The great Jimmy Carter

I'll agree with that. American presidents are among the best presidents in the world. My comments should not be interpreted to mean that Carter is a bad person.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Lacking state social security, familylife is richer in Indonesia, then it is in the Netherlands. Obviously I can't say that social arrangements are good enough in Indonesia, because people in Indonesia are sometimes still starving, but to have a social-security system like in the West that weakens family structure is also unacceptable.

---

Syamsu-
While I admit I have never been to Indonesia so I have no idea what extended families are like there, I have spent a great deal of time in the US, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The last two are clearly more "socialist" than the US, if not purely socialist by definition.From my experience family life-- not to mention extended family life--was much worse in the NON-socialist country.Maybe in a culture where parents can work their children as virtual slaves-- for the ultimate good of the family-- extended families can stay together and be enriched by poverty, but in most other cultures poverty destroys families.I am not an advocate for runaway socialist programs, but socialism in general does more good than harm. It can keep a family together when they hit hard times. Why not put in protections to keep families solid so that major health problems, unemployment, or costs of educating one's children don't become issues?Simply put, socialist programs are tools to help people, when those people have families it helps families. They do not by necessity,nor do many in practice,weaken family bonds.Weakening family bonds in the West are more likely due to other cultural mechanisms like championing individualism over family life, or valuing material success rather than emotional fulfillment.holmes{Fixed quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-24-2002]

quote:

---

The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful.

​

As countries become richer, what were once privileges gradually become entitlements, and individual responsibilty gives way to state responsibility. A richer country always sets a higher minimally acceptable living standard. Had you claimed lack of universal health insurance for the poor as a shameful lack a hundred years ago no one would have thought you sane, but today, because of our great wealth and because so many people already have it, it sounds reasonable to us that even the very poor should have it. But it is important to understand that this attitude is a function of our wealth and does not make health insurance an inherent entitlement of the poor.

​

Now, I'm by no means against health insurance for the poor. In fact, I'm for it. But even after we provide this there will still be lines to be drawn. For example, why should only the relatively well-off have access to elective surgery for such things as Lasik eyesight correction, while the poor get only eyeglasses. Don't laugh - as we get richer (and we will) there will be those who bemoan this inequity.

​

The truly big problem with helping the poor is understanding how to actually do things that provide help. It ain't as easy as it sounds.

---

The thing is, to me it's irrelevant that a hundred years ago, talking about universal health care would have seemed crazy.The fact remains that we COULD provide things like enough food, basic healthcare, shelter, and a decent basic education for our people. We are far and away the richest country in the world, yet we choose to look away.This is why the US ranks (I think) 23rd among industrialized nations in infant mortality.There are countries in the world that DO choose to provide all of their citizens with healthcare, etc., even though they aren't anywhere near as rich as the US.Oh, and I disagree that health insurance is not an "entitilement." I believe that every person is "entitled" to health care, and get medical care when they need it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:

​

Ummm, can you please explain exactly how putting this country deep into debt, debt that took years and years to climb out of, was good?

---

By stimulating the economy you create long term increases in revenue. That is why. The phrase it takes money to make money is very true. By decreasing spending, increases taxes all you do is stifle the economy and in the long term wind up spending much much more.[/QUOTE]You still haven't said anything about the national debt.

quote:

---

The money we spend on individual welfare is miniscule compared to the ENORMOUS corporate welfare program in this country.

​

People are dying from starvation and you don't want to help them? How very macchiavelian of you.

​

I can't remember, are you supposed to be a Christian?

---

No I never said I didn't want to help them, I wholeheartily believe in some form of welfare program. Just not one that allows people to get something for nothing. Initial payments to cover food, health costs, and job training are what should be covered, then job placement. Not a system that rewards poor people who cant afford one child to have more.

quote:

---

How are they going to be placed in the kind of job that will earn enough money to support themselves, let alone any children, if we haven't educated them in the first place AND the minimum wage is STILL only $5.15 an hour and those jobs do not provide any benefits such as health care?

​

quote:

---

What kind of fantasy, discrimination-free universe do you live in?

---

I live in NYC where people who work hard get rewarded every day. The man who does my lawn for example. Lived in the slums with his wife and child. He works his ass off and now lives a better life than I do. I am proud for him and of the system that allows that to happen. So while its easier to say everyone who needs help can't get it, its more realistic to say some who need help can't get it, but many are more likely to feel "entitled" to it. When infact we are entitled to nothing. Working hard(you know the thing that made this country as great as it is) is the one way to dramatically increase your chances to bettering your life, and while people may need help(and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards providing that help) many are content to live off the work of others. That is what I have a problem with.

---

The fact remains that women do not earn the same pay as men for doing the exact same work. The fact remains that racist attitudes abound, and there are very definite glass ceilings.The fact remains that white males have always benefitted from entitlements in this country, simply because they are white males.

quote:

---

And this is as it should be, when the top several percent of the people hold the vast majority of the wealth.

---

So the people who work the hardest get hurt the hardest,[/QUOTE]NO NO NO!You haven't been listening.1) Most of the richest people in the US probably do not currently work the hardest, because they get most of their money through investments and inheritence. IOW, the money is old and it stays in the family.2) The richest people are NOT HURT THE HARDEST! It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. That has been my whole point. I have explained this several times and you just keep repeating your original statement.The richest Americans are HURT THE LEAST, because they are already extremely wealthy. Paying half of their income in taxes STILL allows them to buy the mansions, take the trips, buy the companies, invest in the stock market, send their kids to college, ride out economic downturns, etc..Take Donald Trump, for example. He declared bankruptcy a while ago. How do you think this affected his lifestyle, compared to somebody making minimum wage who has to declare bankruptcy?

quote:

---

no wonder there is such a poor problem in the country.. Why would anyone bother working hard when many people feel(yourself included it seems) that their hard work should reward those not willing to make any effort.

---

quote:

---

Except that wealthy people paying a larger percentage of their income as taxes still leaves them with plenty of money.

​

Like my Bill Gates example; 50% of his annual income is a HUGE amount of money, but he could still afford to live in a very luxurious manner. 15% of my annual income is not a large ammount of money, but it would impact my lifestyle very detrimantally.

---

quote:

---

So what you are saying is that if you make a lot of money you are responsible for everyone else?

---

Well, last time I checked, Bill Gates didn't get rich all by himself. Yes, I do believe that those who have the most power are morally obligated to do the most good.

quote:

---

How very liberal.

---

I proudly wear that label.

quote:

---

Do you also feel that poor people, or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves? That the government needs to tell them what is best for them? That most things can be blamed on video games and movies?

---

Um, I don't know where the movie/viedo thing came from, and no, I don't feel that the poor or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves.

quote:

---

If I make a lot of money, I deserve that money, a small percantage going to help people is fine.

---

Maybe you deserve it, maybe you don't. Most super rich people are born into their money; do they "deserve" it?

quote:

---

But to be told that I am now responsible for those who feel entitled to the same lifestyle I gave myself is abhorrent.

---

What are you talking about? Who said anything about people feeling entitled to mimic your lifestyle? You sure have some strange notions about where your taxes go. Most of it goes to the military, you know. [QUOTE]Again no one is entitled to anything. I have no problem helping people getting back on their feet, getting an education, getting food and medical coverage, but to pay for their existance is not my job, nor is it the governments job.[QUOTE] Well, you just said that you have no problem paying for Welfare, plus some other stuff that Welfare doesn't cover.How very liberal of you.

quote:

---

No, the impact upon the individual is what is most important.

​

Taking $7500 of my money is palpable to me. I notice that it is not there. It prevents me from doing certain things in my life.

​

Taking a million dollars from Gates will not be felt by him at all. That's why the rich should pay more; they benefit the most, they should contribute the most.

---

quote:

---

And they do. Just not enough for you it seems.

---

No, they don't currently contribute the most IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL, as I have been saying all along.The middle class pays the brunt of the taxes if you consider the IMPACT.

quote:

---

Replace "oppressed" with "abused".

​

It hid information about the tanking company stock to allow the big bosses to sell everything off, then left all it's employees to loose their life savings.

---

quote:

---

Can't really argue with that, but that is just one company.

---

Correction: That is just one company that got caught. Don't you remember all of the firings and "corrected" financial information that started to be announced from about a dozen big companies right after Enron and Worldcom?

quote:

---

What about the Microsofts of the world that created tons of millionaire secretaries? Cant just take the bad, must take the good with it.

---

Those secretaries most likely got rich because they came to the company at the begining, therefore getting stock options before it was worth a great deal. I'll bet they weren't ever going to make a million bucks a year in base pay, ever. [QUOTE]Ok, I should have limited that to civil servant unions. Like the transit workers, teachers unions, garbage men. Those are the unions I am familiar with, and ones that regularly try to blackmail the city(MTU threatening strike, Teachers not coming to work) or demand raises during a period of economic recession. Those that pay very little towards health or pensions(unlike those of us in the private sector) who have untold of job security regardless of performance or productivity. My friend who works for the DEP (think Norton from honeymooners) were going to strike because they wanted to make as much as people from the private sector (18-32 an hour) yet they work on average 2-5 hours a day, get paid for 8, get 1 1/2 time on sundays for 6 hours even if they work 2. Tell me one private sector job that allows that kind of thing to take place? [QUOTE] One private sector job? I'll bet there are plenty of CEO's who "employ" family members and friends who don't do dick for the company.In fact, someone who I used to work with told me that his friend gave him a job in his company and he got paid $40,000 a year to basically do next to nothing.

quote:

---

That is bullshit. Helping others become better educated and better fed and better paid reduces crime and violence and drug use.

​

Living a completely self-centered life is sad and definitely goes against human nature.

---

quote:

---

You are 100% right, but that was not your point.. You made it seem that we should be equal. We aren't. Those that work harder are better rewarded.

---

Again, maybe, maybe not. Most of the richest Americans get their income from inheritence and investments.

quote:

---

2nd. Yes I do, there is no reason corporations should be able to collect any welfare at all. There is no reason to keep a company alive that can't make it on its own. That is the basic principle of a free economy. Don't mistake my pro corporation, pro-rich stance as an endorcement of all things corporate.. I have no patience for anyone not willing to work hard, OR for corporations looking for handouts. I think all the crooked CEOs should be doing hard time, but I feel no remorse for the sick kids who's mothers would rather have more kids than even TRY to better their situation.

---

Then I don't understand why you have so much vitriol for the individuals on welfare, and the money you pay to support these people, when you are paing MANY, MANY times that amount to support corporate welfare programs.Hell, at least the poor people, screwed up as they might be, actually do NEED help, where as the huge multinational companies are simply using their enormous influence over Washington to get as many free government handouts as they can get. Why pay for something yourseslf when the government will, right?Let me state it again:you pay much, much more towards big business welfare than to individual welfare. Therefore, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you you rail against Big Business government handouts?

quote:

---

The fact remains that women do not earn the same pay as men for doing the exact same work. The fact remains that racist attitudes abound, and there are very definite glass ceilings.

​

The fact remains that white males have always benefitted from entitlements in this country, simply because they are white males.

---

The fact remains that women outnumber men in higher education, the fact remains that being a female got my sister a free ride to Duke, while I, with the same grades had to pay my way through school. The tired old story of the old boys club is getting more and more irrelevant every day. The old boys club will be gone soon enough and while minorities and women keep getting preferential treatment the white male devil will be getting screwed. Sorry but I have no sympathy for minority movements. When african americans help prolong an economic downturn because of slavery repirations I feel nothing but contempt. When a woman tells me she wants to be equal in every way and STILL wants the man to pay for everything I feel nothing but contempt.

quote:

---

NO NO NO!

​

You haven't been listening.

​

1) Most of the richest people in the US probably do not currently work the hardest, because they get most of their money through investments and inheritence. IOW, the money is old and it stays in the family.

​

2) The richest people are NOT HURT THE HARDEST! It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. That has been my whole point. I have explained this several times and you just keep repeating your original statement.

​

The richest Americans are HURT THE LEAST, because they are already extremely wealthy. Paying half of their income in taxes STILL allows them to buy the mansions, take the trips, buy the companies, invest in the stock market, send their kids to college, ride out economic downturns, etc..

​

Take Donald Trump, for example. He declared bankruptcy a while ago. How do you think this affected his lifestyle, compared to somebody making minimum wage who has to declare bankruptcy?

---

I have been listening, I just don't agree. I don't care how they live, or what they give up. I am looking at the numbers, numbers only since that is what matters.

quote:

---

Well, last time I checked, Bill Gates didn't get rich all by himself. Yes, I do believe that those who have the most power are morally obligated to do the most good.

---

Wrong, all you are obligated to do is pay taxes and die. Social darwinism should be encouranged. I have much less than Bill Gates, he works harder, is smarter, and luckier. He owes me nothing, nor does he owe anyone other than the Federal and State governments taxes due.

quote:

---

Um, I don't know where the movie/viedo thing came from, and no, I don't feel that the poor or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves.

---

I brought it up because you seem to be saying that no one underpriveleged is responsible for their own well being, that they should always look to others to carry the weight. That lack of personal responsiblity is what led to the movements againts violence in video games and movies. Think Columbine... rather than blame the kids for being screwed up, and blaming the parents for being BAD parents it was the video games fault... Much like the poor people have white men to blame according to you..

quote:

---

Maybe you deserve it, maybe you don't. Most super rich people are born into their money; do they "deserve" it?

---

No I do deserve it. By earning it or getting an inheritance makes no difference. Being lucky enough to have a rich family is as good as being smart enough/hard working enough to make yourself rich. Otherwise there would be no needs for inheritances, all estates would just be turned over to the government, but perhaps that is what you want.

quote:

---

What are you talking about? Who said anything about people feeling entitled to mimic your lifestyle? You sure have some strange notions about where your taxes go. Most of it goes to the military, you know.

---

Actually I would not mind if more went to military spending since the number one job of the government is to protect me. And you know full well that people feel entitled to certain life styles, whether they actually deserve them or not.

quote:

---

Well, you just said that you have no problem paying for Welfare, plus some other stuff that Welfare doesn't cover.

​

How very liberal of you.

---

Except that I would totally cut off welfare if more kids are made, job training isn't attended, recipients aren't working. I am not going to support free handouts which is what real Liberals do.

quote:

---

No, they don't currently contribute the most IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL, as I have been saying all along.

​

The middle class pays the brunt of the taxes if you consider the IMPACT.

---

And if you consider what I AM SAYING then they rich ARE PAYING THE MOST.

quote:

---

Those secretaries most likely got rich because they came to the company at the begining, therefore getting stock options before it was worth a great deal. I'll bet they weren't ever going to make a million bucks a year in base pay, ever.

---

It was from stocks, but so what? Money is money. And not just getting options from the "beginning" since MS started as a two person company. You could get a job there now and get options.

quote:

---

One private sector job? I'll bet there are plenty of CEO's who "employ" family members and friends who don't do dick for the company.

