Out of touch, much?

[mostpost]

Todd Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His wife is a doctor. Between them they make in excess of $250,000. He recently authored a blogpost complaining about the Obama plan to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, saying he did not know if his family could make it under those circumstances.
Professor Henderson sends his kids to private schools, he employs a nanny, he owns a nice house, and someone takes care of his landscaping needs. And he compares his plight with someone who has to choose between food on the table and paying the rent. :bang: :bang:
More at the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0924-rich-blog-20100923,0,6222337.story
And they wonder why we think they don't have a clue.

[illinoisbred]

There goes the nanny..there goes the landscaper...sounds like 2 more added to the unemployed in our great state.

[JustRalph]

and he earned every damn dime.......... which seems to be the forgotten piece of your "hate the rich" puzzle.

[HUSKER55]

wait till the redistribution of wealth kicks in and all will be fine.

maybe another stimulus package?

[wisconsin]

Todd Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His wife is a doctor. Between them they make in excess of $250,000. He recently authored a blogpost complaining about the Obama plan to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, saying he did not know if his family could make it under those circumstances.
Professor Henderson sends his kids to private schools, he employs a nanny, he owns a nice house, and someone takes care of his landscaping needs. And he compares his plight with someone who has to choose between food on the table and paying the rent. :bang: :bang:
More at the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0924-rich-blog-20100923,0,6222337.story
And they wonder why we think they don't have a clue.

So, because they became eduacted, put in there time, and made it, they can't continue to send their kids to a private school, and keep a nanny? This is what sharing the wealth is all about? It's ok for you to ridicule this couple, but what percentage of your own are you willing to give up? I'm going to say zip, nada, none, not a crumb.

[bigmack]

What is it that he is out of touch with?

[46zilzal]

LOOPHOLES abound when you have a creative accountant and a steady income stream. I was amazed the things my accountant allowed me to write off that, in reality, had NOTHING to do with my business.

Fat cats have it so easy so long that they forget there are a lot of other people in this world who are not in the privileged class and really have to work for a living

[wisconsin]

LOOPHOLES abound when you have a creative accountant and a steady income stream. I was amazed the things my accountant allowed me to write off that, in reality, had NOTHING to do with my business.

Fat cats have it so easy so long that they forget there are a lot of other people in this world who are not in the privileged class and really have to work for a living

Who cares? You don't think they worked to get where they are? His wife is a doctor, and you of all posters should know the hours she had to put in to get there.

[GaryG]

This is another case of mosty deciding how much people should earn. Any salaried person is worth exactly what his employer agrees to pay. Doctors are worth what fees they collect. Horseplayers are worth whatever they have in the bank. Maybe we need a nanny czar or a gardener czar to decide if a person should be allowed these services. We must renact the Bush tax cuts across the board....period.

[Robert Goren]

There goes the nanny..there goes the landscaper...sounds like 2 more added to the unemployed in our great state.So probably 2 illegals lose their jobs. I am suppose to cry for them.

[DJofSD]

LOOPHOLES abound when you have a creative accountant and a steady income stream. I was amazed the things my accountant allowed me to write off that, in reality, had NOTHING to do with my business.

Fat cats have it so easy so long that they forget there are a lot of other people in this world who are not in the privileged class and really have to work for a living
Of coarse, you signed the return and took the deductions.

Where were your ideals when it was your own personal situation? That is some how different when it hits close to home?

[illinoisbred]

So probably 2 illegals lose their jobs. I am suppose to cry for them.
No..but how many people do the underprivileged employ?

[46zilzal]

Of coarse, you signed the return and took the deductions.

Where were your ideals when it was your own personal situation? That is some how different when it hits close to home?
no I sanded it down first so it wasn't coarse any longer.

[DJofSD]

no I sanded it down first so it wasn't coarse any longer.
OK, S.A, I used the incorrect word.

Dodge and weave; smile and wave, boys, smile and wave.

[Robert Goren]

Not many and none of the illegals. Taxes are not near the problem that are illegals are. If there were no illegals in this country, what would the unemployment rate be? Illegals are sucking the life blood out this country and the people who hire them are the blood bank. I would rather the government took the money in taxes and lite a match to it than have it go to illegal.

[DJofSD]

I would go as far as to say that if there was control over the border and a significantly less problem with illegals, California would be able to balance its budget.

[riskman]

What is it that he is out of touch with?

He is out of touch with mostpost and his share the wealth program. 250K is not a lot of money for a professional couple one a university professor the other a doctor.Most post resides in an alternative reality.

[bigmack]

He is out of touch with mostpost and his share the wealth program. 250K is not a lot of money for a professional couple one a university professor the other a doctor.Most post resides in an alternative reality.
Just as I suspected.

You don't think mosty meant 'the little people' do you? :eek:

[fast4522]

Not many and none of the illegals. Taxes are not near the problem that are illegals are. If there were no illegals in this country, what would the unemployment rate be? Illegals are sucking the life blood out this country and the people who hire them are the blood bank. I would rather the government took the money in taxes and lite a match to it than have it go to illegal.

The poor slob who is looking for a better life I can and will not hate, the administrators who allow them to reside is worth hating. Liberal policy is not worth defending. Simply deport all illegal and Americanize the ones who come legally. Back of the line for illegal, no admittance whatsoever for felons. Denied services across the board everywhere. No amnesty no nothing. How do you tell a father who put his sons threw college and the sons make over the $250K that the father must believe in class warfare. Less than 40 days now.

[mostpost]

You guys are truly dense. I don't care what he makes. I don't deny he and his wife worked for it. My problem is him acting as if he is going to be living in his car and his kids are going to have to start scaveging for cans if the Bush tax cuts end.
All of your answers come from the GOP playbook. Time to fess up. Which one of you is Karl Rove? Which is Eric Kantor? Come on. The masquerade is over. :D

[bigmack]

Time to fess up.
Speaking of fessing - What is it that he is out of touch with?

[46zilzal]

You guys are truly dense. I don't care what he makes. I don't deny he and his wife worked for it. My problem is him acting as if he is going to be living in his car and his kids are going to have to start scaveging for cans if the Bush tax cuts end.
All of your answers come from the GOP playbook. Time to fess up. Which one of you is Karl Rove? Which is Eric Kantor? Come on. The masquerade is over. :D
none of then are since they have nothing original to state

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't care what he makes.A knee slapper if there ever was one.

I don't deny he and his wife worked for it. My problem is him acting as if he is going to be living in his car and his kids are going to have to start scaveging for cans if the Bush tax cuts end.And I assume someone like you should be in charge of drawing the line? What nonsense.

[boxcar]

Todd Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His wife is a doctor. Between them they make in excess of $250,000. He recently authored a blogpost complaining about the Obama plan to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, saying he did not know if his family could make it under those circumstances.
Professor Henderson sends his kids to private schools, he employs a nanny, he owns a nice house, and someone takes care of his landscaping needs. And he compares his plight with someone who has to choose between food on the table and paying the rent. :bang: :bang:
More at the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0924-rich-blog-20100923,0,6222337.story
And they wonder why we think they don't have a clue.

You class envy nonsense is getting very stale. This is what the American Dream is all about -- working hard to pursue it and realize it. Kudos to the doctor and his family!

Your Marxist ideal of a chicken in every pot and affordable homes for all will never, never happen because the ideal isn't grounded in reality, especially since very many people who have to choose between rent and food are suffering the consequences of their own bad life choices. Not one of us, who work hard and contribute to society, should be forced to carry deadbeats' water or suffer the consequences of other people's poor decisions. And I will continue to feel that way until the smug, elitist, know-it-all, wanna-be-geniuses in government figure out a way to determine who is worthy of help and who isn't.

As the Good Book essentially says about deadbeats in this world: If they will not work, neither let them eat! And if that's good enough for the good Lord above, that's good enough for me!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

What is it that he is out of touch with?

This is indeed the megabytes or irony. The thread starter (Pot) calling the Kettle black! :bang: :bang: A liberal never has both feet touching the ground at one time -- and often I think neither foot is!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You guys are truly dense. I don't care what he makes. I don't deny he and his wife worked for it. My problem is him acting as if he is going to be living in his car and his kids are going to have to start scaveging for cans if the Bush tax cuts end.
All of your answers come from the GOP playbook. Time to fess up. Which one of you is Karl Rove? Which is Eric Kantor? Come on. The masquerade is over. :D

But you are clearly saying that this productive member of society has no right, no business being concerned about the state taking HIS HARD EARNED money so that the government can squander it on welfare or entitlement programs? You might as well have said that he should walk down the darkest streets of this nation's worst ghettos with all his money sticking out of his pockets and not be concerned about getting mugged -- if not outright murdered for his property. :bang: :bang: I have little doubt that if he did this, you'd immediately accuse him of acting irresponsibly and that such a Fool deserves to be separated from his Money. But yet when different kinds of thugs dressed up all fancy-like in their three-piece suits, sporting their Big Bang Chronographs on their wrists, while stepping out in their polished Berlutis and sipping their Krug Grand Cuvee in their stretch limo hold the Force of Law to this doctor's head and demand that he turn over more of his hard earned money to them so that they can redistribute it to whom they think is worthy, this doctor is considered crazy for being concerned about his property!? :bang: :bang: Are you stark raving mad!? (This is rhetorical question, incidentally?) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

I don't begrudge the amount of money anyone makes.
The worked for it. They studied. They were employed by someone who thought they were worth it.
But any household that has $ 250,000 gross income should be able to manage quite adequately. The Prof and his wife get no sympathy from me.

