| Author | Post |
|---|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
MrsF wrote: Honey---you don't live here so you really don't understand that this is a diverse community with homes from about 1000 sf to about 3400sf...
I do understand that...and I know that people even with smaller homes pay more because of the location. Pull up comps in the rest of Surprise compared to similar homes in Sun City Grand. I found a home in Sun City Grand with 2 bedrooms in the 1400-1600 sf range with an asking price of $204,900. http://www.ihomefinder.com/idx/listingsMap.cfm?cid=38015&lstp=hotSheets&hid=22262#
Another home in Surprise with similar features (2 br, 1400 sf) has an asking price of $149,900. http://www.era.com/property/index.jsp?property=ERA2633505
Both had very similar amenities (both turnkey condition - no need for repairs that I could see) so why do YOU suppose there is a $55,000 price range? You don't think that one is because it's in Sun City Grand? People are willing to pay more to live there and I have absolutely no problem with that, but don't sit here and tell me that it's not an upscale place when home prices are valued higher than the rest of the town simply because of where they are located. That's an undisputable fact.
We have people here working in Target, retired MD's, and everyone inbetween...why you somethink this is Paradise Vally west, is just another example of your misinformation.
Yes, retired people who work at Target to get out of the house and earn a little extra income - not so that they can support their lifestyle in Sun City Grand without other sources of income. Target doesn't pay enough to even support living in a one bedroom condo in Sun City Grand - valued at about $115,000. So, don't try to fool me! I think it's great that there are people willing to work even after retirement age. It keeps one's mind and body fit. However, I sincerely doubt that cashiering at Target is what's keeping people living in Sun City Grand. Otherwise, maybe I AM in the wrong line of work!
You asking me why I don't move to a "smaller home in Surprise"...duh, dear....what size home do I have, Amazing Clarnac? Anyway..it doesn't matter..I have what I need, when I go I'm gonna be naked
Perish the thought of thinking of you naked! Anyway, I don't care what size home you have. Either way, you are paying more for it for the lifestyle. I think it's great, but if you are so sure that if people that make more money have too much and should be REQUIRED to share it, then I say let's start with you! Why do you think you should be allowed to keep what you have when there are people with less. Mind you, I don't believe in this philosophy but you do, so I am asking you, when will you say YOU have too much and should give it up for others?
just like you and rantsnraves (than's a sobering thought). I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving. BTW: do you conservatives really not understand the difference between socialism and communism?
I'm glad you are fine with paying taxes. I say if you want to pay more, then go for it. Who's stopping you? But as soon as you start demanding that others give up to support your cause, you are no longer supporting the rights of others. There are plenty of charitable organizations that work hard to take care of the poor and downtrodden and we in my household support those efforts all the time. We contribute our time and treasures to many, many needy programs year-round, so for you to claim that conservatives don't want to help others is beyond ridiculous. Forcing others to give up their earnings is NOT the way this country was established and for you to support otherwise is definitely UN-American!
Another btw: you have no idea if the free market put people here or not...some people work hard, some people marry well, some people get lucky, some people had rich parents....seems that' you're a tad jealous....
Funny thing is, I do recognize that people have worked hard to live there. I think it's great and I totally support that. Some people married well, yes, but for that to have happened, SOMEONE had to work for that money, if not the spouse then the spouse's family, some people get lucky and win the lottery, etc. However, for the most part, people do work for their wealth.
I ask you, why would I be jealous? On that, you couldn't be more wrong! I am all for people being rich and having their blessings as they see fit. It is you that seems rather DEFENSIVE. I'm not the least bit jealous. I say, whatever reason you are in there, more power to ya! I am actually happy for you that you were able to retire comfortably. However, I do have issue with you expecting people to give up what they earned, especially when you aren't willing to do the same yourself. No, Darlin', it's not jealousy. I just see right through you. You think people who have more than you have too much and should have to "share" it. Why do you think people should be given money from those who work? Under what conditions do you think they "deserve" those things for free?
Well, I'm not going to argue with you about Sun City Grand...If it meets your definition of upscale, then, in your world, it is upscale. To me, it's average, probably better than average compare with some other NW Vally communities..but Scottsdale or Paradise Valley? Nah nah...I don't think so. I probably, since I live here and you do not, know a great many more people here who work at stores like Target...They do not do it to get out of the house as you believe....they do it, if under 65, to afford health insurance. Trust me, they are not happy about dragging their butts out of bed to work at a non fulfilling job...I know a lot of people here who work. I know of very, very few people who do it because they are bored...if you knew this community as well as you think you do, you'd know there are ample activities and volunteer ooportunities available so one should not be bored. As far as taxes: look, libertarians such as yourself, never did and never will believe in paying taxes to benefit others. It is the most selfish political philosophy there is. In the fall, if there is the question of a 1% increase in taxes to benefit one of the worst educational systems in the US, I'll vote for it in a heartbeat. I have a mental image of you sitting at home all summer counting your money each morning beofre breakfast and each evening before to go to bed...sorry...that's not my life..it's yours.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 07:46 pm |
|
Again i am not a far right extremist. Ill tell you again, I have never moved, you have.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 07:41 pm |
|
Craig wrote: Those are not the words of a moderate republican. One is or is not a socialist. You either believe in taking my money and giving it to someone in the interest of fairness and justice or you dont. This is not about taking and giving only to those in need, we already do that. This is about making the outcome of life equatable for all. That is wrong.
So in the world of Craig and other far right extremists, McCain, Brewer, and others who believe they are moderate Republicans, are really socialists, because the far right gets to contrive definitions. I get it now. You statement is the reason why so many moderate Republicans are leaving your party in droves. They understand everything is not not black or white...they can grasp the concept of grey, they are willing to compromise and they see that their party has been hijacked.....and, they don't like it.
|
MrsF
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 06:51 pm |
|
Honey---you don't live here so you really don't understand that this is a diverse community with homes from about 1000 sf to about 3400sf...
I do understand that...and I know that people even with smaller homes pay more because of the location. Pull up comps in the rest of Surprise compared to similar homes in Sun City Grand. I found a home in Sun City Grand with 2 bedrooms in the 1400-1600 sf range with an asking price of $204,900. http://www.ihomefinder.com/idx/listingsMap.cfm?cid=38015&lstp=hotSheets&hid=22262#
Another home in Surprise with similar features (2 br, 1400 sf) has an asking price of $149,900. http://www.era.com/property/index.jsp?property=ERA2633505
Both had very similar amenities (both turnkey condition - no need for repairs that I could see) so why do YOU suppose there is a $55,000 price range? You don't think that one is because it's in Sun City Grand? People are willing to pay more to live there and I have absolutely no problem with that, but don't sit here and tell me that it's not an upscale place when home prices are valued higher than the rest of the town simply because of where they are located. That's an undisputable fact.
We have people here working in Target, retired MD's, and everyone inbetween...why you somethink this is Paradise Vally west, is just another example of your misinformation.
Yes, retired people who work at Target to get out of the house and earn a little extra income - not so that they can support their lifestyle in Sun City Grand without other sources of income. Target doesn't pay enough to even support living in a one bedroom condo in Sun City Grand - valued at about $115,000. So, don't try to fool me! I think it's great that there are people willing to work even after retirement age. It keeps one's mind and body fit. However, I sincerely doubt that cashiering at Target is what's keeping people living in Sun City Grand. Otherwise, maybe I AM in the wrong line of work!
You asking me why I don't move to a "smaller home in Surprise"...duh, dear....what size home do I have, Amazing Clarnac? Anyway..it doesn't matter..I have what I need, when I go I'm gonna be naked
Perish the thought of thinking of you naked! Anyway, I don't care what size home you have. Either way, you are paying more for it for the lifestyle. I think it's great, but if you are so sure that if people that make more money have too much and should be REQUIRED to share it, then I say let's start with you! Why do you think you should be allowed to keep what you have when there are people with less. Mind you, I don't believe in this philosophy but you do, so I am asking you, when will you say YOU have too much and should give it up for others?
just like you and rantsnraves (than's a sobering thought). I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving. BTW: do you conservatives really not understand the difference between socialism and communism?
I'm glad you are fine with paying taxes. I say if you want to pay more, then go for it. Who's stopping you? But as soon as you start demanding that others give up to support your cause, you are no longer supporting the rights of others. There are plenty of charitable organizations that work hard to take care of the poor and downtrodden and we in my household support those efforts all the time. We contribute our time and treasures to many, many needy programs year-round, so for you to claim that conservatives don't want to help others is beyond ridiculous. Forcing others to give up their earnings is NOT the way this country was established and for you to support otherwise is definitely UN-American!
Another btw: you have no idea if the free market put people here or not...some people work hard, some people marry well, some people get lucky, some people had rich parents....seems that' you're a tad jealous....
Funny thing is, I do recognize that people have worked hard to live there. I think it's great and I totally support that. Some people married well, yes, but for that to have happened, SOMEONE had to work for that money, if not the spouse then the spouse's family, some people get lucky and win the lottery, etc. However, for the most part, people do work for their wealth.
I ask you, why would I be jealous? On that, you couldn't be more wrong! I am all for people being rich and having their blessings as they see fit. It is you that seems rather DEFENSIVE. I'm not the least bit jealous. I say, whatever reason you are in there, more power to ya! I am actually happy for you that you were able to retire comfortably. However, I do have issue with you expecting people to give up what they earned, especially when you aren't willing to do the same yourself. No, Darlin', it's not jealousy. I just see right through you. You think people who have more than you have too much and should have to "share" it. Why do you think people should be given money from those who work? Under what conditions do you think they "deserve" those things for free?
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 05:15 pm |
|
clarz007 wrote: Craig wrote: Those are not the words of a moderate republican. One is or is not a socialist. You either believe in taking my money and giving it to someone in the interest of fairness and justice or you dont. This is not about taking and giving only to those in need, we already do that. This is about making the outcome of life equatable for all. That is wrong.
Sorry, Craig, I disagree. There are some of us who simply want to redefine or possibly reform capitalism. We are not true socialists. We are more "idealists" who probably expect too much of mankind. I also question your statement "we already do that". WE may attempt to do good works but apparently our attempts fall short since there are so many (and the needy are rising in numbers) who are homeless, without health care, food and basic human essentials. I have to admit we have made SOME progress:
Once upon a time slavery was assumed part of the natural order of things. Once upon a time every state in the world was despotic, while human rights and elected governments were at best fantasies. Once upon a time there were no such things as trials, and torture was the norm. Modern man breaks records for the size and scope of human cruelty, but modern man has succeeded in moving the norms very far toward the good. A society free of slavery, peonage, hereditary nobility, poorhouses and debtors prisons, with universal public education, socialized health care for everyone, a 40 hour work week, and a popularly elected democratic government, would surely have seemed like a pie-in-the-sky utopia to someone alive in 1700.
Clarz007, if President Obama is not pointing our nation toward Socialism with his redistribution of the wealth. Why doesn't he look to reform the programs that are in place already. With regard to Welfare, food stamps, etc., if he were to overhaul these programs, get those off that are able bodied and just don't want to work, look at a cost effective day care system for those on welfare that say they can't work, because day care is too expensive, make those that are getting government funds work for federal, state and city governments. Giving someone a free ride doesn't help them get back on their feet--there are millions that can work but are dependent on Welfare because they can be. And unfortunately there are those that really need a helping hand that can't get it. Look at all those that are having problems with their mortgages and they are told they have to wait 3, 4 o 6 months before they can get any help.
President Obama doesn't want, in my opinion, to overhaul the current programs because he is then not redistributing the wealth. President Obama feels that those that have garnered the top 5 status with regard to money should give away their money to others that have less, not necessarily those in need, just those that have less.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
Craig wrote: Those are not the words of a moderate republican. One is or is not a socialist. You either believe in taking my money and giving it to someone in the interest of fairness and justice or you dont. This is not about taking and giving only to those in need, we already do that. This is about making the outcome of life equatable for all. That is wrong.
Moderate?? That's just the newest sexy liberal word for liberal they hide behind because nobody wants to admit they are a...liberal. Go figure. They throw it around as though that makes them above everyone, sure it does . I'm not saying there aren't some true Republicans who don't completely agree with the party agenda with maybe a small difference of opinion, nobody believes the same on everything so you could call them a moderate republican. But when liberals vote and continue to support the most radical left candidate for President, they aren't even a pimple on a Conservative's butt. So they can call themselves whatever they want, but facts are facts Max.