​

In fact, someone who I used to work with told me that his friend gave him a job in his company and he got paid $40,000 a year to basically do next to nothing.

---

And do these people who get jobs complain that they are not making enough? DEMAND raises during recessions? Want the company to pay ALL the medical expenses? Work crazy overtime the last two years on the job so that their pensions are more than they made while working? Can NEVER get fired? My friend at the DEP got double time yesterday for staying home and sleeping, while his union brothers argued that they should make the same as contractors who work 10-12 hours a day(making 30-50 an hour) while they stayed at the yard playing chess and cards. Yea nepotism allows for all that....

quote:

---

Again, maybe, maybe not. Most of the richest Americans get their income from inheritence and investments.

---

Again, I feel differently.

quote:

---

Then I don't understand why you have so much vitriol for the individuals on welfare, and the money you pay to support these people, when you are paing MANY, MANY times that amount to support corporate welfare programs.

​

Hell, at least the poor people, screwed up as they might be, actually do NEED help, where as the huge multinational companies are simply using their enormous influence over Washington to get as many free government handouts as they can get. Why pay for something yourseslf when the government will, right?

​

Let me state it again:

​

you pay much, much more towards big business welfare than to individual welfare. Therefore, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you you rail against Big Business government handouts?

---

Because even those companies do something productive. They employ people, they contribute to the economy. Whereas a large number of welfare recipients want to do nothing but sit on their buts and collect a check because they are "entitled" to one.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 01-02-2003]

I also think preferential treatment for females and minorities is nothing but discrimination against white males. Universities and employers should hire the best person, not hire somebody simply because they need to fill a racial or gender quota. May the best man (or woman) get the seat...but don't you dare throw me out just because you don't have enough women in this graduating class. That is morally no different from throwing somebody out because that person is a female or a non-Caucasian or a non-Christian.I think the very idea of trying to fight illegal discrimination with legally prescribed discrimination (affirmative action) is a crock.
That it even exists in a "free" country where everyone is supposed to be equal is a travesty.And what's this about most wealthy Americans getting their money from inheritance or investments? What's this about? I think that if I invested well enough to make a fortune I deserve that money. And I think that if I wanted my kids to have it, they should be entitled to it. And their kids, and the kids after them.Did anyone else read the recent article about why males are becoming a minority on campus?[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I also think preferential treatment for females and minorities is nothing but discrimination against white males. Universities and employers should hire the best person, not hire somebody simply because they need to fill a racial or gender quota. May the best man (or woman) get the seat...but don't you dare throw me out just because you don't have enough women in this graduating class. That is morally no different from throwing somebody out because that person is a female or a non-Caucasian or a non-Christian.

​

I think the very idea of trying to fight illegal discrimination with legally prescribed discrimination (affirmative action) is a crock.
That it even exists in a "free" country where everyone is supposed to be equal is a travesty.

​

And what's this about most wealthy Americans getting their money from inheritance or investments? What's this about? I think that if I invested well enough to make a fortune I deserve that money. And I think that if I wanted my kids to have it, they should be entitled to it. And their kids, and the kids after them.

​

Did anyone else read the recent article about why males are becoming a minority on campus?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

---

I have and its a disgrace. But then again white males are to blame for everyone's woes. I heard an interview that had a feminist complain that even though men(white men in particular) are becoming less and less prominent on campuses, that women are getting more and more programs for them that is not enough. That "equality" is not really what they want. They want superiority.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:

quote:

---

The fact remains that women do not earn the same pay as men for doing the exact same work. The fact remains that racist attitudes abound, and there are very definite glass ceilings.

​

The fact remains that white males have always benefitted from entitlements in this country, simply because they are white males.

---

​

quote:

---

The fact remains that women outnumber men in higher education,

---

​

Only because they fought their way in, and this is only in the relatively recent past.

​

Men far outnumber women in the highest faculty positions, the highest corporate positions, the highest government positions, not because of better qualifications, neccessarily, but because they are passed over due to their gender. See this MIT study:

​

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html

​

quote:

---

the fact remains that being a female got my sister a free ride to Duke, while I, with the same grades had to pay my way through school.

---

​

How does it feel?

​

If it had been a century earlier, your sister wouldn't have had the option to go.

​

quote:

---

The tired old story of the old boys club is getting more and more irrelevant every day.

---

​

Yes, but it is being disbanded very unwillingly. White men in this country have never given power away willingly. Every bit has had to be taken from them.

​

quote:

---

The old boys club will be gone soon enough and while minorities and women keep getting preferential treatment the white male devil will be getting screwed.

---

​

Well, why don't you just work twice as hard for less pay? Women and minorities have done it for decades.

​

Sorry, I don't feel much sympathy, although I don't, in principle, believe in quotas.

​

quote:

---

Sorry but I have no sympathy for minority movements. When african americans help prolong an economic downturn because of slavery repirations I feel nothing but contempt.

---

​

Do you feel contempt for the young black man who got a broom handle shoved up his ass by a bunch of white cops? Do you feel contempt for the black man who was dragged behind a pickup truck for several miles until half of his body was gone, simply because he was black?

​

quote:

---

When a woman tells me she wants to be equal in every way and STILL wants the man to pay for everything I feel nothing but contempt.

---

​

Well, I feel contempt in this case, too. But that is not the same as the very real gender gap in pay that exists.

​

quote:

---

NO NO NO!

​

You haven't been listening.

​

1) Most of the richest people in the US probably do not currently work the hardest, because they get most of their money through investments and inheritence. IOW, the money is old and it stays in the family.

​

2) The richest people are NOT HURT THE HARDEST! It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. That has been my whole point. I have explained this several times and you just keep repeating your original statement.

​

The richest Americans are HURT THE LEAST, because they are already extremely wealthy. Paying half of their income in taxes STILL allows them to buy the mansions, take the trips, buy the companies, invest in the stock market, send their kids to college, ride out economic downturns, etc..

​

Take Donald Trump, for example. He declared bankruptcy a while ago. How do you think this affected his lifestyle, compared to somebody making minimum wage who has to declare bankruptcy?

---

​

quote:

---

I have been listening, I just don't agree. I don't care how they live, or what they give up. I am looking at the numbers, numbers only since that is what matters.

---

​

So, according to you, it's perfectly fine that someone who wouldn't feel the impact of higher taxes in the least should be taxed at the same rate as someone who will not be able to send all of their kids to college because of lack of funds??

​

That's really wierd.

​

Oh, and you haven't really given me any good reasoning for this. You have only reasserted your claim over and over.

​

quote:

---

Well, last time I checked, Bill Gates didn't get rich all by himself. Yes, I do believe that those who have the most power are morally obligated to do the most good.

---

​

quote:

---

Wrong, all you are obligated to do is pay taxes and die. Social darwinism should be encouranged. I have much less than Bill Gates, he works harder, is smarter, and luckier. He owes me nothing, nor does he owe anyone other than the Federal and State governments taxes due.

---

​

Well, my moral code is different from yours, obviously.

​

You know, you have a lot of nerve complaining about people expecting the government to help them. With people like you, who feel no obligation whatsoever to help your fellow human beings, it's no wonder we have a welfare state.

​

quote:

---

Um, I don't know where the movie/viedo thing came from, and no, I don't feel that the poor or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves.

---

quote:

---

I brought it up because you seem to be saying that no one underpriveleged is responsible for their own well being, that they should always look to others to carry the weight.

---

​

Never said that. You are not reading what I am actually writing. Instead, you are giving knee-jerk responses to what you think all us "commie-pinko-lib'ruls" think.

​

quote:

---

That lack of personal responsiblity is what led to the movements againts violence in video games and movies. Think Columbine... rather than blame the kids for being screwed up, and blaming the parents for being BAD parents it was the video games fault... Much like the poor people have white men to blame according to you..

---

​

What? Poor people have white men to blame? You really get things that I say screwed up.

​

quote:

---

Maybe you deserve it, maybe you don't. Most super rich people are born into their money; do they "deserve" it?

---

No I do deserve it. By earning it or getting an inheritance makes no difference. Being lucky enough to have a rich family is as good as being smart enough/hard working enough to make yourself rich.

---

Bull.

quote:

---

Otherwise there would be no needs for inheritances, all estates would just be turned over to the government, but perhaps that is what you want.

---

Huh? Look, will you please just respond to what I write and stop inventing what you think I think. How do you sit comfortably in your house with all that straw around?

quote:

---

What are you talking about? Who said anything about people feeling entitled to mimic your lifestyle? You sure have some strange notions about where your taxes go. Most of it goes to the military, you know.

---

quote:

---

Actually I would not mind if more went to military spending since the number one job of the government is to protect me. And you know full well that people feel entitled to certain life styles, whether they actually deserve them or not.

---

Again, putting words in my mouth is frowned apon.

quote:

---

Well, you just said that you have no problem paying for Welfare, plus some other stuff that Welfare doesn't cover.

​

How very liberal of you.

---

quote:

---

Except that I would totally cut off welfare if more kids are made, job training isn't attended, recipients aren't working. I am not going to support free handouts which is what real Liberals do.

---

Tell me, how many "real liberals" do you know? I'll be you have a cartoon image of one in your head that you rail against, but don't know a single living, breathing one in real life that you have honestly discussed any issues with. The fact that you have misrepresented my views numerous times, and assumed many things about what I think, leads me to believe this.

quote:

---

No, they don't currently contribute the most IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL, as I have been saying all along.

​

The middle class pays the brunt of the taxes if you consider the IMPACT.

---

quote:

---

And if you consider what I AM SAYING then they rich ARE PAYING THE MOST.

---

Please explain to me, in detail, how it is fair and reasonable for the super rich to pay taxes at a rate that does not hinder their lifestyle, while the middle class pays taxes at a rate that very much does hinder what they are able to do in their lives.I'd like to know why you think this unequal distribution of the tax burden is fair and reasonable.

quote:

---

Those secretaries most likely got rich because they came to the company at the begining, therefore getting stock options before it was worth a great deal. I'll bet they weren't ever going to make a million bucks a year in base pay, ever.

---

quote:

---

It was from stocks, but so what? Money is money. And not just getting options from the "beginning" since MS started as a two person company. You could get a job there now and get options.

---

It means that if the company had been less than wildly successful, they wouldn't have been millionaires.

quote:

---

One private sector job? I'll bet there are plenty of CEO's who "employ" family members and friends who don't do dick for the company.

​

In fact, someone who I used to work with told me that his friend gave him a job in his company and he got paid $40,000 a year to basically do next to nothing.

---

quote:

---

And do these people who get jobs complain that they are not making enough? DEMAND raises during recessions? Want the company to pay ALL the medical expenses? Work crazy overtime the last two years on the job so that their pensions are more than they made while working? Can NEVER get fired? My friend at the DEP got double time yesterday for staying home and sleeping, while his union brothers argued that they should make the same as contractors who work 10-12 hours a day(making 30-50 an hour) while they stayed at the yard playing chess and cards. Yea nepotism allows for all that....

---

You asked for a private-sector example, and I gave it. Now you are moving the goalposts.Then let's reform the unions.Do you really want to return to the robber baron days before the worker had any rights at all? Look what is happening in non-unionized corporations now; companies are telling retirees that the pensions they were promised are simply not going to be paid out.Enron, Worldcom, etc.; this is what corporate greed and deregulation will produce. Thousands and thousands of hard-working PRIVATE SECTOR employees who were screwed by criminals who will probably never see a day of prison time because they contributed huge sums of money to all of the elected officials' coffers.

quote:

---

Again, maybe, maybe not. Most of the richest Americans get their income from inheritence and investments.

---

quote:

---

Again, I feel differently.

---

Again, you haven't given me any reasons why I should feel like you do; only assertions.

quote:

---

Then I don't understand why you have so much vitriol for the individuals on welfare, and the money you pay to support these people, when you are paing MANY, MANY times that amount to support corporate welfare programs.

​

Hell, at least the poor people, screwed up as they might be, actually do NEED help, where as the huge multinational companies are simply using their enormous influence over Washington to get as many free government handouts as they can get. Why pay for something yourseslf when the government will, right?

​

Let me state it again:

​

you pay much, much more towards big business welfare than to individual welfare. Therefore, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you you rail against Big Business government handouts?

---

quote:

---

Because even those companies do something productive. They employ people, they contribute to the economy. Whereas a large number of welfare recipients want to do nothing but sit on their buts and collect a check because they are "entitled" to one.

---

Bull. I think you rail against them because that's who the conservative pundits and politicians rail against. It's easy to whip people up into a frenzy against "welfare mothers" because they are poor and black and female; very easy to hate and judge. Those same politicians (plus most Democrats) wouldn't dare shout about the corporate welfare state in this country, and how much larger a piece of the pie the corporate hogs get from our taxes than poor, young, black women.Please provide evidence that "a large number" of welfare recipients are there because they feel entitled. All of my information indicates that this is a myth:Page not found - FAIR"Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.""Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper's, 4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable child care make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.Page not found | Real Change"Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."The majority of welfare recipients-over 180,000-are children. The program was designed for children. The fastest growing population needing assistance in our state is composed of two-parent families in rural communities where industries have folded and jobs are scarce.""Over sixty percent of the women on public assistance in Washington State have fled domestic violence.""A 1993 study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that 19% of the women who receive AFDC report having disabilities that prevent them from working. An additional 8% of AFDC mothers care for a disabled child."Myth: Welfare mothers have more babies in order to get more money.
The reality is that the rate of births for families on welfare is slightly higher than the national average. In Washington, for example, half of all AFDC recipients have only one child. Thirty percent have two children, and only 4% have four or more.Myth: People on public assistance are lazy and don't want to work.
According to a study done by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, half of all single mothers who spend any time on welfare during a two-year period also work during that period. Their jobs pay an average of $4.92 per hour, and few of their employers (only 28%) provide health insurance coverage. They are most likely to work as maids, cashiers, nursing aids, child care workers, and waitresses. Almost half require welfare to supplement their incomes between jobs. One-fifth work at such low-wage jobs that they continue to qualify for welfare, and ten percent require welfare as temporary disability insurance.You left these points out of your response, so I list them here again:

quote:

---

Can't really argue with that, but that is just one company.

---

quote:

---

Correction: That is just one company that got caught . Don't you remember all of the firings and "corrected" financial information that started to be announced from about a dozen big companies right after Enron and Worldcom?

---

[QUOTE]You still haven't explained how running up the national debt, and by definition giving us enormous interest payments, was good for the country's economy.

quote:

---

How are they going to be placed in the kind of job that will earn enough money to support themselves, let alone any children, if we haven't educated them in the first place AND the minimum wage is STILL only $5.15 an hour and those jobs do not provide any benefits such as health care?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I also think preferential treatment for females and minorities is nothing but discrimination against white males. Universities and employers should hire the best person, not hire somebody simply because they need to fill a racial or gender quota. May the best man (or woman) get the seat...but don't you dare throw me out just because you don't have enough women in this graduating class. That is morally no different from throwing somebody out because that person is a female or a non-Caucasian or a non-Christian.

​

I think the very idea of trying to fight illegal discrimination with legally prescribed discrimination (affirmative action) is a crock.
That it even exists in a "free" country where everyone is supposed to be equal is a travesty.

​

And what's this about most wealthy Americans getting their money from inheritance or investments? What's this about? I think that if I invested well enough to make a fortune I deserve that money. And I think that if I wanted my kids to have it, they should be entitled to it. And their kids, and the kids after them.

​

Did anyone else read the recent article about why males are becoming a minority on campus?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

---

​

I have and its a disgrace. But then again white males are to blame for everyone's woes. I heard an interview that had a feminist complain that even though men(white men in particular) are becoming less and less prominent on campuses, that women are getting more and more programs for them that is not enough. That "equality" is not really what they want. They want superiority.

---

Which feminist was that?Please also remember that a single feminist does not speak for all, or even most.Oh, and have I mentioned that you could be the poster boy for the "Insecure-Middle-Income-(probably)-White-Man-That-Is-Resentful-Of-
Having-To-Compete-with-Women-And-Minorities" Foundation of America?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-05-2003]

You are just blindly asserting that social programs do not weaken familybonds, besides why not have social programs based on familybonds? I think you will find that it is the socialists who'd most oppose social-programs like that, since the socialist agenda is not actually for people to be social themselves.Shift a percentage of the huge social money (maybe not so huge in the USA) to extended families, on a cure for pay basis. You have to pay your family when they are in need, but when they are not in need, you can keep the money yourself. That would give an incentive for people to get of welfare. On the downside it would also create huge fights within families but uhm... dealing with the embarassment/power-issues of giving and receiving social help this way, is just a basic part of humanity that is very meaningful in my opinion. Giving and receiving money through some institutional social program doesn't have much human value IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
You are just blindly asserting that social programs do not weaken familybonds, besides why not have social programs based on familybonds? I think you will find that it is the socialists who'd most oppose social-programs like that, since the socialist agenda is not actually for people to be social themselves.

​

Shift a percentage of the huge social money (maybe not so huge in the USA) to extended families, on a cure for pay basis. You have to pay your family when they are in need, but when they are not in need, you can keep the money yourself. That would give an incentive for people to get of welfare. On the downside it would also create huge fights within families but uhm... dealing with the embarassment/power-issues of giving and receiving social help this way, is just a basic part of humanity that is very meaningful in my opinion. Giving and receiving money through some institutional social program doesn't have much human value IMO.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Syamsu, you may not realize this, but a in the US people do not often live in close proximity to their extended family. The US is a huge, huge country. I live about 300 miles away from my parents, and that is considered not all that great of a distance. I can actually make the 5 hour drive to see them every once in a while if I want to.

I'm just talking about extended-family, not primary family. There are modern communication methods to deal with distance, besides the then by law transfer of money to family in need would largely just be automatically deducted from bankaccount or paycheck. There would be no law that you have to visit your extended-family in need, just an incentive to do so.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
The fact remains that women do not earn the same pay as men for doing the exact same work. The fact remains that racist attitudes abound, and there are very definite glass ceilings.

​

The fact remains that white males have always benefitted from entitlements in this country, simply because they are white males.

---

The fact is that women and minorities are now almost at parity with white males. And getting more opportunities. So at what point does that stop? When does the state sponsered discrimination against white males stop?You have already stated that you don't care about the past when it comes to entitlements.. So unless you are a hypocrate you point here is totally meaningless.. buy your own words [/i]"white males have always beniffeted from entitlements...."[i/] and this simply is not the case anymore. What happened before doesnt matter unless you want to change your opinion on health entitlements, or change this discussion to 50 years ago.

quote:

---

Only because they fought their way in, and this is only in the relatively recent past.

---

And this is all that matters. Past is over, learned from and the future is different. The trend now is changed. At what point does it become enough? When do the laws get changed so that white men get the opportunity? Or does that day never happen because white men HAD the opportunity.

quote:

---

Men far outnumber women in the highest faculty positions, the highest corporate positions, the highest government positions, not because of better qualifications, neccessarily, but because they are passed over due to their gender. See this MIT study:

​

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html

---

Then where are the thousands of law suits? Perhaps its because while some were overlooked because of gender many WERE overlooked because of qualifications? Or perhaps the numbers are still in mens favors because men don't take time off to raise the family? Something women often like to do. While men cannot stop working to raise the family women can and do that is a factor in how far a woman can or will progress up the corporate ladder.

quote:

---

How does it feel?

​

If it had been a century earlier, your sister wouldn't have had the option to go.

---

"The thing is, to me it's irrelevant that a hundred years ago, talking about universal health care would have seemed crazy."But its not a century earlier. We live in a society of "equality." And since you could care less about conditions a century ago I could care less about my sisters chances of getting an education a century ago.

quote:

---

Yes, but it is being disbanded very unwillingly. White men in this country have never given power away willingly. Every bit has had to be taken from them.

---

but its being disbanded, that is what matters.

quote:

---

Well, why don't you just work twice as hard for less pay? Women and minorities have done it for decades.

​

Sorry, I don't feel much sympathy, although I don't, in principle, believe in quotas.
[/quota]
But I do work twice as hard for less pay... And I've seen underqualified minorities get promotions.

​

quote:

---

Do you feel contempt for the young black man who got a broom handle shoved up his ass by a bunch of white cops? Do you feel contempt for the black man who was dragged behind a pickup truck for several miles until half of his body was gone, simply because he was black?

---

No I feel contempt for the men who perpertrated the crimes. I have contempt for the over exessive movements, not the indivudals. I have contempt for the extremes (right or left) who want to impose their way off base beliefs on everyone else.

​

quote:

---

So, according to you, it's perfectly fine that someone who wouldn't feel the impact of higher taxes in the least should be taxed at the same rate as someone who will not be able to send all of their kids to college because of lack of funds??

​

That's really wierd.

---

But they AREN'T taxed at the same rate...

​

My boss pays over 50% in taxes a year.. let me know when the middle class or poor pay that much...

​

That has been my point from the get-go.. The rich pay the most, and everyone wants them to pay more..

​

What would be good for you?? Maybe Bill Gates should pay 75% in taxes??

​

Even with tax breaks they still pay 50% to the government come April 15th. The tax breaks allows them to lower the gross income, so rather than make 1 million thay make 800 thousand..

​

And that 400 grand going to the government is a lot more than the 30% I pay on my lousy 45k..

​

quote:

---

Oh, and you haven't really given me any good reasoning for this. You have only reasserted your claim over and over.

​

Well, last time I checked, Bill Gates didn't get rich all by himself. Yes, I do believe that those who have the most power are morally obligated to do the most good.

---

​

quote:

---

Wrong, all you are obligated to do is pay taxes and die. Social darwinism should be encouranged. I have much less than Bill Gates, he works harder, is smarter, and luckier. He owes me nothing, nor does he owe anyone other than the Federal and State governments taxes due.

---

​

Well, my moral code is different from yours, obviously.

​

You know, you have a lot of nerve complaining about people expecting the government to help them. With people like you, who feel no obligation whatsoever to help your fellow human beings, it's no wonder we have a welfare state.

---

If you can explain WHY I have an obligation maybe I can change my feelings about it..Since these are all opinions I have there is no real explaiing why Bill Gates isn't obligated to do more than he does. I have stated my feelings about it, those feelings are what form my opinion. If you can't understand it that's fine but there is no clearer way for me to say it. He isn't obligated to do anything for me, you, the poor, the sick, anyone other than his own and those he is responsible for.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, I don't know where the movie/viedo thing came from, and no, I don't feel that the poor or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves.

---

quote:

---

I brought it up because you seem to be saying that no one underpriveleged is responsible for their own well being, that they should always look to others to carry the weight.

---

​

Never said that. You are not reading what I am actually writing. Instead, you are giving knee-jerk responses to what you think all us "commie-pinko-lib'ruls" think.

---

But it really is what you mean. The poor, the women, the minorities have to get better treatement not because they deserve it... but because they are entitled to it.. Entitled to it because the white man has kept them down.

quote:

---

What? Poor people have white men to blame? You really get things that I say screwed up.

---

Not really.. nice try though. White men control everything according to you.. And don't pay enough taxes... And don't contribute enough to poor people and minorities.. That is why there is affirmative action correct? White men taking their own in order to keep the others down? Well if that is true then WHO WOULD the poor and minorities blame?? It doesn't take a rocket scientest to make the logical jump. Poor people blame rich white men because of all the the things you claim white men have done to wrong everyone.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Maybe you deserve it, maybe you don't. Most super rich people are born into their money; do they "deserve" it?

---

No I do deserve it. By earning it or getting an inheritance makes no difference. Being lucky enough to have a rich family is as good as being smart enough/hard working enough to make yourself rich.

---

Bull. [/quote] So if you win the lottory, or make millions in the Stock Market you are fully prepared to leave you children enough to live on and give the rest to poor people.
[quopte]

quote:

---

Otherwise there would be no needs for inheritances, all estates would just be turned over to the government, but perhaps that is what you want.

---

Huh? Look, will you please just respond to what I write and stop inventing what you think I think. How do you sit comfortably in your house with all that straw around? [/quote] YOU claim that most rich are not entitled to being rich because they got rich from inherentaces.. If that is the case then YOUR solution would OBVIOSULY be to make those inheranteces impossible... so that each generation would be more equal economically? Correct?

quote:

---

Again, putting words in my mouth is frowned apon.

---

So you are saying that you have never heard, nor seen, nor read about anyone who felt entitled to a better lifestyle just because they deserve it..

quote:

---

Tell me, how many "real liberals" do you know? I'll be you have a cartoon image of one in your head that you rail against, but don't know a single living, breathing one in real life that you have honestly discussed any issues with. The fact that you have misrepresented my views numerous times, and assumed many things about what I think, leads me to believe this.

---

Quite a few actually.. I live in NYC. Any more questions??

quote:

---

Please explain to me, in detail, how it is fair and reasonable for the super rich to pay taxes at a rate that does not hinder their lifestyle, while the middle class pays taxes at a rate that very much does hinder what they are able to do in their lives.

​

I'd like to know why you think this unequal distribution of the tax burden is fair and reasonable.

---

I am not rich and the amount of taxes I pay does not "hinder" my lifestyle. So I am still not convinced of this argument you keep claiming..Besides those in the upper tax brackets pay something along the lines of 37% in federal taxes, plus state, and perhaps city, as well as the other deductions, often coming to a near 50% of their gross income.I also am quite content with the knowledge that the super rich have a better life than me.. I have no problem with that.. Neither myself, nor any of my friends pay prohibitve taxes. Well one does.. he is just over that "super rich" tax line and gets killed by taxes, but even he lives quite comfortably. My mother who makes less that 20k a year also does not pay taxes so great that it affects her lifestyle.Now unless you are saying the middle class should be able to get BMWs, 500k houses, go on vacation 2-3 times a year I really do not see how they are getting so slammed...

quote:

---

It means that if the company had been less than wildly successful, they wouldn't have been millionaires.

---

But it was.. so they are, that is what matters.

quote:

---

You asked for a private-sector example, and I gave it. Now you are moving the goalposts.

​

Then let's reform the unions.

​

Do you really want to return to the robber baron days before the worker had any rights at all? Look what is happening in non-unionized corporations now; companies are telling retirees that the pensions they were promised are simply not going to be paid out.

​

Enron, Worldcom, etc.; this is what corporate greed and deregulation will produce. Thousands and thousands of hard-working PRIVATE SECTOR employees who were screwed by criminals who will probably never see a day of prison time because they contributed huge sums of money to all of the elected officials' coffers.

---

I have absolutely no problem with union reform. I agree there is a place for it, but it definetly needs to be reformed in MANY, not all, cases.

quote:

---

Bull. I think you rail against them because that's who the conservative pundits and politicians rail against. It's easy to whip people up into a frenzy against "welfare mothers" because they are poor and black and female; very easy to hate and judge. Those same politicians (plus most Democrats) wouldn't dare shout about the corporate welfare state in this country, and how much larger a piece of the pie the corporate hogs get from our taxes than poor, young, black women.

---

I rail against those that I've seen first hand ruining a system meant to help. I grew up in city housing, and witnessed this all first hand, that is all the proof I need. And since we both know neither one of us will change our opinions there is no need for me to spend a few hours digging up numbers for statistics about subjective motives(feeling entitled..) [/quote] Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly. [/quote] Please explain this.. It APPEARS to be saying that as the value of the benifits from the birth rates have stayed the same.. Meaning they are still having as many kids as before. Before I comment on this further I want to make sure I understant that properly.

quote:

---

Myth: Welfare mothers have more babies in order to get more money.
The reality is that the rate of births for families on welfare is slightly higher than the national average. In Washington, for example, half of all AFDC recipients have only one child. Thirty percent have two children, and only 4% have four or more.

---

Unless my grasp of the english language is slipping.. "slightly higher than the national average" means more.. meaning they have more kids than people not on welfare. Which not only is exactly what I said, but the exact opposite of your earlier quote... [/quote]Myth: People on public assistance are lazy and don't want to work.
According to a study done by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, half of all single mothers who spend any time on welfare during a two-year period also work during that period. Their jobs pay an average of $4.92 per hour, and few of their employers (only 28%) provide health insurance coverage. They are most likely to work as maids, cashiers, nursing aids, child care workers, and waitresses. Almost half require welfare to supplement their incomes between jobs. One-fifth work at such low-wage jobs that they continue to qualify for welfare, and ten percent require welfare as temporary disability insurance.[/quote] I have no qualms with single mothers on welfare who work, and feel like you that more should be done for the ones who work. But what about the men on welfare? What are there work numbers like? I am curious to see if they are as productive..

quote:

---

Correction: That is just one company that got caught . Don't you remember all of the firings and "corrected" financial information that started to be announced from about a dozen big companies right after Enron and Worldcom?

---

actually I don't, but I already agreed that those people should be doing hard time.

quote:

---

You still haven't explained how running up the national debt, and by definition giving us enormous interest payments, was good for the country's economy.

---

I touched on this a few posts ago. National debt was run up via tax breaks, aid packages to states, other countries, and increased spending. All this stimulates the economy. The interest paid is not as much as the future tax reciets(which is the countries major source of income). And this is what happened for Clinton, he came into office to find some of the largest tax receits ever, and that money can be used to repay some loans, and used to keep the economy going. That is how the creation of the national debt is good. However when the government spends more but does little to stimulate the economy, or raises taxes future tax reciepts are LOWER causing further economic downturns.

quote:

---

How are they going to be placed in the kind of job that will earn enough money to support themselves, let alone any children, if we haven't educated them in the first place AND the minimum wage is STILL only $5.15 an hour and those jobs do not provide any benefits such as health care?