[JustRalph]

none of then are since they have nothing original to state

This is why you are a troll. These bullshit remarks where you add nothing, you don't discuss anything.....you just try to insult someone else who is actively participating in the thread. Why you are still here is beyond me..........

[boxcar]

I don't begrudge the amount of money anyone makes.
The worked for it. They studied. They were employed by someone who thought they were worth it.
But any household that has $ 250,000 gross income should be able to manage quite adequately. The Prof and his wife get no sympathy from me.

What Mosty will never understand is that it's not his place -- it's not his business to be concerned with what other people make in order to try to impose his perverse ideas of what constitutes enough income. Central to the American Dream concept is the idea that the sky's the limit -- that an individual's progress is only restricted by one's own personal limitations -- not by the limitations imposed by the likes of the Mostys of this world.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This is why you are a troll. These bullshit remarks where you add nothing, you don't discuss anything.....you just try to insult someone else who is actively participating in the thread. Why you are still here is beyond me..........

He adds nothing because Liberalism is not only morally bankrupt but it's also devoid of any good, viable ideas. We have a classic case here of garbage in (liberal ideology into a brain) garbage out -- Zilly -- the end product.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

this thread reminds me of a column (http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/decline-is-in-the-mind/)I read yesterday by Victor David Hanson where he talks about what he calls "the peasant notion" which has taken over our culture. A couple quotes;

We in turn can easily outdistance any country should we remain the most free, law-abiding, and economically open society as in our past. A race-gender-ethnic-blind meritocracy, equal application of the law, low taxes, small government, and a transparent political and legal system are at the heart of that renewal. America could within a decade become a creditor nation again, with a trade balance and budget surplus, drawing in the world’s talent and capital in a way not possible in the more inflexible or less meritocratic China, Japan, or Germany. Again that is our choice, not a superimposed destiny from someone else.

Unfortunately, we are mired — as in the case of many complex societies that become ever more top-heavy and bureaucratic, when salvation alone is found in becoming less so — in a new peasant notion of the limited good. Anything produced is seen to come at the expense of others. Absolute wealth is imaginary, relative wealth is not. We would rather be equal and unexceptional than collectively better off with a few more better off still.

“Spread the wealth” and “redistributive change” only occur when the enterprising, gifted, lucky, or audacious among us feel that they have a good chance to gain something for themselves (and keep most of it), or to extend to others that something they earned — or more often both motives, self-interested and collective. Deny all that, shoot their bigger cow so to speak, or burn down their towering grain, and we will end up as peasants and serfs fighting over a shrinking pie.

People seem like they would rather have a bleak dystopian future as long as it meant that nobody could ever acquire more wealth than another.

[mostpost]

A knee slapper if there ever was one.

And I assume someone like you should be in charge of drawing the line? What nonsense.
What line? I'll say it again. I don't care how much money he makes. It's his attitude. Like he's being so put upon and his life is going to be in ruins because he might have to pay a little more in taxes. Read the story. Even his wife thinks he's an idiot. :bang:

[mostpost]

We would rather be equal and unexceptional than collectively better off with a few more better off still.
The problem is we are neither equal and unexceptional nor collectively better off with a few more better off still. We are collectively worse off with a few much better off than before. And those who are much better off are crying because they don't have more.

[mostpost]

I don't begrudge the amount of money anyone makes.
The worked for it. They studied. They were employed by someone who thought they were worth it.
But any household that has $ 250,000 gross income should be able to manage quite adequately. The Prof and his wife get no sympathy from me.
Exactly. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[newtothegame]

until everyone elses money runs out!! Then what??? lol

[boxcar]

What line? I'll say it again. I don't care how much money he makes. It's his attitude. Like he's being so put upon and his life is going to be in ruins because he might have to pay a little more in taxes. Read the story. Even his wife thinks he's an idiot. :bang:

She's allowed to. She's part of his household. But again, it's no business of yours how much he makes or what HIS attitude is about HIS money. It's NOT your stinkin' money! You didn't earn a red cent of it? So, why do you care!?

I'll tell you why you care: You're a self-appointed moral busybody who thinks you're so morally superior to people like him that you believe in your heart of hearts that you that you have some divine calling or are under a divine mandate somehow to set people like him straight. And the mega, mega, megabytes of irony in all this is that you are so blinded by your self-deception that you can't see your envy towards the guy. You can't see that it really is about HIS money, also. You implicitly tripped over yourself in a contradiction, for you clearly defined for us in actual dollars and cents what YOU think he should be happy with. You find fault with this guy morally. You're judging him based upon some arbitrary standard of your own that says -- hey, 250K SHOULD be fine for this guy. And if it's not, then this doctor is greedy, evil and morally deficient! Yet, it's not about money at all, is it!? :bang: :bang:

You're actually telling us how much money HE should be content with! Isn't this megabytes of irony? We have broached this topic of contentment previously. But in the bible whenever contentment is mentioned, it's almost always in the context of the not-so-well-heeled, and this is perfectly understandable! (Recall the Roman soldiers encounter with John the Baptist?)
But as usual, you libs get it all backwards. You think the well-heeled should be content with their "wages"! :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[pandy]

That reminds me of a front page article I read in the NY Times, probably 12 to 15 years ago, which talked about a businessman who lost his high paying job and was down to his last $300,000. His wife had tears in her eyes because her Mercedes needed new tires. The Times reporter wanted us to feel sorry for this family because they had moved from Rochester NY to the west coast so the husband could take a 6-fig job, which he lost after several high flying years. Him and his wife refused to sell their home and end their lifestyle even he was offered a job at $50k a year back in Rochester NY, which he turned down. That was when I stopped reading the Times.

[jamey1977]

Todd Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His wife is a doctor. Between them they make in excess of $250,000. He recently authored a blogpost complaining about the Obama plan to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, saying he did not know if his family could make it under those circumstances.
Professor Henderson sends his kids to private schools, he employs a nanny, he owns a nice house, and someone takes care of his landscaping needs. And he compares his plight with someone who has to choose between food on the table and paying the rent. :bang: :bang:
More at the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0924-rich-blog-20100923,0,6222337.story
And they wonder why we think they don't have a clue.
Tell that rich fat pig to stop spending so much money. Lay off the nanny, put those brats in public schools and conserve a little. Spoiled fat pigs, they are worse than any one who is poor because they have money and are still unhappy . To hell with this pig and his problem. Lose some weight, fat pig. LOL And yes the rich are like fat pigs, eating everything, wanting more, never happy. Just more, more, more.

[newtothegame]

Tell that rich fat pig to stop spending so much money. Lay off the nanny, put those brats in public schools and conserve a little. Spoiled fat pigs, they are worse than any one who is poor because they have money and are still unhappy . To hell with this pig and his problem. Lose some weight, fat pig. LOL And yes the rich are like fat pigs, eating everything, wanting more, never happy. Just more, more, more.

Speaking of out of touch........

Sound like someone is envious!

[ArlJim78]

The problem is we are neither equal and unexceptional nor collectively better off with a few more better off still. We are collectively worse off with a few much better off than before. And those who are much better off are crying because they don't have more.
he's better off than you because of his hard work and intelligence, get over it. bitterness over the fact that someone did better than you is really offputting.
don't pretend like there is something sinister about elevating ones wealth, I'm sure you did your best to amass some wealth over your lifetime.

nobody, including yourself, wants to turn over more of their income to government.

[mostpost]

You implicitly tripped over yourself in a contradiction, for you clearly defined for us in actual dollars and cents what YOU think he should be happy with. You find fault with this guy morally. You're judging him based upon some arbitrary standard of your own that says -- hey, 250K SHOULD be fine for this guy. And if it's not, then this doctor is greedy, evil and morally deficient! Yet, it's not about money at all, is it!?
You are amazing in your ability to misinterpret things to serve your viewpoint.
I mentioned in excess of $250,000 because that's what the article mentioned, not because that's my opinion of what his salary ceiling should be. It's his ATTITUDE ATTITUDE ATTITUDE His sense of being mistreated because he will have to pay, what is probably less than on percent more of his income in taxes.
Yes I have the right to do that. As much right as you have to make your foolish complaints about non-existent socialism.
Greyfox gets what I'm saying and he seldom agrees with me. Pandy understands and he rarely agrees. Come out of the darkness, Box.

[ArlJim78]

I remember now reading this professors blogs posts. He wasn't crying about anything. He certainly wasn't looking for sympathy. He was trying to show the real world effect of raising taxes on people who make around $250,000. It's not like they can just pay additional taxes out of petty cash. they already pay huge taxes, they have to make adjustments, meaning they have to cut. like cut the nanny, or the gardener, or spend less, or all of the above. The point is that all of these actions harm the real economy. private wealth is transferred to the fed's, and what is the government going to do with the money? answer they are going to blow it on stupid jobs bills or union sweetheart deals or pork barrel for cronies.

the point is that it is always better, more efficient, more just to let people keep their wealth and determine how to spend it.

[ElKabong]

a Mail Sorter posting on the internet how much a doctor should or shouldn't make...the internet is a grand place, i'm telling you.

[ElKabong]

Arl Jim in post 31 has one of the better quotes of the year— in a new peasant notion of the limited good. Anything produced is seen to come at the expense of others. Absolute wealth is imaginary, relative wealth is not. We would rather be equal and unexceptional than collectively better off with a few more better off still.

