By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

akuma587 on 18 October 2008
Cueil said:

 

Your friends are obviously better than you... I wont go so far as to call you trash, but you lean dangerously close to being so.  More people die from idiots in the US every year than have died from both the attack and the war... you can't seriously be angry that your "friends" had the sense of patriotism to join a military that fights to protect you.  Regaurdless of where they are at now that is where their hearts where at and that's why they join.  And they don't get sent to Iraq for no reason... if you still think we are not there for a reason you have mental issues... we went in there for the wrong reasons, but we are certainlly not still there for the wrong reasons.

So I guess we are like a guy who rapes and beats the hell out of a woman, but then decides to stick around while trying to control every decision she makes because it is "good for the kid" even though we know we are going to break up with her in a few years anyways.

And those soldiers you are talking about who kill less people than the "idiots" in the US have killed or displaced millions of Iraqi civilians.  Did you forget about all those people?  You can't ignore loss of life just because the people aren't from America.

I agree that we should handle Iraq carefully, but your logic is like saying that if something was built on a completely false pretense that it is OK if we substitute that pretense for a slightly less false pretense, that everything we are doing is for the good of the Iraqi people. 

It wouldn't be so bad if the Iraqis didn't actually want us to leave.  The majority of the Iraqi population wants us to leave before 2009 ends, and that includes the prime minister (ironically the one we put into power).  How can you rationalize occupying a country that doesn't even want you to be there?

The real life equivalent of that would be trespass or burglary.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 18 October 2008
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

I said I didn't want people (not me) to pay taxes to support other people. It's not the job of this country to forcibly take time from one american, in order to give it to another american. That's loosing your freedom. It's the single most fundamental right of this country.

But that's already happening... Did you miss all the replies saying so?

According to you, many American people have been losing their freedom for years when they paid taxes. This is hilarious.

 

 

Sigh.... that's not the same.

Paying twice as much in taxes as a poor person, for a service we all receive, is far different then telling me I am going to pay for a service for that poor person, that I am not eligible for. 

I see how progressive taxes can be construed as indenturing people, but I am less worried about it if I am at least reaping a benefit from it.

Most of the time, rich people get more out of it. For example, Bill Gates has a much more to lose if we get invaded by another country, so it stands that he should pay more to protect it.

If I have an expensive car, I care that the roads are in better shape. I should pay more to maintain them.

Can you not see the difference?

 

 

Show me one vibrant economy that doesn't have a progressive income tax.

 

 

LOL, again...

WHERE HAVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A PROGRESSIVE TAX!?!?!?!?!

My god people. For college folk, you sure have poor comprehension :p

I am actually OK with a progressive tax, if done right (and the US does it right).

The progressive tax in this country only changes the tax rate on the additional money earned. So if I make 200K and someone else makes 40K, I pay the same tax on the first 40K as they pay. We both pay the same tax rate on the additional 160K, theirs is just calculated against zero dollars :p. Nothing wrong with that.

What I have a problem with is, for example, the government saying I am going to pay taxes on a healthcare system that I am not qualified to take advantage of. Taking my money, and giving me NOTHING in return for it, is unconstitutional.

You can disagree with me if you like, but you would be wrong.



TheRealMafoo on 18 October 2008
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

I said I didn't want people (not me) to pay taxes to support other people. It's not the job of this country to forcibly take time from one american, in order to give it to another american. That's loosing your freedom. It's the single most fundamental right of this country.

But that's already happening... Did you miss all the replies saying so?

According to you, many American people have been losing their freedom for years when they paid taxes. This is hilarious.

 

 

Sigh.... that's not the same.

Paying twice as much in taxes as a poor person, for a service we all receive, is far different then telling me I am going to pay for a service for that poor person, that I am not eligible for. 

I see how progressive taxes can be construed as indenturing people, but I am less worried about it if I am at least reaping a benefit from it.

Most of the time, rich people get more out of it. For example, Bill Gates has a much more to lose if we get invaded by another country, so it stands that he should pay more to protect it.

If I have an expensive car, I care that the roads are in better shape. I should pay more to maintain them.

Can you not see the difference?

 

 

Show me one vibrant economy that doesn't have a progressive income tax.

 

 

LOL, again...

WHERE HAVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A PROGRESSIVE TAX!?!?!?!?!

My god people. For college folk, you sure have poor comprehension :p

I am actually OK with a progressive tax, if done right (and the US does it right).

The progressive tax in this country only changes the tax rate on the additional money earned. So if I make 200K and someone else makes 40K, I pay the same tax on the first 40K as they pay. We both pay the same tax rate on the additional 160K, theirs is just calculated against zero dollars :p. Nothing wrong with that.

What I have a problem with is, for example, the government saying I am going to pay taxes on a healthcare system that I am not qualified to take advantage of. Taking my money, and giving me NOTHING in return for it, is unconstitutional.

You can disagree with me if you like, but you would be wrong.



SamuelRSmith on 18 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

I said I didn't want people (not me) to pay taxes to support other people. It's not the job of this country to forcibly take time from one american, in order to give it to another american. That's loosing your freedom. It's the single most fundamental right of this country.

But that's already happening... Did you miss all the replies saying so?

