|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 12:46:53 GMT -8
That "village" is responsible for everything you have. bull$#!+. I've worked for everything I have. No one handed me my job - I went and earned it. No one handed me my home - I saved money for the down payment and am paying for it every two weeks. I find that notion that the, "Village," is responsible for everything I have (and everyone else has) to be incredibly insulting to the hard work I and everyone else who has achieved have put in. Your effort would mean nothing without the effort of others too. It is why societies specialize. I fear that you disagree not because of the rightness or wrongness of the argument because you do not like the source of the comments-a liberal. You are getting angry my friend. This is just a meaningless discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 12:51:54 GMT -8
bull$#!+. I've worked for everything I have. No one handed me my job - I went and earned it. No one handed me my home - I saved money for the down payment and am paying for it every two weeks. I find that notion that the, "Village," is responsible for everything I have (and everyone else has) to be incredibly insulting to the hard work I and everyone else who has achieved have put in. Your effort would mean nothing without the effort of others too. It is why societies specialize. I fear that you disagree not because of the rightness or wrongness of the argument because you do not like the source of the comments-a liberal. No, I disagree because I believe that you are wrong. Your heart is in the right place, but reality is different than what you think it is. I got angry because you basically said that my hard work means nothing and that the Village is responsible for all I have. That IS utter bull$#!+. We are all responsible for ourselves. We all earn what we earn. Nothing has been handed to me on a silver platter by the Village. I would hope that nothing has been handed to you. See, that's the inequity of the thing - you advocate giving to those who don't earn while taking away from those who do. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 14, 2010 13:11:44 GMT -8
The constitution does not guarantee that people will not get sick (they will always get sick) or that they won't die (everybody dies), or that they will be happy. Nor can any constitution guarantee that. The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs. The government cannot pay for everyone's food, shelter, and clothing (let alone health care). To do so the government has to take the money from somewhere - and the place they have to steal the money from is the overall economy, slowing it down and reducing job growth. It's a catch 22. The more the government does to directly help people financially the more it hurts the overall economy slowing job growth and prolonging unemployment. And, for the record, I never once said, "Let them get sick, let them die." That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst kind of political discourse possible - demonizing those on the other side and claiming that they want people to get sick and die. And, for the record, I never once said, "Let them get sick, let them die."
That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst
Don't you think we all agree on goals? Where we differ is in how to best reach those goals. Is it the old "Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish" question? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 14, 2010 13:23:23 GMT -8
This, I think, is one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think government is formed to protect and serve business. Liberals think government is formed to protect and serve people. That premise is mistaken. Conservatives think government is formed to protect individuals and their individual rights. The government has a duty to protect our most precious right - our lives - from all threats foreign and domestic (using the military and police). Business IS the people. People own the businesses. Businesses EMPLOY people. Businesses are not the bad guys to be demonized. Only because back then ALL businesses were individually owned and operated. People and business were one and the same. I disagree - Governments were formed to create ORDER. Part of that order is creating a stable economic system. Without order there is anarchy. Governments protect people by creating laws to protect lives and property rights. It doesn't take a village. It takes individuals with good work ethic. People rise to the occasion. I have faith and belief in peoples' abilities to take care of themselves. Most conservatives do. It would seem that liberals don't believe in the ability of individuals to take care of themselves. We have great faith that we can organize ourselves to better the world. If we organize by government, fine. If we organize by corporations, fine. If we orgnanize in voluntary groups fine. This one man against the world outlook that you have has nothing to do with reality. I have never said that business is wrong or bad. I own a business. I have for almost thirty years. This is another of your made up comments about who I am and what I believe. Just read my posts and forget making things up about me.  You need to understand that my business is much more like the businesses of 250 years ago than a national Chamber of Commerce business. The size, scope and power of those companys was unknown to the Founding Fathers. Don't mistake GE(I own shares, btw) with Paul Revere. Don't mistake Benjamin Franklin for FOX, or NBC. Certainly governments are about order. That is why I made the comment above about taxation and coercion. Order is especially important in dictatorships. I can't imagine you are advocating for kings, however. Democracy is a form of government, but it is a new form of government in the history of the world. Our government was formed by, of and for the people. No, you can not substitute the word business. It is not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 14:54:13 GMT -8
