posted June 04, 2012 08:42 PM            

quote:

---

This is a serious question and a desire, on my part, to know where you are coming from.
This is my question. If you were starting a small business in an area of your passion. We will say your passion could be classic cars, woodworking, carpentry, breeding dogs or opening a restaurant.

---

Ami Anne,

My goofy reply to you is is to show how these well intended threads quickly turn into a zoo. Let`s NOT do that, K?

Please keep to the subject matter.

AG is attempting to answer your questions in a forthright manner so either listen or ignore

posted June 05, 2012 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I don't know that it is out of proportion now. I haven't seen any statistics on that.

I will say that it's perfectly tenable as long as people continue to be charitable. Some of the richest people in the United States have already pledged to give away vast portions of their fortunes to help those less fortunate around the world. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done some extraordinary work. Their mission statement for their U.S. work is this:

Our mission: Help ensure greater opportunity for all Americans through the attainment of secondary and postsecondary education with genuine economic value.

This alligns perfectly with the pervasive liberal thought in this era. The foundation is seeking to balance imbalances present in the education system in the hopes that those children that started out handicapped by income inequality will be able to attain the same heights as their well-off breathren. It's not seeking to give handouts to the lazy. It's seeking to give hope to those that might realistically believe their potential is limited. To me, it's the same as a church might do for the poor. I don't think such an idea is wild or outlandish. I think it's appropriate.

---

Some very good thoughts AG. Great minds can differ

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 05, 2012 08:27 PM            

here is a more serious question. why is it that conservatives think the rich need MORE money to be motivated, but the poor should not have any? do you think it preferable that people be in the streets robbing passersby, or worse, to survive? or perhaps they should go begging at st vincent's if they can find one?

no one here wants utopia. but ESPECIALLY if you distrust human nature, programs that require the participation of everyone so that no one dies of neglect are crucial. that is why tax incentives are given for charitable donations as well, to encourage people to help where they would NOT if left to themselves.

and that is why more liberal govts are actually better at covering for people's greed and insensitivity than conservative ones. and it is not the social programs that are killing europe but the same sort of fraud and manipulation of the markets and industries by the likes of goldman sachs etc that crashed our market here.

in the 40s and 50s and half the 60s the top rate and the corporate rate of tax were twice what they are now. we did not suffer from greedy hoarders running away from their "civic duty" and the country grew rapidly into the biggest market in the world. terrible result, eh?

posted June 05, 2012 08:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
well i see you editted your reply, ami, to my question, but apparently still did not get what i was saying...yet your original answer was so close! since you use "student" as a euphemism for "wet behind the ears' or just plain DUMB, i sent it your way to show you how silly your attempts to diminish shura are...never mind.

here is a more serious question. why is it that conservatives think the rich need MORE money to be motivated, but the poor should not have any? do you think it preferable that people be in the streets robbing passersby, or worse, to survive? or perhaps they should go begging at st vincent's if they can find one?

no one here wants utopia. but ESPECIALLY if you distrust human nature, programs that require the participation of everyone so that no one dies of neglect are crucial. that is why tax incentives are given for charitable donations as well, to encourage people to help where they would NOT if left to themselves.

and that is why more liberal govts are actually better at covering for people's greed and insensitivity than conservative ones. and it is not the social programs that are killing europe but the same sort of fraud and manipulation of the markets and industries by the likes of goldman sachs etc that crashed our market here.

in the 40s and 50s and half the 60s the top rate and the corporate rate of tax were twice what they are now. we did not suffer from greedy hoarders running away from their "civic duty" and the country grew rapidly into the biggest market in the world. terrible result, eh?

the elimination of oversight and tax revenues has caused more slump than all the socialism in the world.

---

You and I are so very, very different, Kat. I have no place to even start to explain to you how I see the world so differently than you do.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 06, 2012 02:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Great minds can articulate those differences. You kind of copped out, and excused yourself from the conversation.

---

Yes, Darling. I did. You are 100% right. The thread lost it's focus for me, with all the jumping in of people. If you want to start a new one I will be happy to try again

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 06, 2012 07:00 PM            

Conservative Preacher Claims People Are On Welfare Because They Don’t Read The Bible
June 6, 2012
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

People are on welfare for many different reasons. Most people are on welfare because they lost their jobs and need benefits to care for their families until they can find new work. Others are sick or disabled and are therefore unable to work. These are reasonable explanations for why people need welfare. But religious conservatives are inventing a new reason to explain why people are on welfare.

According to right-wing preacher and activist David Barton, people are on welfare because they don’t read the Bible.