Simply awesome, and nails the head of a couple of posters in here perfectly

[ElKabong]

And I assume someone like you should be in charge of drawing the line? What nonsense.

just dawned on me who/ what mosty tries to emulate...Strailnikoff, from dr zhivago....an underachieving dolt, a failure in life in a free market society who would like nothing more than to bring others down to his lowly level rather than achieve anything worthwhile for himself. In his imaginary world he visions being able to determine who keeps what regardless of their worth in society.

He's the biggest loser we've had posting here.
,

[JustRalph]

Tell that rich fat pig to stop spending so much money. Lay off the nanny, put those brats in public schools and conserve a little. Spoiled fat pigs, they are worse than any one who is poor because they have money and are still unhappy . To hell with this pig and his problem. Lose some weight, fat pig. LOL And yes the rich are like fat pigs, eating everything, wanting more, never happy. Just more, more, more.

Amazing post. You gotta be what ? 12-13 yrs old?

Put those brats in public schools ? So they can be corrupted by the piss poor teachers that the union protects? Give me a break............

Fat pigs ? The rich are like fat pigs? This guy is not rich. He makes 250k ....between them. And he lives in one of the most expensive cities in America.........you got to be kidding

[boxcar]

You are amazing in your ability to misinterpret things to serve your viewpoint.
I mentioned in excess of $250,000 because that's what the article mentioned, not because that's my opinion of what his salary ceiling should be. It's his ATTITUDE ATTITUDE ATTITUDE His sense of being mistreated because he will have to pay, what is probably less than on percent more of his income in taxes.
Yes I have the right to do that. As much right as you have to make your foolish complaints about non-existent socialism.
Greyfox gets what I'm saying and he seldom agrees with me. Pandy understands and he rarely agrees. Come out of the darkness, Box.

His attitude is his business. It's his money isn't it!? Did you earn his money for him? What do YOU contribute toward his personal income? How have YOU produced income for this man? Did you pay for his schooling? Did you pay for his college education? You haven't done diddly squat FOR him, but you are sure quick TO sit in judgment of him, you self-righteous hypocrite. At least HIS money has earned him the right to have any freakin' attitude he wants over the government wanting to confiscate more of HIS money. The state who has never ever generated one red cent of income on its own -- and never will -- could care less about how hard most people must work for their money. The fact that you personally don't like his attitude has about as much significance to him and others like him as does a gnat sitting on an elephant's rump because successful people like him look at losers like you and they rightfully hold you and your ilk in derision for butting your sanctimonious, condescending snout into their personal affairs.

Who in heaven died, Mosty, that they left you in charge of judging the wealthy in the world? Did you knock God off his judgment throne? Or did the Almighty bestow some kind of divine power on you to fundamentally transform greedy hearts into charitable ones with your chastising words? Or you don't have enough of your own failings with which to concern yourself, so you've decided to embark on a career as full time moral busybody to straighten everyone else out? You had this huge moral void to fill in your own perfect life, so you've appointed yourself as judge and jury in everyone's else life!? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. And the fact that a couple of people here are disagreeing with me who would normally agree speaks volumes for my ability to think for myself, as well as their's, too -- which is exceedingly far more than can be said for the vast majority of libs on this forum. I don't march to anyone else's beat. This isn't the first time conservatives have broken ranks with me and vice versa, and surely it won't be the last. Know this: I would never lose a wink of sleep over it either way! Night, night. ;)

[jamey1977]

Amazing post. You gotta be what ? 12-13 yrs old?

Put those brats in public schools ? So they can be corrupted by the piss poor teachers that the union protects? Give me a break............

Fat pigs ? The rich are like fat pigs? This guy is not rich. He makes 250k ....between them. And he lives in one of the most expensive cities in America.........you got to be kidding
Everyone seems to be defending these spoiled brats. Yes the adults too. 250 thousand a year is very comfortable. Even with the taxes it's still an easy 168 thousand clear, even more , with wise investments. The upper middle class live extremely beyond their means. Yes low six figures might not be that much but it's still more than 85 percent of the United States population. Since when have we had had so many rich people lovers on here ? . Us horseplayers are not rich. Living beyond your means is the biggest mistake all of us do. I always said Little kids in South America, eating their little burritos are as happy as us big fat spoiled Americans. Yes, me included.

[newtothegame]

Everyone seems to be defending these spoiled brats. Yes the adults too. 250 thousand a year is very comfortable. Even with the taxes it's still an easy 168 thousand clear, even more , with wise investments. The upper middle class live extremely beyond their means. Yes low six figures might not be that much but it's still more than 85 percent of the United States population. Since when have we had had so many rich people lovers on here ? . Us horseplayers are not rich. Living beyond your means is the biggest mistake all of us do. I always said Little kids in South America, eating their little burritos are as happy as us big fat spoiled Americans. Yes, me included.

Get a clue jamie...not defending HIM...its defending a WAY OF LIFE. In our capitalistic society, there will be haves and have nots depending on each INDIVIDUALS drive to succeed.

But I am sure based on your post, you would like to see everyone in the same position....
Thats called class warfare...where those have nots want what the haves have! You can even call it class envy if ya like.....
And the term rich comes in many forms...monetary is one of them. But although you wish to call them out for being rich, you dont complain when they account for the largest share of taxes collected in this country do you??
:bang:

[hcap]

I was under the impression that the first $250,000 of the professors' income would be exempt from any tax increase. Just like the other poor slobs who earn less than $250,000.

After that the increase only rises a few % points.

[HUSKER55]

Have you ever noticed that libs always have their nose in everyone business more so than almost anyone I can think of.

[hcap]

We have had a progressive income tax since TR.....

" As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual."
.....Teddy Roosevelt,


This sentiment was shared by Republicans and Democrats alike so overwhelmingly, that in 1913 Congress amended the Constitution to allow for a progressive tax system.

[Tom]

and he earned every damn dime.......... which seems to be the forgotten piece of your "hate the rich" puzzle.

Right on. There is a reason we have large disparities of wealth in this country. We have large disparities in effort.

[Tom]

I was under the impression that the first $250,000 of the professors' income would be exempt from any tax increase. Just like the other poor slobs who earn less than $250,000.

After that the increase only rises a few % points.

This is true. And the operative word in your sentence is EARN.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by jamey1977
Tell that rich fat pig to stop spending so much money. Lay off the nanny, put those brats in public schools and conserve a little. Spoiled fat pigs, they are worse than any one who is poor because they have money and are still unhappy . To hell with this pig and his problem. Lose some weight, fat pig. LOL And yes the rich are like fat pigs, eating everything, wanting more, never happy. Just more, more, more.


I certainly hope you cc'd the First Bitch and her two little mooching brats on this.

[ArlJim78]

on one hand you have the doers, talented successful people, driven people, risk takers who create wealth, products and services that others need.

on the other hand you have the envious, the less successful or downright lazy people, people who didn't invest or can't create, or who just don't have the talent. these folks have resorted to electing politicians to steal the wealth of the first group by force of law, all under the guise of "fairness"

the result is not fair and we all suffer. the risktakers and doers give up, because why bother? why become a target to be singled out for to have your wealth confiscated.

[illinoisbred]

Tell that rich fat pig to stop spending so much money. Lay off the nanny, put those brats in public schools and conserve a little. Spoiled fat pigs, they are worse than any one who is poor because they have money and are still unhappy . To hell with this pig and his problem. Lose some weight, fat pig. LOL And yes the rich are like fat pigs, eating everything, wanting more, never happy. Just more, more, more.
Fat pigs,really...what do you then call those living at the public trough? Oh yeah, that's right they're HOGS.

[boxcar]

on one hand you have the doers, talented successful people, driven people, risk takers who create wealth, products and services that others need.

on the other hand you have the envious, the less successful or downright lazy people, people who didn't invest or can't create, or who just don't have the talent. these folks have resorted to electing politicians to steal the wealth of the first group by force of law, all under the guise of "fairness"

the result is not fair and we all suffer. the risktakers and doers give up, because why bother? why become a target to be singled out for to have your wealth confiscated.

Right on! We have the Doers and the Slackers. The Achievers and the Lazy. The Producers and the Slothful. The Givers and the Takers. What incentives are there for the first group to voluntarily walk around with a bull's eye target on their backs at which the state can take aim? Maybe some lib can explain this to me? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

Right on. There is a reason we have large disparities of wealth in this country. We have large disparities in effort.
BINGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[boxcar]

We have had a progressive income tax since TR.....

" As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual."
.....Teddy Roosevelt,


This sentiment was shared by Republicans and Democrats alike so overwhelmingly, that in 1913 Congress amended the Constitution to allow for a progressive tax system.

And the progressive income tax finds its ground in Marxist ideology. You are aware of this fact, right?

And the sentiment was shared because originally The People were sold a bill of goods the the thieves and liars in DC. The Income Tax was supposed to be a temporary solution to help fund the war.

Boxcar

[hcap]

And the progressive income tax finds its ground in Marxist ideology. You are aware of this fact, right?

And the sentiment was shared because originally The People were sold a bill of goods the the thieves and liars in DC. The Income Tax was supposed to be a temporary solution to help fund the war.

BoxcarYeah, TR was a communist.
The progressive income tax is a Marxist plot to takeover the world. Just like social security , and medicare and any program that feeds school age kids lunch.