According to you, many American people have been losing their freedom for years when they paid taxes. This is hilarious.

 

 

Sigh.... that's not the same.

Paying twice as much in taxes as a poor person, for a service we all receive, is far different then telling me I am going to pay for a service for that poor person, that I am not eligible for.

I see how progressive taxes can be construed as indenturing people, but I am less worried about it if I am at least reaping a benefit from it.

Most of the time, rich people get more out of it. For example, Bill Gates has a much more to lose if we get invaded by another country, so it stands that he should pay more to protect it.

If I have an expensive car, I care that the roads are in better shape. I should pay more to maintain them.

Can you not see the difference?

 

 

Show me one vibrant economy that doesn't have a progressive income tax.

 

 

LOL, again...

WHERE HAVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A PROGRESSIVE TAX!?!?!?!?!

My god people. For college folk, you sure have poor comprehension :p

I am actually OK with a progressive tax, if done right (and the US does it right).

The progressive tax in this country only changes the tax rate on the additional money earned. So if I make 200K and someone else makes 40K, I pay the same tax on the first 40K as they pay. We both pay the same tax rate on the additional 160K, theirs is just calculated against zero dollars :p. Nothing wrong with that.

What I have a problem with is, for example, the government saying I am going to pay taxes on a healthcare system that I am not qualified to take advantage of. Taking my money, and giving me NOTHING in return for it, is unconstitutional.

You can disagree with me if you like, but you would be wrong.

 

 Why wouldn;t you be entitled to it?



akuma587 on 18 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:

 

LOL, again...

WHERE HAVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A PROGRESSIVE TAX!?!?!?!?!

My god people. For college folk, you sure have poor comprehension :p

I am actually OK with a progressive tax, if done right (and the US does it right).

The progressive tax in this country only changes the tax rate on the additional money earned. So if I make 200K and someone else makes 40K, I pay the same tax on the first 40K as they pay. We both pay the same tax rate on the additional 160K, theirs is just calculated against zero dollars :p. Nothing wrong with that.

What I have a problem with is, for example, the government saying I am going to pay taxes on a healthcare system that I am not qualified to take advantage of. Taking my money, and giving me NOTHING in return for it, is unconstitutional.

You can disagree with me if you like, but you would be wrong.

Your whole basis for your argument is that this is somehow unconstitutional.  The Constitution says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (5th amendment) and the Declaration of Independence says you are entitled to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

This is the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And Congress reserves the right to:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Right there, you see those bolded words.  That is a broad swath of power the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress because the Articles of Confederation were horribly limited and were an absolute failure.  Congress could use the money it raises from taxes however it sees fit, and the public has a check on how they use that money because everyone in the House of Representatives is elected every two years, and conversely can be ousted every two years.  New taxes can only originate from the House.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is outside Congress's constitutional power to take your money and use it for the general welfare, such as universal healthcare or whatever else.  The Founding Fathers left a lot of freedom in there.  But the power you have over Congress is you can vote for who you want to be in office.

So really everything you are claiming is based off your flawed interpretation of the Constitution.  Congress can take your money and use it for whatever they see fit to promote the general welfare, and in return you can either elect them back into office if you like what they are doing or elect someone else if you don't.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
NJ5 on 18 October 2008

WHERE HAVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A PROGRESSIVE TAX!?!?!?!?!


Obama was talking about progressive taxes, you complained about his statements and/or people's reaction to them.

You're complaining about wealth redistribution, which already happens.

What I have a problem with is, for example, the government saying I am going to pay taxes on a healthcare system that I am not qualified to take advantage of. Taking my money, and giving me NOTHING in return for it, is unconstitutional.


So if the government gives aid money to some third world country, that's unconstitutional? If the government starts a program for helping cervical cancer victims, that's unconstitutional because you don't have a uterus?

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

TheRealMafoo on 18 October 2008
SamuelRSmith said:

Why wouldn;t you be entitled to it?

 

If your company provides you with healthcare, you are not allowed to sign up for federal healthcare, yet you still have to pay for it.



SamuelRSmith on 18 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Why wouldn;t you be entitled to it?

 

If your company provides you with healthcare, you are not allowed to sign up for federal healthcare, yet you still have to pay for it.

 

 Wow, that seems a bit... odd.

"From each according to their ability to each according to their need" doesn't seem to have much of an impact in the US.



TheRealMafoo on 18 October 2008
NJ5 said:


So if the government gives aid money to some third world country, that's unconstitutional? If the government starts a program for helping cervical cancer victims, that's unconstitutional because you don't have a uterus?

 

 

Yes. Both of those are unconstitutional. Luckily, the US collects 400 billion in private charities each year for these kinds of things (far more then the government gives).

That's where the real aid comes from, and that's where it should come from.



akuma587 on 18 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:


So if the government gives aid money to some third world country, that's unconstitutional? If the government starts a program for helping cervical cancer victims, that's unconstitutional because you don't have a uterus?

 

 

Yes. Both of those are unconstitutional. Luckily, the US collects 400 billion in private charities each year for these kinds of things (far more then the government gives).

That's where the real aid comes from, and that's where it should come from.

Why do you keep claiming things are unconstitutional WITHOUT EVER REFERENCING THE CONSTITUTION!

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson