reason, "If I'm not more equal than others, someone else will be. If I don't do it, someone else will."
- Whirlaway
- 11-21-2011, 10:58 AM
What would be fair would be if the 51% who pay NO federal income taxes contributed somthing !
Because that's the very definition of fairness -- threating those similarly situated in the same manner. How about this solution for the national debt -- every Republican multi-millionaire give 25% of their net worth to the government and us Democratic multi-millionaires keep our money. Sounds like a great plan to me.
I can keep donating the same $50k or so per cycle to the Democrats and my Republican colleges have less money in their pocket. So if they keep giving to Republican candidates, but if they do, they feel a much bigger pinch. Sign me up!!!! Don't you think that they'll go for that???!!!!
- TheDaliLama
- 11-21-2011, 09:34 PM
Slow economic growth how? Are you advocating that we go back to the Trickle Down economics? If so then tell me where were all those "great" jobs during the Bush years? What was the benefit of the Bush Tax cuts if it didn't create jobs nor raise revenue? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911Please explain how Tax and Spend leads to prosperity and how trickle up poverty works.
- budman33
- 11-21-2011, 09:53 PM
- Tiny
- 11-21-2011, 10:03 PM
every Republican multi-millionaire give 25% of their net worth to the government and us Democratic multi-millionaires keep our money. Sounds like a great plan to me.Are you serious? I think you are.
I can keep donating the same $50k or so per cycle to the Democrats and my Republican colleges have less money in their pocket. So if they keep giving to Republican candidates, but if they do, they feel a much bigger pinch. Originally Posted by TexTushHog
I've maintained that many wealthy Democrats are hypocrites. Examples:
John and Teresa Heinz Kerry, two of the wealthiest Americans, who probably pay less tax than TexTushHog, because most of their wealth is in tax free municipal bonds.
Warren Buffet, who pays virtually no tax compared to his net worth, but wants to raise taxes on others. Buffet's wealth is almost all in Berkshire Hathaway stock. Since he never sells his stock and since his company doesn't pay dividends, he pays virtually no taxes individually, and would continue to pay virtually no taxes individually under Obama's so called "Buffet Plan."
Plaintiff's attorneys, who take so much out of the system that they can buy politicians and judges and dare Republicans to try to stay in the race.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-21-2011, 10:33 PM
- joe bloe
- 11-22-2011, 10:08 AM
Are you serious? I think you are.Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway is currently fighting the IRS in court over back taxes that may total as much as one billion dollars. Apparently much of the disputed taxes have to do with corporate jets, the very thing Baboona was demagoguing about.
I've maintained that many wealthy Democrats are hypocrites. Examples:
John and Teresa Heinz Kerry, two of the wealthiest Americans, who probably pay less tax than TexTushHog, because most of their wealth is in tax free municipal bonds.
Warren Buffet, who pays virtually no tax compared to his net worth, but wants to raise taxes on others. Buffet's wealth is almost all in Berkshire Hathaway stock. Since he never sells his stock and since his company doesn't pay dividends, he pays virtually no taxes individually, and would continue to pay virtually no taxes individually under Obama's so called "Buffet Plan."
Plaintiff's attorneys, who take so much out of the system that they can buy politicians and judges and dare Republicans to try to stay in the race. Originally Posted by Tiny
Buffett is a total phony.
- joe bloe
- 11-22-2011, 12:34 PM
Please explain how Tax and Spend leads to prosperity and how trickle up poverty works. Originally Posted by TheDaliLamaIf tax and spend worked, Europe would be thriving instead of disintegrating.
I don't know why America can't learn by Europe's example. It looks like we may follow them over the cliff.
- joe bloe
- 11-22-2011, 12:38 PM