Government take over of private enterprise with equity interest is fascism. We are heading quickly past Socialism straight into Fascism and that is a stone's throw from Communism. We are on that red brick road to Totalitarianism just where BHO wants us. Don't ever kid yourself. That is Black Liberation Theology straight up. Barack Hussein Obama lived and supported that theology for 20 years until he was forced to disassociate himself from it, he didn't CHANGE because he wanted to, he was forced. Don't ever forget that piece of the puzzle. They believe themselves to be "African" not American and they believe we as American's owe them. And this is how they plan on making us pay up.
Entrepreneurship has been the mainstay of our Country's success and is exactly what has made us as prosperous and free as we are. This administration blames America for that. Not praise, but blames America for being too prosperous and they believe everyone should have the same bank account in order to obtain "Social Justice". To achieve that goal they believe they have the right to confiscate wealth from those who have it and GIVE it to those who do not, i.e. welfare. They want to crash the system in order to "level the playing field" except for themselves ofcourse, they are exempt. That is Socialism straight up.
When the libs luvbug starts talking about unlimited terms for the President then you know we will have arrived at Communism. One party rule....oops, we are almost there now, he just needs a little more time to work out the details and assign new words for it. But it tis what it tis. 
Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:59 pm by Razenkn
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:28 pm |
|
Craig wrote: Those are not the words of a moderate republican. One is or is not a socialist. You either believe in taking my money and giving it to someone in the interest of fairness and justice or you dont. This is not about taking and giving only to those in need, we already do that. This is about making the outcome of life equatable for all. That is wrong.
Sorry, Craig, I disagree. There are some of us who simply want to redefine or possibly reform capitalism. We are not true socialists. We are more "idealists" who probably expect too much of mankind. I also question your statement "we already do that". WE may attempt to do good works but apparently our attempts fall short since there are so many (and the needy are rising in numbers) who are homeless, without health care, food and basic human essentials. I have to admit we have made SOME progress:
Once upon a time slavery was assumed part of the natural order of things. Once upon a time every state in the world was despotic, while human rights and elected governments were at best fantasies. Once upon a time there were no such things as trials, and torture was the norm. Modern man breaks records for the size and scope of human cruelty, but modern man has succeeded in moving the norms very far toward the good. A society free of slavery, peonage, hereditary nobility, poorhouses and debtors prisons, with universal public education, socialized health care for everyone, a 40 hour work week, and a popularly elected democratic government, would surely have seemed like a pie-in-the-sky utopia to someone alive in 1700.
Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:31 pm by clarz007
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
Those are not the words of a moderate republican. One is or is not a socialist. You either believe in taking my money and giving it to someone in the interest of fairness and justice or you dont. This is not about taking and giving only to those in need, we already do that. This is about making the outcome of life equatable for all. That is wrong.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 06:38 am |
|
Mamazoyd wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: MrsF wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them.
In a wealthy family, someone worked hard for it. The first Rockefeller had to work for the money in his legacy. The family still has to work hard to keep it. Even the "La Cosa Nostra" people (I presume you mean mafia people) worked hard.
Whether or not people who are wealthy work hard is not the issue. The issue is that you are interested in bringing the wealthy down. I see you don't want EVERYONE to be rich. You want the rich to be brought down to middle class by "paying up" and redistributing those funds to the poor. Why on earth would anyone do that? This is the land of opportunity and people need to work to get that success.
You think people in Lexuses should be driving Fords and people in Paradise Valley should be living in Surprise. You are clearly a case of "class envy". You believe the government should strongarm the wealthy into giving up their wealth so that others can receive that money. I ask you this...who do you think should be given that money and what should it be used for?
Ms. Boots, I'd love to know what you did/do for a living. You are living in Sun City Grand, so you clearly have done well for yourself. Do you realize that it's the free market economy that puts you there? Why not go buy yourself a much smaller home in Surprise or El Mirage, downgrade to a Ford Taurus and give away all of your "extra income" to the rest? Come on, I challenge you. Spread the wealth. Let's start with you!
Honey---you don't live here so you really don't understand that this is a diverse community with homes from about 1000 sf to about 3400sf...We have people here working in Target, retired MD's, and everyone inbetween...why you somethink this is Paradise Vally west, is just another example of your misinformation. You asking me why I don't move to a "smaller home in Surprise"...duh, dear....what size home do I have, Amazing Clarnac? Anyway..it doesn't matter..I have what I need, when I go I'm gonna be naked just like you and rantsnraves (than's a sobering thought). I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving. BTW: do you conservatives really not understand the difference between socialism and communism?
Another btw: you have no idea if the free market put people here or not...some people work hard, some people marry well, some people get lucky, some people had rich parents....seems that' you're a tad jealous....
Ms Boots, I gotta agree with you. It's the luck of the draw and even with just hard work there are people who never get ahead or something terribly unfortunate happens. I have heard more than I care to say, people who state that if others don't like their insurance coverage, then they should just march right out there and get a different job with better benefits. Huh?
And BTW, thank you so much for this: I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving. 
Thank you for your kinds words, Mama. You do the moderate Republicans proud.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 05:08 am |
|
I am reminded every year at tax time how much i help thank you
|
Mamazoyd
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2060 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 05:04 am |
|
Craig wrote: Yeah im glad she said that too, so since i dont have anymore wealth to pay in taxes, can you kick in my share as well. Thanks Thats a good little socialist...
Hey Craig, it's really good to know that you truly don't want help if ever you are totally down and out cause OMG! You view that as a socialistic act. That's OK -- I'm sure there will be others who would be able to utilize the assistance more.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:01 am |
|
Yeah im glad she said that too, so since i dont have anymore wealth to pay in taxes, can you kick in my share as well. Thanks Thats a good little socialist...
|
Mamazoyd
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2060 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 02:35 am |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: MrsF wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them.
In a wealthy family, someone worked hard for it. The first Rockefeller had to work for the money in his legacy. The family still has to work hard to keep it. Even the "La Cosa Nostra" people (I presume you mean mafia people) worked hard.
Whether or not people who are wealthy work hard is not the issue. The issue is that you are interested in bringing the wealthy down. I see you don't want EVERYONE to be rich. You want the rich to be brought down to middle class by "paying up" and redistributing those funds to the poor. Why on earth would anyone do that? This is the land of opportunity and people need to work to get that success.
You think people in Lexuses should be driving Fords and people in Paradise Valley should be living in Surprise. You are clearly a case of "class envy". You believe the government should strongarm the wealthy into giving up their wealth so that others can receive that money. I ask you this...who do you think should be given that money and what should it be used for?