That PA off topic knuckle dragging right winger anchor/socialist/community organizer theory of the universe.is obviously the ETERNAL battle of our time. :cool: :cool:

Just like the Luddites back in the 19th century. Except those guys had a case.

[Tom]

Yeah, TR was a communist.
The progressive income tax is a Marxist plot to takeover the world. Just like social security , and medicare and any program that feeds school age kids lunch.

One could readily make the case that any program designed to create dependency rather than promote self-achievement is exactly that.
Like the war on poverty, for example - it institutionalized dependency and destroyed self actualization for millions.

How can that be a good thing?
When you look at liberalism closely, it's whole goal is to take from those who contribute and give to those who do not. It is a zero sum game that never has been successful and never will. Liberalism depend on the success of those it condemns for that very success.

[Greyfox]

One could readily make the case that any program designed to create dependency rather than promote self-achievement is exactly that.
Like the war on poverty, for example - it institutionalized dependency and destroyed self actualization for millions.

How can that be a good thing?
.

Social safety nets were put in to prevent the spread of communism.
Those of us who've never had to use it can be thankful. We should also be thankful that it's there in dire straight situations.
Unfortunately, the system has a significant number of abusers.
However, some very legitimate tough cases are apparent and they try to get out of the dependency trap as soon as they can.

[Canadian]

She's allowed to. She's part of his household. But again, it's no business of yours how much he makes or what HIS attitude is about HIS money. It's NOT your stinkin' money! You didn't earn a red cent of it? So, why do you care!?

I'll tell you why you care: You're a self-appointed moral busybody who thinks you're so morally superior to people like him that you believe in your heart of hearts that you that you have some divine calling or are under a divine mandate somehow to set people like him straight.



You're a bible thumper. I mean... the big J-dog himself seems to agree that we are far more likely to be morally superior to the rich.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

That's what the big J say.... so it must be true...

............ or they had really small camels.

So essentially, the liberals are trying to give more rich a chance to make it to eternal salvation, by taking their money away... and here you are trying to ensure the doctor spends eternity in hell...............

.............. Real nice Boxcar.................. real nice.........

[Canadian]

When you look at liberalism closely, it's whole goal is to take from those who contribute and give to those who do not. It is a zero sum game that never has been successful and never will. Liberalism depend on the success of those it condemns for that very success.


Workin' great here!!!

[Canadian]

Right on! We have the Doers and the Slackers. The Achievers and the Lazy. The Producers and the Slothful. The Givers and the Takers. What incentives are there for the first group to voluntarily walk around with a bull's eye target on their backs at which the state can take aim? Maybe some lib can explain this to me? :rolleyes:

Boxcar


I'm actually every one of those things.

[boxcar]

Yeah, TR was a communist.
The progressive income tax is a Marxist plot to takeover the world. Just like social security , and medicare and any program that feeds school age kids lunch.

That PA off topic knuckle dragging right winger anchor/socialist/community organizer theory of the universe.is obviously the ETERNAL battle of our time. :cool: :cool:

Just like the Luddites back in the 19th century. Except those guys had a case.

Okay, Hcap, so let's quickly go through some of my "stack of stuff". ;)

The preface of this book has a great quote from T. Coleman Andrews who was the commissioner of the IRS from 1953 – 1955:

“The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.“

http://arconservativenews.net/?tag=marxist

And tell me, sir, this doesn't sound like you, Mosty, NJ, Secretariat (has he fallen off the planet?) and a several others around here:

Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Democrats are unfazed by this reality. They believe it is their moral duty to take whatever is necessary from the rich, to give to the poor whatever they consider to be a civil right. Like Marxists around the world, Democrats have always believed that universal health care is a right, not a privilege. Just as the cost of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid have exploded way beyond the projections promised at the time of enactment, the real cost of Obamacare will make a mockery of the published estimates. Democrats couldn’t care less because, like all Marxists, they believe in the second principle from the Communist Manifesto: that government should impose “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax” to pay the costs of their agenda.

At the core of Marxism is the idea CLASS STRUGGLE. And we see this constantly in this country with the constant attacks against capitalism and the free market enterprise system, with Identification Politics, etc.

There were 10 planks to the Communist Manifesto. Tell me with a straight face that none of these are in full tilt in this country today -- with no end in sight. We have since 1913 gone from a progressive income tax system to now -- ObamaCare. Incrementalism at its finest. Of course, many of these planks are being implemented under the "color of law".

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more "eminent domain" power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of "eminent domain" and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Managementproperty taxes, and "environmental" excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the "forfeiture" provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved .

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We call it government seizures, tax liens, "forfeiture" Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 -- not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL -- outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enteprrise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government's regulatory-industiral complex.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
While the U.S. does not have vast "collective farms" (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage alotments and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html

And tell me, you libs don't subscribe to the following sentiments:

[i]The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.
Karl Marx

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
Karl Marx

Communism... is the genuine resolution of the antagonism between man and nature and between man and man; it is the true resolution of the conflict between existence and essence, objectification and self-affirmation, freedom and necessity, individual and species. It is the riddle of history solved and knows itself as the solution.
* Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts 89 (1844)

In other words, in the grand scheme of political-social-economic evolution of man, Communism is the cat's meow. Communism promises heaven here on earth. Communism is the end-all be-all. Communism is the First and Last Word.

And finally....

A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism.
- Karl Marx

Can't believe Marx said that. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Now, go wrap yourself in your mantle of denial and continue to deny to us that Communism not only has managed to get its nose under the American Political Tent, but over the course of many decades, this camel has manged to get everything but its butt under there too.

And please spare of us more of your simple-minded retorts. The goal of communism is for eventual global domination. But even Marx recognized and conceded that not all nations would subscribe to the identical forms of communism. There would be variations.

Also, there are two basic schools of thought on how to achieve the goal of global domination. Some subscribe to the more direct, overt approach, i.e. violence. This group advocates the violent overthrow of the bourgeois by the proletariat. Others, however, realize this might not be such a realistic approach to achievement of that the goal here in the West. So, this group, over numerous decades, has formed dark, shadowy political organizations whose goal is to get sympathetic or like-minded politicians elected to office through deceitful practices. These politicians lie to the American people to conceal their real agenda, which is to destroy Capitalism and confer more power to the State, thereby weakening the liberties of the people. (This is why, for example, you will very, very rarely ever hear a politician refer to himself as a socialist, a communist or progressive. No...these politicians are always "moderates". This is what made Charlie Rangel's admission, for exaple that ObamaCare was really all about the redistribution of wealth so astounding. Rangel had a very rare honest moment.)

Hope you have enjoyed this teachable moment, as much as I have . ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I'm actually every one of those things.

I have always known that you have some deep psychological problems to which you have never attended.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Workin' great here!!!

So does hanging for the hanged after a while.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Workin' great here!!!

yeah, it works great......... Canada is closing in on a Trillion in Debt for the first time. Canada spends almost nothing on Defense, because their big uncle to the south takes care of that for them. Your population is 10% of the United States and your debt is just a little less than 10% of the U.S. debt.

On any objective scale, Canada is doing worse off than the United States because of their Welfare State mentality that is engrossed by their Healthcare system that is going broke. Keep on Keeping on Canada... :ThmbUp:

[Canadian]

yeah, it works great......... Canada is closing in on a Trillion in Debt for the first time. Canada spends almost nothing on Defense, because their big uncle to the south takes care of that for them. Your population is 10% of the United States and your debt is just a little less than 10% of the U.S. debt.

On any objective scale, Canada is doing worse off than the United States because of their Welfare State mentality that is engrossed by their Healthcare system that is going broke. Keep on Keeping on Canada... :ThmbUp:


Would life expectancy be an objective scale?

..... oh wait, you must mean an actual scale (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity)

... then yes... you win.

[hcap]

Boxcar and Tom. You guys never answered my question. Was TR a Marxist because he backed a progressive income tax?

Not interested in your anchor theory of economics.and how governmental social responsibility is an evil failure. Ironically a crock preached by holier than thou types.

So what about TR?

[JustRalph]

Would life expectancy be an objective scale?

..... oh wait, you must mean an actual scale (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity)

... then yes... you win.

you come back with a fat joke ? Genius.......... and once again.....you are a troll. Nice contribution.............have a nice day!

more and more pieces of trash every day ............ :bang:

[Tom]

Social safety nets were put in to prevent the spread of communism.
Those of us who've never had to use it can be thankful. We should also be thankful that it's there in dire straight situations.
Unfortunately, the system has a significant number of abusers.
However, some very legitimate tough cases are apparent and they try to get out of the dependency trap as soon as they can.

I am not talking about a safety net. A safety net would require pay back of some sort.

[Tom]

Workin' great here!!!

Do you masterbate while you post.
It sounds like you do.

[Tom]

Boxcar and Tom. You guys never answered my question. Was TR a Marxist because he backed a progressive income tax?

Not interested in your anchor theory of economics.and how governmental social responsibility is an evil failure. Ironically a crock preached by holier than thou types.

So what about TR?

If you don't care about the philosophy behind it, what the hell do you care what I think of TR?

Let's just say he "dabbled" in socialism. I think his ideas were far more frightening that O'Donnell's.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

[boxcar]

Boxcar and Tom. You guys never answered my question. Was TR a Marxist because he backed a progressive income tax?

Not interested in your anchor theory of economics.and how governmental social responsibility is an evil failure. Ironically a crock preached by holier than thou types.