Your effort would mean nothing without the effort of others too. It is why societies specialize. I fear that you disagree not because of the rightness or wrongness of the argument because you do not like the source of the comments-a liberal. No, I disagree because I believe that you are wrong. Your heart is in the right place, but reality is different than what you think it is. I got angry because you basically said that my hard work means nothing and that the Village is responsible for all I have. That IS utter bull$#!+. We are all responsible for ourselves. We all earn what we earn. Nothing has been handed to me on a silver platter by the Village. I would hope that nothing has been handed to you. See, that's the inequity of the thing - you advocate giving to those who don't earn while taking away from those who do. I know the value of hard work. But unless you understand that your efforts occur in the larger context of interdependence, you miss the texture of the thing. I am not attacking you or your belief in personal effort, but we are all interdependent. Nothing has been handed to me and I bet that I have worked harder than you. I was successful in my career while raising a family and going to school at night. I know 18 hour days. I know exactly what effort gets you. And I am pretty successful. But my success was not entirely a result of my effort, prodigious though it was.
"No, I disagree because I believe that you are wrong. Your heart is in the right place, but reality is different than what you think it is." I know reality-intimately. I have been chased by a screaming schizophrenic, with a knife, on a school night, at 4:30 in the morning when I was sixteen. I missed a foster home by 180 miles because a friend invited me to visit his home town. My brothers and sisters reaped that privilege. I was personally responsible for making sure my father made it to his retirement from the Navy, twenty eight years into it, without losing his career at age 15. He was one phone call away from losing it. So, I know reality, my friend, and it taught me that we need to depend on each other, because at some point we are all dependent. Reality made me a tough SOB. But, reality taught me compassion. Reality made me a liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 18:23:53 GMT -8
No, we are NOT all dependent. Not as adults. That would be sad. We should all strive to be as independent as possible so as not to drag others down.
I owe nothing that I have to anyone else. No one in government did diddly-poo (copyright Jim Mora) to get me anything in life, and that's just fine by me.
You cannot take geniune pride in accomplishments if they are not your accomplishments. Period.
It's just a philosophical difference. Conservatives don't want the government involved in their lives any more than is absolutely necessary. Conservatives have a strong independent streak that goes back to the ideals of the founding fathers.
Conservatives believe in much of what JFK said about asking not what your country can do for you, only they have a different ending - ask what you can do for yourself. If we all do for ourselves and take responsibility for our actions we will have a much stronger country with much hardier, more resilient people. The kind of people that built this country in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 20:32:08 GMT -8
You cannot take geniune pride in accomplishments if they are not your accomplishments. Period. That's why I'm glad you agree with me on the abolishment of both inheritance AND welfare. You must agree with me if you believe what you wrote above. Inheritance is not an accomplishment for yourself, but for your parents. Taking that away from them in death is an injustice. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 14, 2010 20:56:20 GMT -8
That's why I'm glad you agree with me on the abolishment of both inheritance AND welfare. You must agree with me if you believe what you wrote above. Inheritance is not an accomplishment for yourself, but for your parents. Taking that away from them in death is an injustice. So living off your parent's hard work is a conservative philosophy? Who knew? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:01:17 GMT -8
Inheritance is not an accomplishment for yourself, but for your parents. Taking that away from them in death is an injustice. So living off your parent's hard work is a conservative philosophy? Who knew? ;D No, it's just honoring their wishes. Come on... What right would the government have to confiscate/steal that money from the family anyway? Many parents work their asses off all their lives just to leave money to their children. So should that work and their sacrifices have been in vain?? Should they have knocked themselves out for nothing??? My father-in-law's dad practically worked himself to death, and even after he retired he refused to spend his money (which was fairly considerable in amount). He hardly ever went anywhere, hardly ever did anything in retirement, and all so that his children would have the financial security that he never had while growing up in Germany. Should his sacrifice have been for nothing? A trip to a new country and a lifetime of work up in smoke?? Come on... |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:02:34 GMT -8