Ms. Boots, I'd love to know what you did/do for a living. You are living in Sun City Grand, so you clearly have done well for yourself. Do you realize that it's the free market economy that puts you there? Why not go buy yourself a much smaller home in Surprise or El Mirage, downgrade to a Ford Taurus and give away all of your "extra income" to the rest? Come on, I challenge you. Spread the wealth. Let's start with you!
Honey---you don't live here so you really don't understand that this is a diverse community with homes from about 1000 sf to about 3400sf...We have people here working in Target, retired MD's, and everyone inbetween...why you somethink this is Paradise Vally west, is just another example of your misinformation. You asking me why I don't move to a "smaller home in Surprise"...duh, dear....what size home do I have, Amazing Clarnac? Anyway..it doesn't matter..I have what I need, when I go I'm gonna be naked just like you and rantsnraves (than's a sobering thought). I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving. BTW: do you conservatives really not understand the difference between socialism and communism?
Another btw: you have no idea if the free market put people here or not...some people work hard, some people marry well, some people get lucky, some people had rich parents....seems that' you're a tad jealous....
Ms Boots, I gotta agree with you. It's the luck of the draw and even with just hard work there are people who never get ahead or something terribly unfortunate happens. I have heard more than I care to say, people who state that if others don't like their insurance coverage, then they should just march right out there and get a different job with better benefits. Huh?
And BTW, thank you so much for this: I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 08:07 pm |
|
MrsF wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them.
In a wealthy family, someone worked hard for it. The first Rockefeller had to work for the money in his legacy. The family still has to work hard to keep it. Even the "La Cosa Nostra" people (I presume you mean mafia people) worked hard.
Whether or not people who are wealthy work hard is not the issue. The issue is that you are interested in bringing the wealthy down. I see you don't want EVERYONE to be rich. You want the rich to be brought down to middle class by "paying up" and redistributing those funds to the poor. Why on earth would anyone do that? This is the land of opportunity and people need to work to get that success.
You think people in Lexuses should be driving Fords and people in Paradise Valley should be living in Surprise. You are clearly a case of "class envy". You believe the government should strongarm the wealthy into giving up their wealth so that others can receive that money. I ask you this...who do you think should be given that money and what should it be used for?
Ms. Boots, I'd love to know what you did/do for a living. You are living in Sun City Grand, so you clearly have done well for yourself. Do you realize that it's the free market economy that puts you there? Why not go buy yourself a much smaller home in Surprise or El Mirage, downgrade to a Ford Taurus and give away all of your "extra income" to the rest? Come on, I challenge you. Spread the wealth. Let's start with you!
Honey---you don't live here so you really don't understand that this is a diverse community with homes from about 1000 sf to about 3400sf...We have people here working in Target, retired MD's, and everyone inbetween...why you somethink this is Paradise Vally west, is just another example of your misinformation. You asking me why I don't move to a "smaller home in Surprise"...duh, dear....what size home do I have, Amazing Clarnac? Anyway..it doesn't matter..I have what I need, when I go I'm gonna be naked just like you and rantsnraves (than's a sobering thought). I am absolutely fine paying taxes...in hard times for my neighbors and family, I'll gladly pay more taxes...I'm not judging people as to why they are needy these days, they need and I'm fine giving. BTW: do you conservatives really not understand the difference between socialism and communism?
Another btw: you have no idea if the free market put people here or not...some people work hard, some people marry well, some people get lucky, some people had rich parents....seems that' you're a tad jealous....
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:21 pm |
|
| I heard this morning that one country in Europe (I think it was Ireland) that is in the same problem we are in, but they did it differently - they cut taxes and guess what their unemployment rate is declining. Maybe their government knew better than ours, because our unemployment rate continues to rise.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:10 pm |
|
Bottom line....Cradle to Grave welfare doesn't work....for anyone, or anywhere. It's as simple as that. Not anybody on here can give one example where it does. It was President Reagan who fully understood economics and how a free society works and when he came into office he did all the right things to encourage prosperity not strangle it. It's too bad we have such greedy self serving leaders in Congress and the White House who are only looking out for themselves and not us under the guise of "leveling the playing field...redistributing the wealth....that is code talk for SOCIALISM.
Cut taxes, deep cuts especially on business to stimulate growth that will create real employment and tax revenue. Stop punishing our corporations and small businesses and allow them to flourish here in the U.S. and we will come out of this quickly. Stop legislating our lives and give people their freedom and incentives to do better and they will. Stop telling American's we are down trodden, hopeless and too stupid to make decisions for ourselves. Stop our leaders from taking over private enterprise because they will destroy it like everything else they touch because they aren't experienced in private enterprise, they have always worked for us on our dime.
Had Barack Hussein Obama put together a team of experts, real experts from the Business World, and allowed them to use their expertise in some of these situations, we wouldn't be scratching our heads right now wondering what the hell has happened to our Country. Instead he puts together a bunch of ruthless self serving politicians that want to advance his personal agenda, how is that working? It's not. And it won't ...which is exactly what he wants. More CRISIS then BHO can continue advancing his power grabbing and control agenda.
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:11 pm by Razenkn
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them.
Where did I say that everyone who is wealthy works hard? Just as their are the Bernie Madoff's of the world, there are people that are able to work, but don't because they can sit on their butts and have the government pay for them. Are those the people you feel sorry for.
As I have said over and over again, we need to help those that can't help them selves (the elderly on low fixed incomes, those with mental problems, those that truly can't work, etc. and those that need a helping hand for a short term), but an able person should be required to work and pay their own way (if an able bodied person gets welfare, they should have to work for the city, state or federal governments - even if it means sweeping streets, dusting buildings, etc. - there should be no free handout to these people). I don't want to pay the car payments or pay for gas for people like that woman who was in ecstasy when President Obama won because he was going to pay her car payment and pay for gas to run her car. I will never shed my tears for those that don't work because they don't want to or have child after child so they will get welfare and feel that the government should pay for their needs, they are a drain on our society. As strongly as I feel we should not pay for these people, I don't think someone who has worked hard and made a good living for them self and their families should be penalized and have to pay a higher percentage share to take care of these people.
I don't want our country to end up like Cuba, Korea, China, Veneszula and some of the other Socialist country where there is only two classes - the citizens of the country that are dirt poor and the government officials who are rich.
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:53 pm by cindisue_g
|
MrsF
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:49 pm |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them.
In a wealthy family, someone worked hard for it. The first Rockefeller had to work for the money in his legacy. The family still has to work hard to keep it. Even the "La Cosa Nostra" people (I presume you mean mafia people) worked hard.
Whether or not people who are wealthy work hard is not the issue. The issue is that you are interested in bringing the wealthy down. I see you don't want EVERYONE to be rich. You want the rich to be brought down to middle class by "paying up" and redistributing those funds to the poor. Why on earth would anyone do that? This is the land of opportunity and people need to work to get that success.
You think people in Lexuses should be driving Fords and people in Paradise Valley should be living in Surprise. You are clearly a case of "class envy". You believe the government should strongarm the wealthy into giving up their wealth so that others can receive that money. I ask you this...who do you think should be given that money and what should it be used for?
Ms. Boots, I'd love to know what you did/do for a living. You are living in Sun City Grand, so you clearly have done well for yourself. Do you realize that it's the free market economy that puts you there? Why not go buy yourself a much smaller home in Surprise or El Mirage, downgrade to a Ford Taurus and give away all of your "extra income" to the rest? Come on, I challenge you. Spread the wealth. Let's start with you!
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
He is losing his appeal. Wait till his middle class masses get hit with the tax bills. He is no different than anyone else, so far he has only helped out the rich at everyone else's expense. But thats another thread.
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:38 pm by Craig
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:22 pm |
|
MrsF wrote: clarz007 wrote: There has been a lot of speculation about socialism--particularly during the presidential campaign. The word has become almost as popular as our ever favorite "transparency". I think everyone should do some research on socialism vs. capitalism so we all know what we are talking about. Here is one synopsis.
The beliefs of modern socialism were first written about by Karl Marx in his 1848 book, The Communist Manifesto. Marx believed that the current political systems built on state capitalism were unsustainable and would ultimately be destroyed by the working class in a revolution. Capitalism and oppression are inseparable. Marx believed that the working class would ultimately rise up against the ruling class to control the means of production.
True Equality
Almost every state in existence today has an unequal distribution of wealth that is sustained by dividing the working class using race, sex, or xenophobia. The working class is the majority of any capitalist system while the wealth is concentrated among a relatively small amount of people. Socialism removes the class struggle by providing for everyone regardless of class.
Socialism is a system which ignores borders. For any wealth to be accumulated within a country, it has been done at the expense of the workers. These workers have the power to form revolutionary groups regardless of what current political controls are in place. Policies like NAFTA and terms like illegal immigration are irrelevant under socialism.
Organizing Socialism
Unions in The United States may be a form of socialism which exists within an overwhelming capitalist framework. Most unions may have begun from revolutionary acts in the face of oppression, but true socialism is the organization of the working class completely independent of businesses, including unions. The need to bargain for labor contracts with business leaders would be obsolete in a truly socialist society. Workplaces would be democratic with the workers making decisions typically forced upon them by management.
What Socialism is Not
There is a large difference between true socialism and what is claimed to be socialism by governments like China and Cuba. The governments might claim to be acting in the interest of their citizens, but they remain run by the state and not by the people. The working class of these countries still has no democratic control of the wealth or means of acquiring wealth or power.
You report this as if to say that Socialism is a good thing. Were you just clarifying it, or do you really believe that Socialism is a good idea? Please explain. I was clarifying the definition of socialim as originally presented by Marx but there are some significant points: This nation has seen the middle class slide. Our buying power has diminished and wealth has been accumulated at our expense. Our middle class continues to struggle--the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Hence the term "redistribution of wealth" and the other phrase "trickle down" economics. Obama appeals to the middle class masses because he espouses building the economy from the bottom up rather than top down.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:56 am |
|
Craig wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them. Now big booty wants to share the tears. Typical liberal.
You're finally catching on, Crabg--share the tears and the wealth.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:31 am |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them. Now big booty wants to share the tears. Typical liberal.
|
Schoolmarm
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 233 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:28 am |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them. So, Big Booty, since you live in Surprise, that makes you poor?
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:24 am |
|
cindisue_g wrote: Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Why do you assume everyone who is wealthy works hard? Ever hear of Bernie Madoof, La Cost Nostra, people born into money who didn't need to work for it..corporate taxes? Why do you think those who work hard are penalized? I don't see too many people trading in their Lexus for Fords and their Paradise Vally homes to move to Surprise...save your tears for ppl who really need them.
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:06 pm |
|
Socialism is redistribution of wealth - those that work hard a prosper are penalized:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
And if we all remember back to the campaign, then Senator Obama talked a lot about redistribution of wealth - take from the rich and give to the poor.
Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:06 pm by cindisue_g
|
MrsF
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:03 pm |
|
clarz007 wrote: There has been a lot of speculation about socialism--particularly during the presidential campaign. The word has become almost as popular as our ever favorite "transparency". I think everyone should do some research on socialism vs. capitalism so we all know what we are talking about. Here is one synopsis.
The beliefs of modern socialism were first written about by Karl Marx in his 1848 book, The Communist Manifesto. Marx believed that the current political systems built on state capitalism were unsustainable and would ultimately be destroyed by the working class in a revolution. Capitalism and oppression are inseparable. Marx believed that the working class would ultimately rise up against the ruling class to control the means of production.
True Equality
Almost every state in existence today has an unequal distribution of wealth that is sustained by dividing the working class using race, sex, or xenophobia. The working class is the majority of any capitalist system while the wealth is concentrated among a relatively small amount of people. Socialism removes the class struggle by providing for everyone regardless of class.
Socialism is a system which ignores borders. For any wealth to be accumulated within a country, it has been done at the expense of the workers. These workers have the power to form revolutionary groups regardless of what current political controls are in place. Policies like NAFTA and terms like illegal immigration are irrelevant under socialism.
Organizing Socialism
Unions in The United States may be a form of socialism which exists within an overwhelming capitalist framework. Most unions may have begun from revolutionary acts in the face of oppression, but true socialism is the organization of the working class completely independent of businesses, including unions. The need to bargain for labor contracts with business leaders would be obsolete in a truly socialist society. Workplaces would be democratic with the workers making decisions typically forced upon them by management.
What Socialism is Not
There is a large difference between true socialism and what is claimed to be socialism by governments like China and Cuba. The governments might claim to be acting in the interest of their citizens, but they remain run by the state and not by the people. The working class of these countries still has no democratic control of the wealth or means of acquiring wealth or power.
You report this as if to say that Socialism is a good thing. Were you just clarifying it, or do you really believe that Socialism is a good idea? Please explain.
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
There has been a lot of speculation about socialism--particularly during the presidential campaign. The word has become almost as popular as our ever favorite "transparency". I think everyone should do some research on socialism vs. capitalism so we all know what we are talking about. Here is one synopsis.
The beliefs of modern socialism were first written about by Karl Marx in his 1848 book, The Communist Manifesto. Marx believed that the current political systems built on state capitalism were unsustainable and would ultimately be destroyed by the working class in a revolution. Capitalism and oppression are inseparable. Marx believed that the working class would ultimately rise up against the ruling class to control the means of production.
True Equality
Almost every state in existence today has an unequal distribution of wealth that is sustained by dividing the working class using race, sex, or xenophobia. The working class is the majority of any capitalist system while the wealth is concentrated among a relatively small amount of people. Socialism removes the class struggle by providing for everyone regardless of class.
Socialism is a system which ignores borders. For any wealth to be accumulated within a country, it has been done at the expense of the workers. These workers have the power to form revolutionary groups regardless of what current political controls are in place. Policies like NAFTA and terms like illegal immigration are irrelevant under socialism.
Organizing Socialism
Unions in The United States may be a form of socialism which exists within an overwhelming capitalist framework. Most unions may have begun from revolutionary acts in the face of oppression, but true socialism is the organization of the working class completely independent of businesses, including unions. The need to bargain for labor contracts with business leaders would be obsolete in a truly socialist society. Workplaces would be democratic with the workers making decisions typically forced upon them by management.
What Socialism is Not
There is a large difference between true socialism and what is claimed to be socialism by governments like China and Cuba. The governments might claim to be acting in the interest of their citizens, but they remain run by the state and not by the people. The working class of these countries still has no democratic control of the wealth or means of acquiring wealth or power.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:31 am |
|
Craig wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jPGUFwhyKM
If the sales tax doesn't go up, you'll see fees for all services rising (they can surtax gun permits), property taxes rise, state park fees rise, etc..no such thing as a free lunch...I know, you'll tell us to skip a few meals.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:26 am |
|
Craig wrote: I always do, thats what makes me an expert...
Ahhh...but it's where you look that leads to falsely think you're an expert
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:07 am |
|
I always do, thats what makes me an expert...
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 02:45 am |
|
Craig wrote: Dont let us convince you. Look at south america, cuba, european countries. But look deep, not just the fluffy press reports. Doesnt matter what us experts believe. You have to decide we cant do that for you. Big booty is right anout one thing. Its gonna depend who you ask, so if you really want to know your gonna have to do what my dad used to say when i asked him a question like that, His answer was simple, look it up.
So why didn't you ever look things up?
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
Dont let us convince you. Look at south america, cuba, european countries. But look deep, not just the fluffy press reports. Doesnt matter what us experts believe. You have to decide we cant do that for you. Big booty is right anout one thing. Its gonna depend who you ask, so if you really want to know your gonna have to do what my dad used to say when i asked him a question like that, His answer was simple, look it up.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:29 am |
|
conspiracytheory wrote: A question:
Since so many of us on this forum seem to all be political experts, can someone please tell me where real Socialism failed miserably? I would likje to be able to examine hard facts, figures and concrete data not just peoples opinions. Thanks
That's a tough request. I think you'll need to define 'real socialism'. Lots of Libertarians will define police and fire departments as socialistic arms of a leftist government, hence, their 'need' for an armed militia supposedly for self protection. It would be a lot easier to identify areas in the world where socialism, in some degree, has worked.
|
conspiracytheory
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:37 am |
|
A question:
Since so many of us on this forum seem to all be political experts, can someone please tell me where real Socialism failed miserably? I would likje to be able to examine hard facts, figures and concrete data not just peoples opinions. Thanks
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:11 am |
|
Craig wrote: The difference is working for it and having it handed to them. The latter produces a life of mediocrity and it is really unfair to the future generations.
It's not always a hand out, Craig..it's often a loan..and repaid maybe not in this generation but down the road...
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:05 am |
|
Razenkn wrote:
Or....too BIG of words... 4 sale....LOL
too big of words? Did you go to the wine tasting tonite, per chance? Someone fell over a table...awwwweeee...you were so cute.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:03 am |
|
MrsF wrote: By the way, Bootsie, I have the Sunday Real Estate section. Where is that article with the $7 million home?
I didn't keep it, MF...but there is a column where they list the top 8 or so home sales in the valley...your homework assignment is to find it.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:18 am |
|
Or....too BIG of words... 4 sale....LOL
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:18 am by Razenkn
|
Schoolmarm
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 233 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:16 am |
|
MrsF wrote: By the way, Bootsie, I have the Sunday Real Estate section. Where is that article with the $7 million home?
Big Bootsie doesn't read the Real Estate section-- too many words.
|
MrsF
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:40 am |
|
| By the way, Bootsie, I have the Sunday Real Estate section. Where is that article with the $7 million home?
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:26 am |
|
The difference is working for it and having it handed to them. The latter produces a life of mediocrity and it is really unfair to the future generations.
|
MrsF
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:23 am |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: MrsF wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: MrsF wrote: Big Bootie, (Ahh..just MF thinks she can assign her own nics and then whine someone assigns her a nickname she doesn't approve of., eh? I think not. ) Guess I hit a nerve on that one.  It's fine, just don't expect more than ya give That's fine. And your response shows me that the MF really did mean what I thought it did. That's okay. I really don't care what you think of me. It makes you look bad, but that's your deal, not mine.
These people who earn that income worked hard to get to where they are and should not be penalized. Sure, they have money, but why do you think it's okay to take it from them? Taxes are not a penalty..they are an obligation. Yes, and the rich do pay their obligation but somehow you think they should pay even more. That's where I have a problem. Just how much more do you think they should pay? How much is enough? How much is too much? The highest tax bracket is 35%. Who do you think should be giving up even more than 1/3 of their income for taxes? How much is enough? I dunno...enough so that we may provide essential services. So few people even have jobs nowadays. You really believe that taxing the richer people even more will cover those services? Besides, what do you consider essential? This country was run without even a federal income tax until the early 1900's, so maybe we need to go back to basics instead. Can't get blood from a turnip and I really don't think expecting the highest earners to fund the "essential programs" (whatever that means) on their own is very fair either. Maybe our country needs to stop spending every dime we ever get. We as a society just can't seem to hang onto a dollar any more.
This is a country based on free enterprise and if you play Robin Hood and "steal" from the rich to pay the poor, you are doing nobody a service. Collecting taxes from the rich is not stealing. That's why I put it in quotes. However, it is a form of confiscation. Why not have an across the board rate that everyone pays? Name a number. If it's fair, it should be fair for everyone. People shouldn't have to pay more simply because they earn more. That's discrimination. Well, the word "stealing" was yours..out of all the words in the language, you selected that one so deal with it. We disagree...I think people should pay more becuase they earn more..exactly. It's not discrimination..that's another poor choice of words...last I knew, the wealthy are not a protected class in the eyes of the law. If people are treated differently based on the fact that they have more money than others, that is definitely discrimination. They may not be a protected legal class, but that's because if the government were to legalize that, they would really limit their ability to derive income from that source. Why would you NOT support a flat tax for everyone? Earning more shouldn't cost a person more. It should be the result of their hard work. If you think the rich should be taxed more, I suggest you go to Hollywood and try and get some of the zillions that celebrities make. There's just not enough even in this state to put a dent in the expenses. We just may have to do without some things for a while. And yes, I do think of it as stealing when people are arbitrarily taxed more simply because they earn more. When one is forced to give up one's assets without their permission, that is theft. So, I don't think stealing is a bad choice of words. You may not like it because the truth hurts, but I actually stand by my words. Such actions cause people to get mighty sneaky with their earnings (offshore banks, etc.) so for you to think that just cuz someone earns more they should give more is ludicrous. It's your contention that the wealthy should not pay taxes, since they'll try to avoid so by offshore accounts, is what's ludicrous. I don't object to wealthy paying taxes, I just support FAIR taxes for EVERYONE and not penalizing people for being successful in this country. You don't have anymore right to decide what's 'fair' than I do..and again, paying taxes is not a penalty...it's a responsibility, and some would say, it's an honor. I'm not opposed to paying taxes. I'm opposed to charging certain people even more simply because they happen to have it. That's socialism pure and simple. Spreading the wealth does nothing for anyone. Why would anyone even WANT to earn more if they know it will only be taken away from them? I mean, let's say the threshhold is $500,000. Anything over and above that will be taxed at 50%. Do you really think I'm going to want you to give me another $500,000 so that you can come along and take $250,000? What's the point? It's taxation, not charity! If you skim from the highest earners, they won't be such high earners any more now, will they? Poor babies, MF. Theyll be left enough for their $7.1 homes, and BMWs, fear not, I bet this economy has caused these homes to drop in value as well. You know, the "rich" family that sold that house probably took a big hit on their value as well. No empathy for them? Interesting that you live in SCG, an upscale neighborhood and yet you think people with money should be taxed. I guess as long as they have more than you do, it's okay. Don't you see the discrimination in your concept of taxing the rich? SCG is not an upscale neighborhood, at least not by my experience, but if it is --that's fine...I'm totally fine with paying more taxes than my friends, family and neighbors who earn less than I..It's cool..don't fret--I'm not. Good, go ahead. Just don't be upset that not everyone's so cool about that. Let me ask you this...do you ever finish your tax returns and then give MORE than you owe? If not, why? I mean, if you are so cool with it, why not? And don't kid yourself. You know that Sun City Grand is an upscale neighborhood. That's why those who live there are sure to include the "Grand" part when others ask them if they live in Sun City. It carries meaning to the residents and you know it.
You still haven't addressed the idea that a person making a mere $400,000 in taxable income is forced to pay 1/4 of those earnings in FEDERAL taxes. Does that really seem fair to you? I guess you don't think so because in your eyes s/he should be paying even more. A mere $400,000? Nothing mere about that.
I know. It's a very decent salary, but it's not really that much for a dual professional income family or a small business owner, or even a corporate executive. These people go to school or spend years achieving their success and you think that just because they earned their keep and just because Obama is president and wants to spend a ton of money it's fair? Do you really think that taxing the wealthy will even make a DENT in the money Obama is throwing around? Again: you selected the word "mere" which clearly implies that you don't think earning $400,00 qualifies one as wealthy...I sure do. I'll mos people on the forum do also. I think it's a very nice salary, but two professionals earning $200,000 each can put a family there. I wouldn't call it wealthy. Not by today's standards. There are some places where people must earn more in order to survive. For example, in New York, people are paid more because the cost of living is higher. However, they are still expected to pay the same income taxes as others throughout the country. These wages could be for an engineer and a dentist couple. It's not really a person who is wealthy.
e - If I give you a check for $400,000 and expect you to give me over $100,000 of it back so that I can pay for things I deem necessary, would you? I doubt it. You would at least want a say in where it goes. That's not happening. You seem to think people who EARN their salary should be FORCED to give a huge chunk of it back. Why not demand the government do with less instead of others?
We all want to be wealthy, but when we are, we don't want to give it up. Just because it's not YOU who is wealthy doesn't make it right for YOU to take away their earnings. Why not let those who EARN it have a say? It's not your call to make. I don't care about being wealthy..Where did you get that email? Those wealthy folks had their say..it's not my call....if you haven't noticed, the country is moving in a different direction to a better place..It's why we elected President Obama. It's why we defeated McCain/Palin.
I don't see that this country is moving in a different direction. People still don't have houses, people still have one car, people still don't have jobs. So, tell me how is this economy doing better?
This country is going to a scary place. Open your eyes. You really think it's a good idea to charge people for their success? If so, you really are a Socialist then, aren't you? You make socialism seem like a bad word. Many countries throughout the world have socialistic programs..Canada's health plan, Israel's kibbutz...they are your enemies? What scares me more than socialistic programs is absolutely free enterprise...it would mean no minimum wage, no workers comp, no oversight over the beef packing, drug, financial industries...you want scarey..that's Russia right after the breakup of the USSR. As a teacher..you claim to be..I find it sad you never advocate for increasing the education budget....if you can't do that, you're no advocate for the kids...that's really sad.
You don't know if I advocate for increasing the education budget or not. You never asked me and it never came up, so I'm not sure where you got that from. I do see you trying to throw what I do and how my kids are back in my face once again. Don't you ever get tired of doing that? I know I get rather bored by it.
Socialism doesn't work. Never has, never will. People have tried it and it failed miserably. If Obama thinks he can get this country to embrace it, he's got another thing coming. There are too many people who value their freedom and capitalism. I want all of my students to be financially and personally successful. I don't raise them up so that they can have most of their earnings taxed. I want them to have all they can in life, for themselves, not for society. People look out for themselves and their family. Trying to get individuals to work and strive for the benefit of others is just not going to happen. It's unnatural to expect that out of people. What's the first lesson you have to teach a child? Share. That's because deep down inside, we want for ourselves. That's not to say we are selfish, but it means we want to provide for ourselves as we see fit and don't want our earnings squandered.
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:47 am |
|
MrsF wrote: Ms. Boots wrote: MrsF wrote: Big Bootie, (Ahh..just MF thinks she can assign her own nics and then whine someone assigns her a nickname she doesn't approve of., eh? I think not. ) Guess I hit a nerve on that one. It's fine, just don't expect more than ya give
These people who earn that income worked hard to get to where they are and should not be penalized. Sure, they have money, but why do you think it's okay to take it from them? Taxes are not a penalty..they are an obligation. Yes, and the rich do pay their obligation but somehow you think they should pay even more. That's where I have a problem. Just how much more do you think they should pay? How much is enough? How much is too much? The highest tax bracket is 35%. Who do you think should be giving up even more than 1/3 of their income for taxes? How much is enough? I dunno...enough so that we may provide essential services.
This is a country based on free enterprise and if you play Robin Hood and "steal" from the rich to pay the poor, you are doing nobody a service. Collecting taxes from the rich is not stealing.
That's why I put it in quotes. However, it is a form of confiscation. Why not have an across the board rate that everyone pays? Name a number. If it's fair, it should be fair for everyone. People shouldn't have to pay more simply because they earn more. That's discrimination. Well, the word "stealing" was yours..out of all the words in the language, you selected that one so deal with it. We disagree...I think people should pay more becuase they earn more..exactly. It's not discrimination..that's another poor choice of words...last I knew, the wealthy are not a protected class in the eyes of the law. Such actions cause people to get mighty sneaky with their earnings (offshore banks, etc.) so for you to think that just cuz someone earns more they should give more is ludicrous. It's your contention that the wealthy should not pay taxes, since they'll try to avoid so by offshore accounts, is what's ludicrous. I don't object to wealthy paying taxes, I just support FAIR taxes for EVERYONE and not penalizing people for being successful in this country. You don't have anymore right to decide what's 'fair' than I do..and again, paying taxes is not a penalty...it's a responsibility, and some would say, it's an honor. It's taxation, not charity! If you skim from the highest earners, they won't be such high earners any more now, will they? Poor babies, MF. Theyll be left enough for their $7.1 homes, and BMWs, fear not, I bet this economy has caused these homes to drop in value as well. You know, the "rich" family that sold that house probably took a big hit on their value as well. No empathy for them? Interesting that you live in SCG, an upscale neighborhood and yet you think people with money should be taxed. I guess as long as they have more than you do, it's okay. Don't you see the discrimination in your concept of taxing the rich? SCG is not an upscale neighborhood, at least not by my experience, but if it is --that's fine...I'm totally fine with paying more taxes than my friends, family and neighbors who earn less than I..It's cool..don't fret--I'm not.
You still haven't addressed the idea that a person making a mere $400,000 in taxable income is forced to pay 1/4 of those earnings in FEDERAL taxes. Does that really seem fair to you? I guess you don't think so because in your eyes s/he should be paying even more. A mere $400,000? Nothing mere about that.
I know. It's a very decent salary, but it's not really that much for a dual professional income family or a small business owner, or even a corporate executive. These people go to school or spend years achieving their success and you think that just because they earned their keep and just because Obama is president and wants to spend a ton of money it's fair? Do you really think that taxing the wealthy will even make a DENT in the money Obama is throwing around? Again: you selected the word "mere" which clearly implies that you don't think earning $400,00 qualifies one as wealthy...I sure do. I'll mos people on the forum do also.
Let's see - If I give you a check for $400,000 and expect you to give me over $100,000 of it back so that I can pay for things I deem necessary, would you? I doubt it. You would at least want a say in where it goes. That's not happening. You seem to think people who EARN their salary should be FORCED to give a huge chunk of it back. Why not demand the government do with less instead of others?
We all want to be wealthy, but when we are, we don't want to give it up. Just because it's not YOU who is wealthy doesn't make it right for YOU to take away their earnings. Why not let those who EARN it have a say? It's not your call to make. I don't care about being wealthy..Where did you get that email? Those wealthy folks had their say..it's not my call....if you haven't noticed, the country is moving in a different direction to a better place..It's why we elected President Obama. It's why we defeated McCain/Palin.
This country is going to a scary place. Open your eyes. You really think it's a good idea to charge people for their success? If so, you really are a Socialist then, aren't you? You make socialism seem like a bad word. Many countries throughout the world have socialistic programs..Canada's health plan, Israel's kibbutz...they are your enemies? What scares me more than socialistic programs is absolutely free enterprise...it would mean no minimum wage, no workers comp, no oversight over the beef packing, drug, financial industries...you want scarey..that's Russia right after the breakup of the USSR. As a teacher..you claim to be..I find it sad you never advocate for increasing the education budget....if you can't do that, you're no advocate for the kids...that's really sad.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:46 am |
|
GOD help us!
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:42 am |
|
Yeah, I always say big booty is the "standard"
|
MrsF
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:40 am |
|
Ms. Boots wrote: Craig wrote: They get plenty of money, they waste a lot too.
On certain people in this forum, they clearly did.
Bootsie, don't be so hard on yourself.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:29 am |
|
Not to mention the fact that the law says every child in America is entitled to a free education even if they are not legal citizens. Draining the system. There would be plenty of money to go around if we didnt have to support that crowd.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:27 am |
|
Charter schools seem to do just fine and they have no where near the budget our public schools have. The kids get a higher quality education and teachers are happier. Why is that? We can throw as much money as we want at the system, but that just doesn't seem to improve anything. President Bush spent more money than any other President in history and it still didn't improve. It's not a money issue, it's a UNION issue just like the auto industry, when fatcat union big shots become in charge and get their hands on millions of dollars, everything seems to go to hell in a handbasket. Why is that?
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:28 am by Razenkn
|
Ms. Boots
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Jun 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:19 am |
|
Craig wrote: They get plenty of money, they waste a lot too.
On certain people in this forum, they clearly did.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:18 am |
|
They get plenty of money, they waste a lot too.
|
Current time is 09:02 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|