So what about TR?

I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to the statement I made connecting the progressive income tax to communism. The irrefutable fact is that the progressive income tax system is a highly important communistic tenet, which was expressed by Marx long before TR's presidency, which ran from 1901 to 1909. His term ended 4 years prior the Income Tax of 1913, so what in the world is your dumb point to your question? :rolleyes:

The Income Tax became law on Woodrow Wilson's watch, and I think he was, at minimum a strong socialist, who had little regard for the U.S. Constitution.

Also, this needs to be understood: Politicians can knowingly pass laws oriented toward the ideal of Communism or they can unwittingly, through their ignorance or naivete, do the same. In either case, it's all one road that leads to the same despotic destination.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If you don't care about the philosophy behind it, what the hell do you care what I think of TR?

Let's just say he "dabbled" in socialism. I think his ideas were far more frightening that O'Donnell's.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

TR was the "Square Deal" guy and as such had lots of "progressive" ideas.

Boxcar

[hcap]

You are both living in la la land

I guess TR was born in Kenya.
And where the hell is his BC?

[fast4522]

The objective of the filth here is exactly the same as the objective of the left wing of this country, change through imploding from within. Complete destruction of our Bill Of Rights and United States Constitution that are both in the way of the progressive agenda. To this I say slaughter this filth at the polls in November, then starve them to death to pay off our national debt.

[bigmack]

You are both living in la la land

I guess TR was born in Kenya.
And where the hell is his BC?
You're getting more hyperbolic than Olbermann. A true sign you have little to say.

[boxcar]

You are both living in la la land

I guess TR was born in Kenya.
And where the hell is his BC?

The level of your input/contribution to this discussion is below the intelligence scale of a rock. You're another proven, well-established empty suit. :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

[hcap]

The objective of the filth here is exactly the same as the objective of the left wing of this country, change through imploding from within. Complete destruction of our Bill Of Rights and United States Constitution that are both in the way of the progressive agenda. To this I say slaughter this filth at the polls in November, then starve them to death to pay off our national debt.Filth? Not too fast are you fast? Both you and your pal boxhead

[fast4522]

No money left equals all spent, nothing left for you and your kind so watch it happen. This country has been in tough before, and will pull out again and the lesson learned will be to never have a Carter or Obama type for President. I do not agree with Boxcar on everything, he is nothing like me. You however will always be one of them.

[boxcar]

Filth? Not too fast are you fast? Both you and your pal boxhead

Whatsamatter, 'cap? Too much truth in one day for you to handle? Did it cut you to quick to learn that you're a closet Marxist? :D

Boxcar
P.S. You're a scream(er) but only because you never have much of anything to say. You'd make an excellent SEIU plant at some town hall meeting. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

I do not agree with Boxcar on everything, he is nothing like me.

If I'm nothing like you, how can you agree with me on anything, let alone anything? :confused:

Boxcar
P.S. You should become one of my "dittoheads" one day. You're life would improve dramatically. :D

[fast4522]

I am what the call a good Republican at the polls, in the real more libertarian blood running through me. Huge difference would you not agree?

[boxcar]

I am what the call a good Republican at the polls, in the real more libertarian blood running through me. Huge difference would you not agree?

Hmm...yes and no. You still agree with me on some things, though, right? Just as I find myself agreeing with much of what you post. I think the only real difference between us is that I have a little less libertarian blood coursing through my veins due to my Christian faith.

Boxcar

[Tom]

You are both living in la la land

I guess TR was born in Kenya.
And where the hell is his BC?

Oh, I see,. Once again, you are unable to discuss the facts and need to deflect the conversation. Nice. Did you write a macro for that? :D

[Canadian]

you come back with a fat joke ? Genius.......... and once again.....you are a troll. Nice contribution.............have a nice day!

more and more pieces of trash every day ............ :bang:


No. I came back with an answer.... a right answer and then yes.... a fat joke.

But for the record I am correct. Your statement is wrong.

[boxcar]

But for the record I am correct. Your statement is wrong.

For the record....that would be the first time in a long time on this forum. :D

Boxcar

[Canadian]

For the record....that would be the first time in a long time on this forum. :D

Boxcar


Nope.. right every time... just like Obama... yeah!! :cool:

[mostpost]

The preface of this book has a great quote from T. Coleman Andrews who was the commissioner of the IRS from 1953 – 1955:

“The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.“
What are the criteria for deciding if a quote is a great quote. If it is whether it agrees with your philosophy, then that is a great quote. If it depends on whether it is true then it is not so great.

All objective evidence shows that the graduated income tax does not reward the poor at the expense of the rich.
In 1965 the average CEO had an income 24 times as great as the average worker. In 2005 that income was 262 times as great.
In 1976 3.3% of the population was living below the poverty level. In 2009 that percentage was 6.3.
Between 1979 and 2007 38.7 of the income growth accrued to the top 1%; 63.7% to the top 10%

Explain how these figures prove your theory that a graduated income tax destroys capitalism. They don't.

[Greyfox]

In 1965 the average CEO had an income 24 times as great as the average worker. In 2005 that income was 262 times as great.
.

Unfortunately, and speaking about CEO's of major corps, the above has some truth to it. I'm not sure that it's that high. However, there has been a madness about hiring and paying the top execs ridiculous incomes. A madness. The GAP between Joe the Plumber at a major corporation and some guy with an MBA at the top has been widening exponentially. Ridiculous.

[boxcar]

Nope.. right every time... just like Obama... yeah!! :cool:


Now, I know you're shot. The only thing BO has been right about (i.e. truthful) is that he's doing everything in his power to fundamentally transform the face of America; for very obviously he doesn't care much for traditional American values, Capitalism or the U.S. Constitution.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

What are the criteria for deciding if a quote is a great quote. If it is whether it agrees with your philosophy, then that is a great quote. If it depends on whether it is true then it is not so great.

All objective evidence shows that the graduated income tax does not reward the poor at the expense of the rich.
In 1965 the average CEO had an income 24 times as great as the average worker. In 2005 that income was 262 times as great.
In 1976 3.3% of the population was living below the poverty level. In 2009 that percentage was 6.3.
Between 1979 and 2007 38.7 of the income growth accrued to the top 1%; 63.7% to the top 10%

Explain how these figures prove your theory that a graduated income tax destroys capitalism. They don't.

Okay, Mosty, so you're miles ahead of Andrews and Marx? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Either one of these guys could run circles around you,intellectually. If Marx, Engels and the rest of them thought that the progressive income tax would be so favorable to Capitalism, why would they be so strongly in favor of it? :bang: :bang:

Your problem is that you're asking the wrong question. You suffer from mental myopia like so many other libs. Your looking at a bunch of trees (CEOs) and mistaking them for the entire capitalistic system. Marx wasn't concerned with CEO's per se, as he was with the effects his income tax system would eventually have on Capitalism itself. And Marx clearly understood that once government seizes control over people's personal property, virtually anything is possible, including but not limited to enacting social engineering schemes, welfare programs, manipulating and coercing political opinions, etc

And if you think the progressive income tax has been this huge failure all these many decades, why is such a large percentage of politicians loathe to
to dump a system that is so hopelessly complex, so convoluted, so voluminous and so incomprehensible to mere mortals and not exchange it for a much easier to understand and transparent system that would be far less costly to administrate? And why were the Founding Fathers as equally loathe to adopt such a progressive income system?

Only in La La Land where you live would anyone believe that the progressive income tax system is Capitalism-friendly. It is anything but, which is precisely why communists all over the globe love it.

Boxcar

[Canadian]

Jesus hates capitalism Boxcar. Hates it.

[bigmack]

Behold, a stone cold troll. Brainless posts to illicit response.

Jesus hates capitalism Boxcar. Hates it.
Nope.. right every time... just like Obama... yeah!! :cool:
No. I came back with an answer.... a right answer and then yes.... a fat joke.
This is the lunitic your stuck with..... wow
Another big win for the big O... ondoing W's mess.
I could see Beck trying to assassinate Obama.

[Greyfox]

http://www.wnd.com/images2/loonie.jpg

The Canadian buck has a loon on it.
Me thinks he's posting here.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Canadian
I could see Beck trying to assassinate Obama.

I'd bet my last dollar that in your mental state, you've seen and heard many things. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Jesus hates capitalism Boxcar. Hates it.

Got chapter and verse on that for us, Canadian Commie?

Boxcar
P.S. Where were you when we posted quite a bit here about the Wise Woman in Proverbs? Were you being indoctrinated by some workers' organization in order to get your party card? :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Okay, Mosty, so you're miles ahead of Andrews and Marx? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Either one of these guys could run circles around you,intellectually. If Marx, Engels and the rest of them thought that the progressive income tax would be so favorable to Capitalism, why would they be so strongly in favor of it? :bang: :bang:

Your problem is that you're asking the wrong question. You suffer from mental myopia like so many other libs. Your looking at a bunch of trees (CEOs) and mistaking them for the entire capitalistic system. Marx wasn't concerned with CEO's per se, as he was with the effects his income tax system would eventually have on Capitalism itself. And Marx clearly understood that once government seizes control over people's personal property, virtually anything is possible, including but not limited to enacting social engineering schemes, welfare programs, manipulating and coercing political opinions, etc

And if you think the progressive income tax has been this huge failure all these many decades, why is such a large percentage of politicians loathe to
to dump a system that is so hopelessly complex, so convoluted, so voluminous and so incomprehensible to mere mortals and not exchange it for a much easier to understand and transparent system that would be far less costly to administrate? And why were the Founding Fathers as equally loathe to adopt such a progressive income system?