Inheritance is not an accomplishment for yourself, but for your parents. Taking that away from them in death is an injustice. Ah. But tell me this: If they're dead, how the hell do they know? See my post above and get back to me... |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:06:45 GMT -8
Many parents work their asses off all their lives just to leave money to their children. No true conservative parent would do this. You know...the kind of conservative who aspires to this philosophy (which you wrote above): If we all do for ourselves and take responsibility for our actions we will have a much stronger country with much hardier, more resilient people. The kind of people that built this country in the first place.Actually, by providing for your children you ARE making sure that they don't ever have to go on the public dole and leech off of others, so that is a very conservative philosophy. Besides, parents are PARENTS first, conservative or liberal second. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:14:56 GMT -8
Actually, by providing for your children you ARE making sure that they don't ever have to go on the public dole and leech off of others, so that is a very conservative philosophy. Besides, parents are PARENTS first, conservative or liberal second. Look. A person either has what he takes to make it on his own or he doesn't. I don't know of a single conservative who would disagree. NO WELFARE. NO INHERITANCE. So who gets the money? And what right does ANY government have to take a lifetime of work that someone puts in with the sole reason and flush it down the toilet? If a parent chooses to make sacrifices for the well being of his/her children then that money should go to the children. Period. I know you're just pushing my buttons, but there are people who legitimately think that way and as a parent that kind of crap pisses me off. Basically, it's saying that we do not have the freedom to provide for our children. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:21:46 GMT -8
Should his sacrifice have been for nothing? A trip to a new country and a lifetime of work up in smoke?? Come on... It would not have been for nothing. He would have modeled the value of hard work and thrift for his children. Now his children don't have to work. What will they model for their kids? Actually, they HAVE worked, and worked fairly hard. He didn't leave them enough money to live a lifetime on, just enough that if they lost a job they'd have money to draw from - and extra money for a more comfortable retirement. My father-in-law took some of the money to buy property and then built his house himself. No contractors were hired, he did all the work himself. And someday he'll finish the house... (He keeps tinkering with it even 23+ years later.) |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:23:35 GMT -8
So who gets the money? And what right does ANY government have to take a lifetime of work that someone puts in (for the sole reason of supporting their children) and then flush it down the toilet?If a parent chooses to make sacrifices for the well being of his/her children then that money should go to the children. Period. I know you're just pushing my buttons, but there are people who legitimately think that way and as a parent that kind of crap pisses me off. Basically, it's saying that we do not have the freedom to provide for our children. I'm not saying they couldn't give it to their kids before they're dead (though they shouldn't do that either if they wish to model the values of hard work and thrift). You're not answering MY questions, now... |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 21:39:46 GMT -8
So who gets the money? And what right does ANY government have to take a lifetime of work that someone puts in with the sole reason and flush it down the toilet? If a parent chooses to make sacrifices for the well being of his/her children then that money should go to the children. Period. I know you're just pushing my buttons, but there are people who legitimately think that way and as a parent that kind of crap pisses me off. Basically, it's saying that we do not have the freedom to provide for our children. I'm not saying they couldn't give it to their kids before they're dead (though they shouldn't do that either if they wish to model the values of hard work and thrift). Again, I know you're yanking my chain, but as there are people who geniunely believe stuff like that... None of us know how long we'll live, so we can't just give our money away to our kids willy-nilly. That money may be needed 15-20 years down the road when we're 93. You generally hope to have more money than you'll need, but you never know for sure how much you'll need so you can't just give big chunks away. But most of us would give that money to our kids if we knew for a fact that we wouldn't need it 10 or 20 years later. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 14, 2010 22:44:59 GMT -8
So living off your parent's hard work is a conservative philosophy? Who knew? ;D No, it's just honoring their wishes. Come on... What right would the government have to confiscate/steal that money from the family anyway? Many parents work their asses off all their lives just to leave money to their children. So should that work and their sacrifices have been in vain?? Should they have knocked themselves out for nothing??? My father-in-law's dad practically worked himself to death, and even after he retired he refused to spend his money (which was fairly considerable in amount). He hardly ever went anywhere, hardly ever did anything in retirement, and all so that his children would have the financial security that he never had while growing up in Germany. Should his sacrifice have been for nothing? A trip to a new country and a lifetime of work up in smoke?? Come on... How much money did he have? The estate tax that just expired had a 3.5 million exemption from tax. That is a lot of money. I could retire on half of that with ease. Few have estates that size. I suspect that less than 10,000 estates paid tax in 2009. Does that surprise you? You post as if you think that the estate tax is so onerous that the government takes it all. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 23:02:46 GMT -8
No, it's just honoring their wishes. Come on... What right would the government have to confiscate/steal that money from the family anyway? Many parents work their asses off all their lives just to leave money to their children. So should that work and their sacrifices have been in vain?? Should they have knocked themselves out for nothing??? My father-in-law's dad practically worked himself to death, and even after he retired he refused to spend his money (which was fairly considerable in amount). He hardly ever went anywhere, hardly ever did anything in retirement, and all so that his children would have the financial security that he never had while growing up in Germany. Should his sacrifice have been for nothing? A trip to a new country and a lifetime of work up in smoke?? Come on... How much money did he have? The estate tax that just expired had a 3.5 million exemption from tax. That is a lot of money. I could retire on half of that with ease. Few have estates that size. I suspect that less than 10,000 estates paid tax in 2009. Does that surprise you? You post as if you think that the estate tax is so onerous that the government takes it all. The government shouldn't take any of it. That money was already taxed multiple times. (And it was far less than 3.5 million - far far less, but still a sizeable amount back in the mid 80's...) |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 15, 2010 5:51:56 GMT -8
How much money did he have? The estate tax that just expired had a 3.5 million exemption from tax. That is a lot of money. I could retire on half of that with ease. Few have estates that size. I suspect that less than 10,000 estates paid tax in 2009. Does that surprise you? You post as if you think that the estate tax is so onerous that the government takes it all. The government shouldn't take any of it. That money was already taxed multiple times. (And it was far less than 3.5 million - far far less, but still a sizeable amount back in the mid 80's...)How about unrealized capital gains? For most people that represents the majority of their assets. None of that has been taxed. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 15, 2010 12:35:57 GMT -8
No, it's just honoring their wishes. Come on... What right would the government have to confiscate/steal that money from the family anyway? Many parents work their asses off all their lives just to leave money to their children. So should that work and their sacrifices have been in vain?? Should they have knocked themselves out for nothing??? My father-in-law's dad practically worked himself to death, and even after he retired he refused to spend his money (which was fairly considerable in amount). He hardly ever went anywhere, hardly ever did anything in retirement, and all so that his children would have the financial security that he never had while growing up in Germany. Should his sacrifice have been for nothing? A trip to a new country and a lifetime of work up in smoke?? Come on... How much money did he have? The estate tax that just expired had a 3.5 million exemption from tax. That is a lot of money. I could retire on half of that with ease. Few have estates that size. I suspect that less than 10,000 estates paid tax in 2009. Does that surprise you? You post as if you think that the estate tax is so onerous that the government takes it all. I find it strange that anyone would advocate the government taking any of it. I would be happy with some large number for a general exemption from the estate tax and a total exemption for small businesses and family farms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2010 13:34:30 GMT -8
The government shouldn't take any of it. That money was already taxed multiple times. (And it was far less than 3.5 million - far far less, but still a sizeable amount back in the mid 80's...)How about unrealized capital gains? For most people that represents the majority of their assets. None of that has been taxed. Wasn't the money used to buy the asset related to the unrealized cap gains taxed in the first place? Who is taking the risk here, the govt or the individual? There are generally always two sides to everything.... Of course, my problem is not with the taxation but with how the damn money is spent but that is another story.... btw, I am pretty much a liberal..... |
|