David Barton is a conservative minister from Texas. He is the founder of Wallbuilders, an organization that seeks to destroy the separation of church and state to achieve its ultimate goal of turning America into a Christian state ruled by Biblical law. During his radio program called ‘Wallbuilders Live,’ Barton claimed that people are on welfare because they don’t read the Bible.

“Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a study between those that are on welfare and see how much and how often they read the Bible,” Barton wondered. “You know, if Booker T. Washington is right that Christianity and reading the Bible increases your desires and therefore your ability for hard work; if we take that as an axiom, does that mean that the people who are getting government assistance spend nearly no time in the Bible, therefore have no desire, and therefore no ability for hard work? I could go a lot of places with this. I would love to see this proven out in some kind of sociological study, but it makes perfect sense.”

There are two problems with Barton’s claim. First, Bible belt and the more religious/conservative states have been revealed as the real welfare states. On average, for every $1.00 that blue states receive, red states take $1.16. That may not sound like a lot but that adds up to millions more in federal aid going to conservative states.

If we take a look at the list of the top states that take federal dollars, 16 of the top twenty states are conservative leaning.

1. New Mexico: $2.03
2. Mississippi: $2.02
3. Alaska: $1.84
4. Louisiana: $1.78
5. West Virginia: $1.76
6. North Dakota: $1.68
7. Alabama: $1.66
8. South Dakota: $1.53
9. Kentucky: $1.51
10. Virginia: $1.51
11. Montana: $1.47
12. Hawaii: $1.44
13. Maine: $1.41
14. Arkansas: $1.41
15. Oklahoma: $1.36
16. South Carolina: $1.35
17. Missouri: $1.32
18. Maryland: $1.30
19. Tennessee: $1.27
20. Idaho: $1.21

As it turns out, the big liberal states that conservatives have come to despise actually take little federal aid.

40. Massachusetts: $0.82
42. New York: $0.79
43. California: $0.78

So the real welfare queens are in fact, conservatives.

The second problem with Barton’s claim is that a recent Gallup Poll found that Republicans are more religious than Democrats.

So either conservatives don’t read the Bible or they do read it and collect welfare at the same time. The evidence presented suggests that Bible-toting conservatives need welfare more than less religious people living in liberal states.

Regardless of who gets more welfare, those who get it most certainly need it. People just don’t go on welfare to get a free ride. In order to receive welfare benefits, a person has to qualify for them. Whether it be food stamps or Medicaid or housing assistance or energy assistance or unemployment benefits, welfare programs clearly help those in need. According to statistics, most welfare recipients are white adults and are on welfare less than two years at a time. That means the majority of Americans see welfare as temporary assistance.

Obviously, Barton’s claim is seriously flawed. Of course, I wouldn’t expect him or any other conservative for that matter to believe the facts. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/06/preacher/

posted June 06, 2012 07:13 PM            

This suggests that the poorest are actually getting far less than they were in 1980.

Part of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

posted June 06, 2012 07:50 PM            

I think you and I have a fundamental difference in how we view human nature. I think you are a thinking person, AG. You have always treated me respectfully and I appreciate that, a great deal.

I think we view life through a different lens and that is why we have different political POVs.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 11:52 AM            

With increased government spending comes the need to pay for it, and if taxes aren’t going to increase that means deficits. Nearly three-quarters of Americans blame the U.S. budget deficit on spending too much money on federal programs, according to a Gallup poll last year, but when the conversation turns to which programs to cut, the majorities are harder to find. For example, 56% of respondents oppose making significant changes to Social Security or Medicare.

The more people who receive benefits, the harder it’s going to be to make cuts, and it’s never popular to raise taxes. In some respects that argues for letting a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that is set to automatically hit in 2013 take effect. There’s just one problem: the Congressional Budget Office says it would sink the economy into recession.

This is precisely the truth of our current situation. No one wants an increase in the debt, but the country would be better off with more spending, and will very likely go into recession if the government reduces spending.

posted June 07, 2012 12:05 PM            

You can't punish achievers without, virtually, punishing everyone because achievers make jobs for other people.

Sticking it to the rich cannot be done more than it is, now. It is really jealousy, at it's core. Jealousy is one of the worst of the human traits. We all have it, but it won't work in public policy as it is simply untenable.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

You can't punish achievers without, virtually, punishing everyone because achievers make jobs for other people.

---

This is a false notion. It's been disproven. Wealthy people are smart. When the economy tanks, they sit on their money. They don't create jobs until there's a market for the goods they produce.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/

quote:

---

Sticking it to the rich cannot be done more than it is, now.