---

I have already said about 3 times that I have no problem, infact encourage, reform so that while welfare recipients are learning new skills that will allow them to become independant contributers to the economy the government would suppliment their incomes with economic/medical aide. Welfare leading to independance is a great thing and something I have no problem with, welfare leading no where(something I grew up seeing on a daily basis) is what I do not like. And seeing as the liberals in NYC would like to change the welfare program back to pre-reform status I have every right to "rail" against them.

quote:

---

The fact is that women and minorities are now almost at parity with white males. And getting more opportunities. So at what point does that stop? When does the state sponsered discrimination against white males stop?

---

When the problem is behind us. That's when it will stop.

quote:

---

You have already stated that you don't care about the past when it comes to entitlements.. So
unless you are a hypocrate you point here is totally meaningless.. buy your own words "white males have always beniffeted from entitlements...." and this simply is not the case anymore.

---

Yes, it still is the case, actually.

quote:

---

Only because they fought their way in, and this is only in the relatively recent past.

---

quote:

---

And this is all that matters. Past is over, learned from and the future is different.

---

Oh, but it isn't learned from, really. It is only gotten around more covertly these days.

quote:

---

The trend now is changed. At what point does it become enough? When do the laws get changed so that white men get the opportunity? Or does that day never happen because white men HAD the opportunity.

---

White men still have the opportunity. What you see as discrimination, I think is often just opening up the playing field. What you see as keeping you down is just having to compete where before you were protected from competition.

quote:

---

Men far outnumber women in the highest faculty positions, the highest corporate positions, the highest government positions, not because of better qualifications, neccessarily, but because they are passed over due to their gender. See this MIT study:

​

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html

---

quote:

---

Then where are the thousands of law suits? Perhaps its because while some were overlooked because of gender many WERE overlooked because of qualifications? Or perhaps the numbers are still in mens favors because men don't take time off to raise the family? Something women often like to do. While men cannot stop working to raise the family women can and do that is a factor in how far a woman can or will progress up the corporate ladder.

---

Obviously, you didn't read the link.There were no lawsuits because the PROBLEMS WERE IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSED by the administration of MIT. Read the link. Read the link.

quote:

---

How does it feel?

​

If it had been a century earlier, your sister wouldn't have had the option to go.

---

"The thing is, to me it's irrelevant that a hundred years ago, talking about universal health care would have seemed crazy."

quote:

---

But its not a century earlier. We live in a society of "equality." And since you could care less about conditions a century ago I could care less about my sisters chances of getting an education a century ago.

---

Yes, it is necessary to put quotes around the word equality, isn't it?When the gender gap in pay disappears and when there are roughly equal levels of men and women in the top eschelons of corporate, government, and university power structures, we can talk.

quote:

---

Yes, but it is being disbanded very unwillingly. White men in this country have never given power away willingly. Every bit has had to be taken from them.

---

quote:

---

but its being disbanded, that is what matters.

---

IF it is being disbanded unwillingly, then the spirit that maintained them in the first place is still alive and will find other ways to meet their ends. Read the MIT study.

quote:

---

Well, why don't you just work twice as hard for less pay? Women and minorities have done it for decades.

​

Sorry, I don't feel much sympathy, although I don't, in principle, believe in quotas.

---

quote:

---

But I do work twice as hard for less pay... And I've seen underqualified minorities get promotions.

quote:

---

I don't mean "you" as an individual. I mean "you" as in "white males".

​

quote:

---

What would be good for you?? Maybe Bill Gates should pay 75% in taxes??

---

​

Yep, that sounds about right.

​

Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes

​

"Yes, the wealthy are paying more in federal taxes, but for reasons that are good news for the wealthy - "largely because they receive a much larger share of the total income in the nation," says Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Between 1979 and 1997, the last year for which figures are available, the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households, adjusted for inflation, rose by $414,000 - a 157 percent gain. For the middle fifth of households - the middle of the middle class - the comparable gain was 10 percent, or $3,400. The bottom fifth was stagnant."

​

"The Journal's editors make only a passing comment on payroll taxes. But the basic FICA tax takes a much bigger share from middle and low incomes than from large ones. The 6.2 percent tax applies on incomes up to $84,900, meaning that if you make that or less, you pay the full 6.2 percent. But Richard Sims, the policy director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, took the recently published example of a top CEO who earned $122.5 million in 2000 and calculated that his FICA tax rate was 0.000043 percent. Lucky ducky."

​

quote:

---

Even with tax breaks they still pay 50% to the government come April 15th. The tax breaks allows them to lower the gross income, so rather than make 1 million thay make 800 thousand..

​

And that 400 grand going to the government is a lot more than the 30% I pay on my lousy 45k..

---

​

How is their lifestyle affected compared to yours?

​

quote:

---

You know, you have a lot of nerve complaining about people expecting the government to help them. With people like you, who feel no obligation whatsoever to help your fellow human beings, it's no wonder we have a welfare state.

---

​

quote:

---

If you can explain WHY I have an obligation maybe I can change my feelings about it..

---

​

Since these are all opinions I have there is no real explaiing why Bill Gates isn't obligated to do more than he does. I have stated my feelings about it, those feelings are what form my opinion. If you can't understand it that's fine but there is no clearer way for me to say it. He isn't obligated to do anything for me, you, the poor, the sick, anyone other than his own and those he is responsible for.

---

​

You are right, it's just opinion. However, I personally want to live in in world where people want to help one another. What good is having all the power and money in the world if there is no community?

​

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, I don't know where the movie/viedo thing came from, and no, I don't feel that the poor or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves.

---

quote:

---

I brought it up because you seem to be saying that no one underpriveleged is responsible for their own well being, that they should always look to others to carry the weight.

---

​

Never said that. You are not reading what I am actually writing. Instead, you are giving knee-jerk responses to what you think all us "commie-pinko-lib'ruls" think.

---

​

quote:

---

But it really is what you mean. The poor, the women, the minorities have to get better treatement not because they deserve it... but because they are entitled to it.. Entitled to it because the white man has kept them down.

---

​

Everyone is entitled to human rights in the United States, the last time I checked.

​

quote:

---

What? Poor people have white men to blame? You really get things that I say screwed up.

---

Not really.. nice try though. White men control everything according to you..

---

Have you looked at the gender and ethnicity of Congress? Of most fortune 500 companies? Of the top faculty positions of all major universities? White males occupy a number of high seats disproportionate to their representation in the population, so yes, they do control a great deal. [QUOTE]And don't pay enough taxes...

quote:

---

Rich people are mostly white, but not all male.

​

quote:

---

And don't contribute enough to poor people and minorities.. That is why there is affirmative action correct? White men taking their own in order to keep the others down? Well if that is true then WHO WOULD the poor and minorities blame?? It doesn't take a rocket scientest to make the logical jump. Poor people blame rich white men because of all the the things you claim white men have done to wrong everyone.

quote:

---

RICH people, not just all white people. Just being precise.

​

quote:

---

quote:

---

Maybe you deserve it, maybe you don't. Most super rich people are born into their money; do they "deserve" it?

---

No I do deserve it. By earning it or getting an inheritance makes no difference. Being lucky enough to have a rich family is as good as being smart enough/hard working enough to make yourself rich.

---

​

Bull.

---

​

quote:

---

So if you win the lottory, or make millions in the Stock Market you are fully prepared to leave you children enough to live on and give the rest to poor people.

---

​

I would set up educational foundations for disadvantaged people, actually. I would provide endowments and scholarships, too.

​

[quopte]

quote:

---

Otherwise there would be no needs for inheritances, all estates would just be turned over to the government, but perhaps that is what you want.

---

​

Huh? Look, will you please just respond to what I write and stop inventing what you think I think. How do you sit comfortably in your house with all that straw around?

---

​

quote:

---

YOU claim that most rich are not entitled to being rich because they got rich from inherentaces.. If that is the case then YOUR solution would OBVIOSULY be to make those inheranteces impossible... so that each generation would be more equal economically? Correct?

---

​

Nope.

​

Just because they haven't done anything to earn, ie DESERVE their wealth, doesn't mean it isn't still theirs if someone gave it to them.

​

There is a difference between being legally entitled to something and in deserving it.

​

quote:

---

Again, putting words in my mouth is frowned apon.

---

quote:

---

So you are saying that you have never heard, nor seen, nor read about anyone who felt entitled to a better lifestyle just because they deserve it..

---

​

No, I am saying that you are wrong that most of the people on public assistance think that way.

​

quote:

---

Tell me, how many "real liberals" do you know? I'll be you have a cartoon image of one in your head that you rail against, but don't know a single living, breathing one in real life that you have honestly discussed any issues with. The fact that you have misrepresented my views numerous times, and assumed many things about what I think, leads me to believe this.

---

quote:

---

Quite a few actually.. I live in NYC. Any more questions??

---

​

Have you had these discussions with them? What did they say?

​

quote:

---

Please explain to me, in detail, how it is fair and reasonable for the super rich to pay taxes at a rate that does not hinder their lifestyle, while the middle class pays taxes at a rate that very much does hinder what they are able to do in their lives.

​

I'd like to know why you think this unequal distribution of the tax burden is fair and reasonable.

---

​

quote:

---

I am not rich and the amount of taxes I pay does not "hinder" my lifestyle. So I am still not convinced of this argument you keep claiming..

---

​

So, how many cars do you have? Bought or sold a lot of stock or businesses lately? Where is your summer home? Where do you want to send your kids to college; Harvard or Yale?

​

quote:

---

Besides those in the upper tax brackets pay something along the lines of 37% in federal taxes, plus state, and perhaps city, as well as the other deductions, often coming to a near 50% of their gross income.

​

quote:

---

I also am quite content with the knowledge that the super rich have a better life than me.. I have no problem with that.. Neither myself, nor any of my friends pay prohibitve taxes.

---

​

Doesn't it bother you at all that the rich get richer while your tax bracket shoulders more and more of the tax burden in this country?

​

Doesn't it bother you that real wages have stagnated for most workers and that 1% of the country's population holds 95% of the wealth?

​

quote:

---

Well one does.. he is just over that "super rich" tax line and gets killed by taxes, but even he lives quite comfortably.

quote:

---

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!

​

He pays a lot in taxes but still does OK.

​

quote:

---

My mother who makes less that 20k a year also does not pay taxes so great that it affects her lifestyle.

​

Now unless you are saying the middle class should be able to get BMWs, 500k houses, go on vacation 2-3 times a year I really do not see how they are getting so slammed...

---

​

No, the middle class is having trouble sending their kids to college and having to go into debt to do so.

​

The problem is in the ability to accumulate wealth, actually.

​

quote:

---

It means that if the company had been less than wildly successful, they wouldn't have been millionaires.

---

quote:

---

But it was.. so they are, that is what matters.

---

​

No, your original point was to hold Microsoft up as a great example of how people not in unions do really well. My point was to show that it is a RARE example.

​

quote:

---

Bull. I think you rail against them because that's who the conservative pundits and politicians rail against. It's easy to whip people up into a frenzy against "welfare mothers" because they are poor and black and female; very easy to hate and judge. Those same politicians (plus most Democrats) wouldn't dare shout about the corporate welfare state in this country, and how much larger a piece of the pie the corporate hogs get from our taxes than poor, young, black women.

---

​

quote:

---

I rail against those that I've seen first hand ruining a system meant to help. I grew up in city housing, and witnessed this all first hand, that is all the proof I need.

---

​

Just what the flat-Earthers say. Don't bother them with facts, their opinions are all that matters.

​

quote:

---

And since we both know neither one of us will change our opinions there is no need for me to spend a few hours digging up numbers for statistics about subjective motives(feeling entitled..)

---

​

How convenient. You could change my mind, you know.

---

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

---

​

quote:

---

Please explain this.. It APPEARS to be saying that as the value of the benifits from the birth rates have stayed the same.. Meaning they are still having as many kids as before. Before I comment on this further I want to make sure I understant that properly.

---

​

This statistic is meant to illustrate that it is not true that people have more kids to get more benefits.

​

quote:

---

Myth: Welfare mothers have more babies in order to get more money.
The reality is that the rate of births for families on welfare is slightly higher than the national average. In Washington, for example, half of all AFDC recipients have only one child. Thirty percent have two children, and only 4% have four or more.

---

​

quote:

---

Unless my grasp of the english language is slipping.. "slightly higher than the national average" means more.. meaning they have more kids than people not on welfare. Which not only is exactly what I said, but the exact opposite of your earlier quote...

---

​

It is not "exactly" what you said.

​

I believe you said that people on welfare have toms of kids.

---

Myth: People on public assistance are lazy and don't want to work.
According to a study done by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, half of all single mothers who spend any time on welfare during a two-year period also work during that period. Their jobs pay an average of $4.92 per hour, and few of their employers (only 28%) provide health insurance coverage. They are most likely to work as maids, cashiers, nursing aids, child care workers, and waitresses. Almost half require welfare to supplement their incomes between jobs. One-fifth work at such low-wage jobs that they continue to qualify for welfare, and ten percent require welfare as temporary disability insurance.

---

quote:

---

I have no qualms with single mothers on welfare who work, and feel like you that more should be done for the ones who work. But what about the men on welfare? What are there work numbers like? I am curious to see if they are as productive.

---

DOn't know.

quote:

---

Correction: That is just one company that got caught . Don't you remember all of the firings and "corrected" financial information that started to be announced from about a dozen big companies right after Enron and Worldcom?

---

actually I don't, but I already agreed that those people should be doing hard time.

quote:

---

You still haven't explained how running up the national debt, and by definition giving us enormous interest payments, was good for the country's economy.

---

quote:

---

I touched on this a few posts ago. National debt was run up via tax breaks, aid packages to states, other countries, and increased spending. All this stimulates the economy. The interest paid is not as much as the future tax reciets(which is the countries major source of income). And this is what happened for Clinton, he came into office to find some of the largest tax receits ever, and that money can be used to repay some loans, and used to keep the economy going. That is how the creation of the national debt is good. However when the government spends more but does little to stimulate the economy, or raises taxes future tax reciepts are LOWER causing further economic downturns.

---

Would love to see a credible source that backs you up.

quote:

---

How are they going to be placed in the kind of job that will earn enough money to support themselves, let alone any children, if we haven't educated them in the first place AND the minimum wage is STILL only $5.15 an hour and those jobs do not provide any benefits such as health care?

---

quote:

---

I have already said about 3 times that I have no problem, infact encourage, reform so that while welfare recipients are learning new skills that will allow them to become independant contributers to the economy the government would suppliment their incomes with economic/medical aide. Welfare leading to independance is a great thing and something I have no problem with, welfare leading no where(something I grew up seeing on a daily basis) is what I do not like. And seeing as the liberals in NYC would like to change the welfare program back to pre-reform status I have every right to "rail" against them.

---

Good.What about corporate welfare?{Fixed a few UBB code errors, but it's too big of a mess for me to figure out!!! Schraf, care to take a stab at it??? - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-08-2003]

Schraf - Please take more care in your use of UBB code. And try to fix some of your older messages.Getting a little cranky,
AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Maybe a new "Coffee House" topic, concerning economics is called for. I was thinking of one such as "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?". I won't let my alter ego, minnemooseus, start one, because he's already started too many topics.------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-09-2003]