Only in La La Land where you live would anyone believe that the progressive income tax system is Capitalism-friendly. It is anything but, which is precisely why communists all over the globe love it.

Boxcar
As a fan of horse racing, I'm sure you are familiar with horses who wear blinkers. Sometimes these horses lose because they are unaware of horses challenging them until it's too late. If this happens too often the trainer may remove or alter their blinkers.
Tell your trainer you need your blinkers removed.
You think of capitalism as consisting solely of capitalists or entrepreneurs. Capitalism is not just money; it's also labor. A progressive tax system is not favorable to capitalism as a whole. It is not unfavorable to capitalism as a whole. It is fair to all aspects of capitalism. It's not perfectly fair, nothing is, but is is fairer than the so called fair tax.
The greater share of the burden should be shouldered by those who have benefited the most from the endeavor.
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

Taxes in this country are not so high for anyone that they should be considered confiscatory. The government provides services which we cannot provide for ourselves; Defense, roads, schools, police, fire protection, and others. We pay for those services through our taxes.
Programs like Social Security and Medicare are not gifts. We pay for them through payroll deductions. Employer contributions to these programs are not charity. They are a part of the workers contract with the employer. I know the employer is mandated to make those contributions, but I also know that he will take that into account when determining the salary for a particular job.

[bigmack]

Mosty has looked long & hard. He has yet to meet a tax he didn't love or an entrepreneur/capitalist he didn't hate.

Tough to change the channel for some.

Mental note for years:

Only put the mail in the box with the persons name on it except when it says occupant.
Only put the mail in the box with the persons name on it except when it says occupant.
Only put the mail in the box with the persons name on it except when it says occupant.

...................

[boxcar]

As a fan of horse racing, I'm sure you are familiar with horses who wear blinkers. Sometimes these horses lose because they are unaware of horses challenging them until it's too late. If this happens too often the trainer may remove or alter their blinkers.
Tell your trainer you need your blinkers removed.
You think of capitalism as consisting solely of capitalists or entrepreneurs. Capitalism is not just money; it's also labor. A progressive tax system is not favorable to capitalism as a whole. It is not unfavorable to capitalism as a whole. It is fair to all aspects of capitalism. It's not perfectly fair, nothing is, but is is fairer than the so called fair tax.
The greater share of the burden should be shouldered by those who have benefited the most from the endeavor.
Luke 12:48

Taxes in this country are not so high for anyone that they should be considered confiscatory. The government provides services which we cannot provide for ourselves; Defense, roads, schools, police, fire protection, and others. We pay for those services through our taxes.
Programs like Social Security and Medicare are not gifts. We pay for them through payroll deductions. Employer contributions to these programs are not charity. They are a part of the workers contract with the employer. I know the employer is mandated to make those contributions, but I also know that he will take that into account when determining the salary for a particular job.

But communism's ultimate goal is replace Capitalism. If Capitalism is such a good and fair system, why are communists anti-capitalism?

Nice try on the Luke verse -- taken, of course, entirely out of context. No doubt you learned that trick from 'cap? Or...does such dishonest skulduggery come natural to you?

Boxcar
P.S. Neither will ObamaCare be a "gift" either. Just wait and see... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Jesus hates capitalism Boxcar. Hates it.
I don't think it's right to say Jesus hates capitalism. It may be more accurate to say that Jesus would disapprove of the way capitalism is practiced by some people. An example in the bible would be when he drove the money changers from the temple.
It is equally silly to say Jesus hates socialism. Twelve men and one deity in disguise traveling the Palestinian countryside, sharing all their worldly goods and accepting free meals and lodging seems an excellent example of socialism to me.
And their was the matter of the Essenes of which Jesus was believed to be a member. The Essenes were a totally communal group.

Of course, Canadian, if you were just saying that to aggravate Boxcar; well done! :lol:

[mostpost]

But communism's ultimate goal is replace Capitalism. If Capitalism is such a good and fair system, why are communists anti-capitalism?So you're saying capitalism is not such a good and fair system? Usually when a person uses an "if" statement like that, they are indicating a disagreement with the statement. i.e. a person who says "If you're so smart" does not usually think the subject of the remark issmart at all. You are normally so staunchly pro-capitalism that I am :confused:

[mostpost]

Nice try on the Luke verse -- taken, of course, entirely out of context. No doubt you learned that trick from 'cap? Or...does such dishonest skulduggery come natural to you?
No, it isn't. Here is the context:

The verse you are referring to is found in Luke 12:48, but it should really be read in the context of verses 42-48:

"And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

The main idea here is that we are accountable for the knowledge, resources, abilities, etc. that God has blessed us with. If we have been given much, then He expects that much more from us. The good news is that all of these blessings come from the Lord and He realizes that humans are not perfect and that we can't do anything right without His help (John 15:5), but we can do all things through Jesus Christ as He strengthens us (Philippians 4:13). So let's ask the Lord to give us His wisdom and Spirit so that we can be faithful stewards over what He has entrusted to us. "And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
Found at www.wordoftruthradio.com

[fast4522]

Boxcar, your arguing with communists and throwing religion at them, it does not work and that never did. You have only one option and that is to learn to vote like a good republican. The wishy washy independent shit only serves uncertainty, your faith may be good enough for you but Satin will be one step closer to you in old age. The enemy is here and is striking from within, to think other than that is just begging for more bitch slaps.

[boxcar]

No, it isn't. Here is the context:


Found at www.wordoftruthradio.com

Your own words condemn your deliberate interpretation. You said "he expects much from us". The text does not say that he expects much from us through government or through our elected representatives. Or it doesn't say he expects much from government on our behalf. Personal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility. Say this about 5,000 times. Maybe it will sink in. :rolleyes:

Of course, the bible teaches that we all have a moral obligation toward God and man. Tell me, Mr. Mosty, does the U.S. government also act as your surrogate worshiper? Does the government attend church services for you? Does the state attend Sunday school classes, bible studies, etc. in your place? Does the state pray to God on your behalf? Does the state keep the first and foremost of all the commandments for you -- that is to say, does the state love God with all its mind, heart and soul on your behalf? Does the state fulfill all your moral duty to God for you? If the government doesn't assume your moral obligations toward God, then what makes you think for a second that you have any right to expect the state to assume YOUR moral obligation toward your fellow-man? Or that the state, for that matter, has any right to intercede to God on your behalf? And even more importantly, that God would be pleased by you shirking your direct responsibility and laying it on the shoulders of government.

I have said this previously: If you REALLY LOVE your fellow-man, especially the poor and downtrodden with whom you come into contact, then YOU have a personal moral responsibility to do what you can for such people. You could start by emulating the the first century believers and sell all your worldly possessions (houses, cars, boats, -- everything) and either donate all that money to a worthwhile, reputable charity who would take care of the poor or you can do it directly. But for you to not do this, but still insist that the rest of us have a moral obligation to care for the poor is the height of hypocrisy! You are no better than the hypocrites in Washington. You know -- the "do as I say, but not as I do" crowd.

And what part of my tag line don't you understand? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS -- that's a big part of that passage. Take care of your own affairs and keep your nose out of other people's business. Don't go around preaching your brand of "social justice" to the rest of us. Instead, practice what you preach. Lead quietly by your example. That would speak volumes to the rest of us.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar, your arguing with communists and throwing religion at them, it does not work and that never did. You have only one option and that is to learn to vote like a good republican. The wishy washy independent shit only serves uncertainty, your faith may be good enough for you but Satin will be one step closer to you in old age. The enemy is here and is striking from within, to think other than that is just begging for more bitch slaps.

Spoken like a true atheist or agnostic! Which is it?

I'll take a pass on your worldly advice. For it is written "Cursed is he who trusts in man".

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So you're saying capitalism is not such a good and fair system? Usually when a person uses an "if" statement like that, they are indicating a disagreement with the statement. i.e. a person who says "If you're so smart" does not usually think the subject of the remark issmart at all. You are normally so staunchly pro-capitalism that I am :confused:

It was a rhetorical question asked from a commie's viewpoint. You're conflicted as usual. You defend the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto with much vigor and gusto and claim at the same time that it wasn't really the goal of Marx, Engels or any of their ilk to destroy Capitalism -- because, after all, Capitalism is still alive and well today. You clearly want to have it both ways. You endorse and support the Second Plank, but then turn around and tell us how good the progressive income tax system is for Capitalism. In fact, you think it's so good, you desire much heavier taxation. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[fast4522]

Spoken like a true atheist or agnostic! Which is it?

I'll take a pass on your worldly advice. For it is written "Cursed is he who trusts in man".

Boxcar

I am a Protestant, I think Senator Joseph McCarthy was ahead of his time and was correct. Most have it my way kids are still boys and we are in troubled times. Your all fire and brimstone but the reality is we have a communist problem in our country that faith is no match for. Subversives want to take apart our United States Constitution and our Bill Of Rights in the name of fairness, your argument is soft and can not hold up against these filth.

[Greyfox]

I am a Protestant, I think Senator Joseph McCarthy was ahead of his time and was correct..

Joe McCarthy was a "wing nut." He saw a communist behind every tree and under every stone. Apparently you do too. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Your own words condemn your deliberate interpretation. You said "he expects much from us". The text does not say that he expects much from us through government or through our elected representatives. Or it doesn't say he expects much from government on our behalf. Personal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility. Say this about 5,000 times. Maybe it will sink in. :rolleyes:

Of course, the bible teaches that we all have a moral obligation toward God and man. Tell me, Mr. Mosty, does the U.S. government also act as your surrogate worshiper? Does the government attend church services for you? Does the state attend Sunday school classes, bible studies, etc. in your place? Does the state pray to God on your behalf? Does the state keep the first and foremost of all the commandments for you -- that is to say, does the state love God with all its mind, heart and soul on your behalf? Does the state fulfill all your moral duty to God for you? If the government doesn't assume your moral obligations toward God, then what makes you think for a second that you have any right to expect the state to assume YOUR moral obligation toward your fellow-man? Or that the state, for that matter, has any right to intercede to God on your behalf? And even more importantly, that God would be pleased by you shirking your direct responsibility and laying it on the shoulders of government.

I have said this previously: If you REALLY LOVE your fellow-man, especially the poor and downtrodden with whom you come into contact, then YOU have a personal moral responsibility to do what you can for such people. You could start by emulating the the first century believers and sell all your worldly possessions (houses, cars, boats, -- everything) and either donate all that money to a worthwhile, reputable charity who would take care of the poor or you can do it directly. But for you to not do this, but still insist that the rest of us have a moral obligation to care for the poor is the height of hypocrisy! You are no better than the hypocrites in Washington. You know -- the "do as I say, but not as I do" crowd.

And what part of my tag line don't you understand? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS -- that's a big part of that passage. Take care of your own affairs and keep your nose out of other people's business. Don't go around preaching your brand of "social justice" to the rest of us. Instead, practice what you preach. Lead quietly by your example. That would speak volumes to the rest of us.

Boxcar
Not surprisingly, you missed the point. Which was, who should pay the greater part for necesary services provided by the government. The answer does not lie in a so-called Fair tax with everyone paying a fixed percentage of their income, for such a tax impacts those at the lower levels much more greatly than it impacts those with a lot of disposable income.
Yesterday's sermon at my church was on this very subject. "Is money the root of all evil?" Although it wasn't couched in those precise terms. Father Andy said that money has no inherent moral status, but must be judged by how it is used. If used for selfish reasons it is evil. If used to benefit others it is good. He said that one virtue available to the rich which is not available to the poor is magnanimity. If a rich person practices magnanimity his wealth can be an asset in his salvation.
As to government involvement, your theories would be more valid were we living in biblical times. Certainly we should practice charity, but the impact of a single person is very small. Unless he is Bill Gates.
If I were to follow your advice and sell all that I own, (a five year old TV, a ten year old couch, a twelve year old chair, a twenty five year old dining room set, a kitchen set that might be older than you, a car with three years of payments remaining) it would have little impact on the poor. But by willingly contributing my share along with everyone else, I can have a much greater impact.
Yes, I could wish that everyone who benefits from my contribution would be deserving, but I am willing to forego that wish if I can help some who are deserving. Of course the difference between us is that you believe that anyone who is in that situation is undeserving by the fact that they are in that situation.

[boxcar]

I am a Protestant, I think Senator Joseph McCarthy was ahead of his time and was correct. Most have it my way kids are still boys and we are in troubled times. Your all fire and brimstone but the reality is we have a communist problem in our country that faith is no match for. Subversives want to take apart our United States Constitution and our Bill Of Rights in the name of fairness, your argument is soft and can not hold up against these filth.

Small wonder I took you for an atheist or agnostic. You tell me that my arguments are "soft" and that my "faith is no match" for the evil forces working within this country. You might as well have said that the Almighty is weak and impotent against evil! That he's incapable of defeating evil. I tell you a truth: Your Protestant faith is weak! (You may want to look into that.)

Boxcar

[mostpost]

It was a rhetorical question asked from a commie's viewpoint. You're conflicted as usual. You defend the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto with much vigor and gusto and claim at the same time that it wasn't really the goal of Marx, Engels or any of their ilk to destroy Capitalism -- because, after all, Capitalism is still alive and well today. You clearly want to have it both ways. You endorse and support the Second Plank, but then turn around and tell us how good the progressive income tax system is for Capitalism. In fact, you think it's so good, you desire much heavier taxation. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
The sole purpose of my reply was to make fun of your very poorly worded question. An exercise in futility since you never have any clue when you are being mocked.
Here is the answer to the question you thought you were asking. Communism is the enemy of Capitalism. Communism has the absolute goal of destroying Capitalism. That does not mean if a Communist (Marx) says a progressive income tax is a tool in achieving that goal, that he is correct. Taken to an extreme, yes, but we are hardly at an extreme. The top tax rate presently, which could apply to persons making millions, is less than one and a half times the rate for a person earning bewteen $34,000 and $84,000.

[mostpost]

Fast 4522 vs. Boxcar in a scintillating battle of the narrow minded. :jump: Who will prevail? Will it be Boxcar and his holier than thou diatribes or will it be Fast 4522 and his "A Communist behind every tree" paranoia. Perhaps CJ can provide us with figs for this titanic struggle. Zilly, do you have any insights as to energy distribution will affect the battle?
:jump: :jump: :jump:

[boxcar]

Not surprisingly, you missed the point. Which was, who should pay the greater part for necesary services provided by the government. The answer does not lie in a so-called Fair tax with everyone paying a fixed percentage of their income, for such a tax impacts those at the lower levels much more greatly than it impacts those with a lot of disposable income.
Yesterday's sermon at my church was on this very subject. "Is money the root of all evil?" Although it wasn't couched in those precise terms. Father Andy said that money has no inherent moral status, but must be judged by how it is used. If used for selfish reasons it is evil. If used to benefit others it is good. He said that one virtue available to the rich which is not available to the poor is magnanimity. If a rich person practices magnanimity his wealth can be an asset in his salvation.
As to government involvement, your theories would be more valid were we living in biblical times. Certainly we should practice charity, but the impact of a single person is very small. Unless he is Bill Gates.
If I were to follow your advice and sell all that I own, (a five year old TV, a ten year old couch, a twelve year old chair, a twenty five year old dining room set, a kitchen set that might be older than you, a car with three years of payments remaining) it would have little impact on the poor. But by willingly contributing my share along with everyone else, I can have a much greater impact.
Yes, I could wish that everyone who benefits from my contribution would be deserving, but I am willing to forego that wish if I can help some who are deserving. Of course the difference between us is that you believe that anyone who is in that situation is undeserving by the fact that they are in that situation.

God's word transcends time. It's principles and truth are timeless. So, whether we live in the here or now or listen to those who lived in another time, it matters not. You're a typical moral revisionist. Some things in the bible apply for now, others don't. :rolleyes:

I take it, then, that since you reject God's word on how to care for the poor, and how to express your love to your neighbor, on how to love your neighbor as yourself -- in other words you moral duty to your fellow-man, that you also equally reject how you are to carry out your moral duty to God? Do you have the godless state worship God in your stead? Or...you don't quite take your rejection of God's teachings in his word that far?

And in terms of your worldly possessions, you have far, far more than the poor widow who put in all her possessions which were two copper coins (one cent!). But who pleased the Lord more, this poor woman who donated all that she had or her wealthier counterparts who donated out of their surplus (Mat 12:42ff)? Your problem is that you're so worldly-minded, you cannot understand these simple but deeply profound spiritual truths. For example, you have no idea what kind of profound impact your direct, personal voluntary actions would have on your friends, relatives, neighbors, acquaintances, work associates, etc. Your unselfish, unconditional love for your fellow-man (the "poor") could lead others to Christ -- just by your example!

Oh...but wait...now that we're on the subject of love...you don't do a very good job of "loving" your fellow man, unconditionally, do you. For example, you have admitted that you're willing to give your share for the poor, providing everyone else does? That's a condition you place on your brand of "charity"! Find chapter and verse on conditional love for us in the bible!

Finally, I love how you phrased this: Yes, I could wish that everyone who benefits from my contribution would be deserving, but I am willing to forego that wish if I can help some who are deserving.. You could wish, but you don't wish!? Of course,the problems with your theories of wealth redistribution is that not everyone is as forgiving of a godless government as you are. People, who have both feet touching the ground, know that politicians and bureaucrats are just plain ol' everyday sinners like you, me and everyone else in the world. But unlike everyone else in the world, they probably do more of their fair share of sinning because they are faced with huge temptations day in, day out. Temptations that most of us will never face. Money temptations. Power temptations. Fame temptations. So, herein lies the crux of the problem. We conservatives, too, want to help truly deserving people -- but we're not willing to blindly trust the godless state to suddenly become good stewards of our hard-earned tax dollars. We feel that we're in a much better position to be better stewards of what God has given to US -- we'll take personal responsibility for his gifts. We don't want to relinquish our responsibilities.

But I hear you arguing that not everyone would want to care for the poor. Some people are selfish and greedy and lustful for money, etc. My answer: So, what is that to you? On the last day, will you be judged for their sins? If you want to become your brother's keeper, then by all means, YOU do what YOU can for the poor; but let others take care of their own personal affairs; for THEY will answer to God for the words and deeds done in their bodies.

In closing, is it not written that God loves a cheerful giver? In fact, permit me to quote this passage:

2 Cor 9:6-12
6 Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully. 7 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; 9 as it is written,

"He scattered abroad, he gave to the poor,
His righteousness abides forever."

10 Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food, will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; 11 you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God.
NASB

You see God is not pleased with your brand of "charity" -- your idea of "social justice" -- a justice and charity that is forced upon The People by a godless state. God loves those who WILLINGLY give. Who VOLUNTARILY give. Not those who are compelled to give under the force of law. This whole idea is an alien concept in the bible.

Plus v. 8 absolutely smacks down into the ground your lame excuse that your piddly worldly possessions would not amount to anything in and of themselves. No, they wouldn't apart from a genuine faith in Christ. Your very excuse betrays that you, too, have a faith crisis. God himself will make sure that the believer has enough to get the job done -- to be an effective witness in the Kingdom of God.

Socialism in the bible? Not hardly!

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Not surprisingly, you missed the point. Which was, who should pay the greater part for necesary services provided by the government.

And those services are very limited in scope.

[Greyfox]

Yesterday's sermon at my church was on this very subject. "Is money the root of all evil?".

The bible does not say "money is the root of all evil."
(see Timothy 6:10)

[Robert Goren]

The bible does not say "money is the root of all evil."
(see Timothy 6:10)Depending on the translation it basically says "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil"

[boxcar]

Depending on the translation it basically says "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil"

That's the best translation of 1Tim 6:10. And somehow in Mosty's world (and yours and other libs', too) politicians never succumb to this kind of temptation. They're never guilty of this kind of sin. They're such perfect little angels. Only people in the private sector are guilty. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[fast4522]

Small wonder I took you for an atheist or agnostic. You tell me that my arguments are "soft" and that my "faith is no match" for the evil forces working within this country. You might as well have said that the Almighty is weak and impotent against evil! That he's incapable of defeating evil. I tell you a truth: Your Protestant faith is weak! (You may want to look into that.)

Boxcar

I am a person who means what I say, and says what I mean. You can have a bruised ego or how you prefer to put it, but the fact is that you can not pray yourself or us out of this shit. If you are meant to be somebody's bitch because praying was not good enough, you will wear the knee pads. Always casting doubt if a group if they can or not "pull it off" is a flaw to own up to. Notice I had no need to know exactly what your religion was.

[boxcar]

I am a person who means what I say, and says what I mean. You can have a bruised ego or how you prefer to put it, but the fact is that you can not pray yourself or us out of this shit. If you are meant to be somebody's bitch because praying was not good enough, you will wear the knee pads. Always casting doubt if a group if they can or not "pull it off" is a flaw to own up to. Notice I had no need to know exactly what your religion was.

I would respond to this if I could make heads or tails on what you meant to say. But even more importantly, I will refrain because your post and tone bring this text to mind immediately:

Prov 26:4
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
NASB

Boxcar

[fast4522]

The objective of the filth here is exactly the same as the objective of the left wing of this country, change through imploding from within. Complete destruction of our Bill Of Rights and United States Constitution that are both in the way of the progressive agenda. To this I say slaughter this filth at the polls in November, then starve them to death to pay off our national debt.

Boxcar,
I looked over your posts and figure, that I am in touch with reality and this is what we as a people must do. Moste started this thread depicting a gent who makes more but also spends more, as do all of the higher income earners. Just look at some of the lineup of filth, that is ours to crush. The monster Kennedy is dead, the last batch of worms will be too dam old for a comeback after this election. Heck even one of her own said the witch Pelosi could be dead before a date (memory of exactly what was said by another Rep. fails me).
Wake Up America

[boxcar]

The sole purpose of my reply was to make fun of your very poorly worded question. An exercise in futility since you never have any clue when you are being mocked.

Au contraire! I do. I just consider the source and realize that an empty barrel has more sense than you do.

Here is the answer to the question you thought you were asking. Communism is the enemy of Capitalism. Communism has the absolute goal of destroying Capitalism. That does not mean if a Communist (Marx) says a progressive income tax is a tool in achieving that goal, that he is correct. Taken to an extreme, yes, but we are hardly at an extreme. The top tax rate presently, which could apply to persons making millions, is less than one and a half times the rate for a person earning bewteen $34,000 and $84,000.

Of course its correct! You really think that you're such a genius that you believe thinkers like Marx and Engels (and a huge host of other commies), over-stated, over-emphasized the awesome potential power of a progressive income tax system? You are totally clueless (thanks to your self-induced ignorance) because you will not see that when a government exercises control over people's personal property, it also had the potential of controlling all the owners too! For example, did you know that not so long in the decked halls of congress (in "back rooms") politicians were plotting and scheming on how to implement stricter gun control laws and tax guns through the IRS so that it could circumvent the legislative process of the full senate. Because the IRS would be involved, only the Finance Committee had to pass the rule and the public would never know until after the fact. These reprobates knew that if they used the full legislative process, it would cause an outcry among The People. But how could they use the IRS for this purpose? (Glad you asked, Einstein. :rolleyes: ) A gun is personal property, isn't it?

And, yes, the goal of Communism is to destroy Capitalism! Are you suggesting that you don't believe this isn't the case? Capitalism (as we have known it all these years) and Communism are two antithetical economic systems.

And are you going to tell us that socialism hasn't been slowly BUT STEADILY creeping into our society now for nearly the last 100 years!? Are you going to tell us that with a straight face? You haven't heard of Incrementalism and how it works?

But you are correct in that we are still not experiencing the devastating effects an oppressive progressive tax would have on this society. As stated earlier, the camel's nose and most of his body, however, are already under the tent of the U.S.A. And I personally want to slay the beast because it will be the only way to get him out.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Fast 4522 vs. Boxcar in a scintillating battle of the narrow minded. :jump: Who will prevail? Will it be Boxcar and his holier than thou diatribes or will it be Fast 4522 and his "A Communist behind every tree" paranoia. Perhaps CJ can provide us with figs for this titanic struggle. Zilly, do you have any insights as to energy distribution will affect the battle?
:jump: :jump: :jump:

Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black! You hypocrite! You're the one who has cherry-picked passages from the bible that you think (as if you ever really do :rolleyes: ) support your political agenda. And you call me "holier-than-thou", when it is you who have been riding on your moral high horse? :bang: :bang: You're the one trying desperately to cram socialism into the spiritual framework of scripture. You are a hypocrite to the nth degree!

If I did that with some social issue, e.g. prostitution, porno shops, etc. and started thumping on my bible to prove that these are morally wrong and displeasing to God and, therefore, should be outlawed in our society, you and your ilk would tar and feather me -- all the while preaching to me that we're this great pluralistic, diverse, melting pot kind of society, where church and state must never, never, never meet! God and State must always be kept light years apart! But you have zero problems marrying up church and state when you think it's advantageous to your political agenda, right!?

You are so self-deceived, so hopelessly stuck in the muck and mire of your ignorance and hypocrisy that the term "pathetic" to describe you is entirely inadequate.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Fast 4522 vs. Boxcar in a scintillating battle of the narrow minded. Who will prevail? Will it be Boxcar and his holier than thou diatribes or will it be Fast 4522 and his "A Communist behind every tree" paranoia. Perhaps CJ can provide us with figs for this titanic struggle. Zilly, do you have any insights as to energy distribution will affect the battle?You know I forgot just how crazy these guys really were. PA off topic has turned into a tea baggers' delite.Fast vs boxhead. Filth vs sin.

And I thought Christine McDonnell was a crazy. At least she is cute

[fast4522]

You know I forgot just how crazy these guys really were. PA off topic has turned into a tea baggers' delite.Fast vs boxhead. Filth vs sin.

And I thought Christine McDonnell was a crazy. At least she is cute

You are correct, "Tea Baggers Delite", nice ring to it. While many voters see sin as cool, most see filth as ugly, if your ideas are found to feel ugly by the "tea Party Delite" you will see it in the election.

[Greyfox]

Depending on the translation it basically says "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil"

Right but it is "the love of money" that is the root , not the money itself.

[PaceAdvantage]

You know I forgot just how crazy these guys really were. PA off topic has turned into a tea baggers' delite.Fast vs boxhead. Filth vs sin.

And I thought Christine McDonnell was a crazy. At least she is cuteHey, what happened to the "100 year rule of Democrats?" What happened to all the "political capital" after 2006 and 2008? What happened to "Republicans are dead as a party....it's going to take at least 15-20 years for them to regroup..."

What happened to all that braggadocio from the PA off-topic "left?"

Nowadays, ya'll sound nothing but bitter and frightened...

[hcap]

What happened to all that braggadocio from the PA off-topic "left?"
Turned into endless diatribes of Filth and commies.
Postings from the crazies on the right that would make Glenn Becks' blackboard proud

[fast4522]

Turned into endless diatribes of Filth and commies.
Postings from the crazies on the right that would make Glenn Becks' blackboard proud

It is and always will be about the money, the peoples money. Watch history unfold and believe in change, but do not believe everyone wants the same change as you do, unless you are stupid.

[ElKabong]

tea baggers' delite..



Still slingin around the slurs, I see. Switch teabagger for the N word and look in the mirror. Say hello to white sheet Robert Byrd for us , ok. You two are one and the same.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... "Tea Baggers Delite", nice ring to it...

...
ya go cuss fuss whatcha gonna do today (say what)
ya say im gonna get a democrat a nasty o spankin
drive off in a def oj
everybody go, hotel motel holiday inn
...

[fast4522]

Smoking that shit again?