---

This is also completely false. Here's the historical tax rate chart: http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

You can find for yourself via this chart (above) that taxes were higher under Reagan, and that they were much higher before Reagan.

posted June 07, 2012 12:42 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 12:59 PM            

I'm not interested in pulling the wool over your eyes. I'm interested in having you understand what's really going on.

The real, honest-to-God truth of the matter is that taxes have ALWAYS been higher than they are now.

posted June 07, 2012 01:06 PM            

I don't study all the details, AG. Any person can make anything what they want it to be, with statistics. Each side does it and always has. I just know that certain values will not permit a thriving society. You cannot break the back of the achievers, forever. There are not enough of them, even if it could work to break their backs.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 02:11 PM            

Taxes are low. Businesses aren't struggling any more than they have in the last several years from a tax standpoint, and if they are, those taxes are imposed on a state level, not a Federal level.

posted June 07, 2012 02:21 PM            

Statistics can be made to say what you want until they are virtually worthless, basically.
I go with what I know about human nature. My single most treasured book, next to the Bible is Animal Farm by Orwell. He outlines human nature imo

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 04:13 PM            

If I asked you about something for which you had factual, firsthand knowledge, I would have no reason to disbelieve your answer, right? Why? Because you know what you're talking about, and I believe you're trustworthy. That's true of any fact finding endeavor. And if you come across a source of information that you suspect is trying to mislead you, you move on to another source you believe will be trustworthy, and compare notes.

posted June 07, 2012 05:25 PM            

It still would not be enough.

So, you cannot fund all these "give away" programs and expect the economy to work, so we can start there and agree, anyway. I am quite sure.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 06:37 PM            

Spending isn't nuclear either, and should have been brought under control when Republicans were both in the White House and leading the Congress. To make things worse, it would actually help the economy a great deal if the government were to spend more. Getting spending "under control" is bound to start another recession as the CBO is predicting when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

Those give-away programs spend money primarily on Republicans as we discussed earlier in this thread. Yes, Republicans want spending to come down, but they don't want to give up any of their government assistance to do so. Personally, I would like spending to go down as well, and particularly the debt (as I said all through the Bush years), but with the way things currently are, there is no easy solution. Taxing the rich is merely an incremental solution that will help moderately. His proposal of revenue sharing, a Richard Nixon construct, would have helped the economy quite a bit, and, to me, contradicts the notion that the Obama Administration doesn't know what to do.

Conservative calls for reductions in spending will amount to something we've already seen in the history of this nation.

The following year Roosevelt warmly embraced the conventional budgetary counsel of Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and submitted an austerity budget, sharply contracting government spending and thereby triggering the so-called Roosevelt Recession. The already wheezing economy withered rapidly. Unemployment ballooned to 19 percent from 14 percent. Not until World War II generated deficits of nearly 30 percent of G.N.P. did the economy finally rebound and unemployment all but disappear. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/20/presidents-and-their-debts-fdr-to-bush/fdr-budget-hawk

Romney's in a fortunate circumstance while seeking the Presidency, but he's putting himself in a position to be looked upon poorly for his handling of the economy, because there is no winning in this economy. You constrict spending, you hurt the economy. You increase spending, you help the economy but balloon the debt. You tax more across the board, you hurt the economy. You tax less, you add to the debt.

posted June 07, 2012 07:01 PM            

1. out of control spending must stop
2. Fiscal responsibility MUST happen
3. People who KNOW the basics of economics must be in office
4. Business must not have excess regulation which break the backs of small business
5. People who cannot work such as the handicapped must have a safety net.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 07, 2012 07:08 PM            

the fact is ami, that taxes are NOT superhigh now, even when you include them all. reagan RAISED the capital gains rate, for instance, to make things more reasonable...and found that taxes he had lowered had to be adjusted UP again in the face of reality...and still he ended his term with a huge deficit...

it's just not as simple as rush makes it sound...

posted June 07, 2012 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
so far he has proposed letting things "bottom out", including detroit, which he now claims he helped recover somehow...and the housing market, where bottoming out basically means letting people be pushed onto the streets (or their kids' basements, or wherever)..and encouraging investors to buy up the foreclosed homes...ie let someone with plenty of capital become a major landlord? but he is not clear about how any of this would be implemented of course...

the fact is ami, that taxes are NOT superhigh now, even when you include them all. reagan RAISED the capital gains rate, for instance, to make things more reasonable...and found that taxes he had lowered had to be adjusted UP again in the face of reality...and still he ended his term with a huge deficit...

it's just not as simple as rush makes it sound...

oh and your graphs and statistics point...i have been making for a long time now - maybe we are not so different after all? but then you have to be willing to listen for similarities not just differences..

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal