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

Forums - General - Socialism and communism

mrstickball on 14 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:

Jesus would place a high premium on giving to the poor as a civil act, and not a governmental one. Jesus never once stated that it was anyone else's responsibility to help the poor other than your own.

Also:

     I would if I was making over $250,000.00 a year.  As it is, I stand to benefit from Obama's social programs.  When I was working at a fast food restaurant and paying for company health insurance that wouldn't come anywhere near paying for blood work, a catscan, and a colonoscopy, I really could have used some subsidized government healthcare.  Mccain's plan was going to provide for a $2,000.00 tax credit for health insurance, but would that really have covered anything serious?  And, it is difficult to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, drive eighty miles to work each day, for just eight dollars a day, then buy healthcare, videogames, take a hot chick to a movie.  If the government wants to help me out with all that I'm fine with it.  Bush sure didn't seem like he was very interested in doing so.

First off, your making a very stupid decision to drive 80 miles to work, and especially at $4.00 a gallon. Move closer to work, or find another job. Furthermore, taking a hot chick to a movie and buying video games are entirely luxury purchases, and are not needed to maintain life. Complain however you want, but we can't help it if you make poor decisions on work, and how you spend your discretionary income.

Amusingly as well... I know people who do everything on his list at a remarkably similar budget.

Hell I know a lady who does much more then that with 9 dollars an hour working 34 hours a week.

 

Tell me about it. Most of the people my age (20-23) that earn between $8/hr and $15/hr make rediculously incompotent decisions with their income. They buy useless things that really don't help your life (games, movies, expensive food), all while accumulating debt, and continue to make poor choices on reducing factors that reduce wealth. It's very upsetting at my age when I worked an $8/hr job and managed to buy an apartment complex and house with the income, put money in the bank, and give money away to my debt-ridden family. Heck, 3 weeks ago, I handed someone $3,000 to pay off their credit card debts before they got taken to court :-\        That was a fun thing to do.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
akuma587 on 14 March 2009
mrstickball said:

 

Jesus would place a high premium on giving to the poor as a civil act, and not a governmental one. Jesus never once stated that it was anyone else's responsibility to help the poor other than your own.

What would Jesus say about spending $5 Trillion on our military since 2002 and waging wars all across the globe?

 



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

mrstickball on 14 March 2009
akuma587 said:
mrstickball said:

Jesus would place a high premium on giving to the poor as a civil act, and not a governmental one. Jesus never once stated that it was anyone else's responsibility to help the poor other than your own.

What would Jesus say about spending $5 Trillion on our military since 2002 and waging wars all across the globe?

He would be against waging wars across the globe:

Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"

But would be for national defense (different from global defense, which it seems the US has pursued since WW2):

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (38) The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

So Jesus would say that self-defense would be fine, but not much more. Of course, if you wanted to do things the Jesus-way and severely reduce national defense, you'd also have to get rid of govt-run welfare, and healthcare as well.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Final-Fan on 14 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I understand that it's not small potatoes, but that doesn't mean you aren't blowing this completely out of proportion and inventing/promoting conspiracy theories.

Take your time with any reply as I'm off to work.
I think it's easier if you go through the math of what Obama wants and go through how this would work.
Normally if I were a rich guy and i were to donate 1,000 dollars to charity.  I would no longer have to pay income tax on that 1,000 dollars.
Now Obama wants to change the law so that if you donate 1,000 dollars to charity you have to pay 100 dollars per 1,000 donated.
So for every 1,000 donated to charity, the government makes 100 dollars.  For every 1,000 dollars not donated to charity that would have been... the government makes 350.
Now... someone may want to double check my math since i'm tired... however.
He expects this to generate 18 billion per year.
If Charity giving were to drop by 4 billion.  That would be a gain of 1.4 Billion.
Four Billion/Onethousands X 350 = 1.4 Billion
So... Ignoring the fact that people will give much less in 09 then 06.
That gives us around 200 Billion total as far as charitable giving.
Assuming that it was all donated by that tax bracket... that would be 20 Billion.
So either he expects more of a loss to charitable giving... the top tax bracket gives an inordinante amount of money away to charity.
18 Billion - 1.4 Billion =  16.6 Billion.
So he's over by 3.4 billion.
So that would mean the rich donate 83% of all money given to charity?
With the 17% left being split among all the lower tax brackets AND corporations?  (Or just the tax brackets if we assume they were talking about just personal giving.)
That can't be right.  The number shrinks even below 17 when you realize that the number will actually be lower in projections.
Edit: Actually I screwed up and put 250 instead of 280.  Making the situation look even worse for Obama's projections.  Since instead of 100 per donated 1000 it would be $70.
Making from that 200 million a gain of 14 billion.  Combining for a grand total of 15.5 Billion.  If all money was given by the top bracket.
I mean... I don't see where Obama is getting his numbers here if he expects a mere 2% drop.  Unless you can see a flaw in my math.
Either he's really massaging the numbers, or he expects it to really drop chartiable giving.  As he says he expects just that provision will create 179.8 billion over 10 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/charity-tax-challenged-by-political-friends/

First problem:  in 2011 the top bracket will be 39.6% by the time this would go into place, so:
-- it's (39.6%-28%=11.6%) $116 of $1000.  (Starting in 2011)
-- 4 x .396 = 1.584
-- 18 - 1.584 = 16.416 (although obviously not all charitable giving comes out of the top bracket)
Second problem:  If 2.1% of X is $4b, then X is ~ $190b, not 200. 
-- 190 * .116 = 22.04 (same disclaimer)

So if all the charitable givers were in the top bracket it looks to me like revenue would be (22.04+1.584) $23.624 billion starting in 2011 (31% more than $18b).  I presume this would not be in effect for this year, so there would only be one year of the 15.5 billion. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 14 March 2009
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I understand that it's not small potatoes, but that doesn't mean you aren't blowing this completely out of proportion and inventing/promoting conspiracy theories.

Take your time with any reply as I'm off to work.
I think it's easier if you go through the math of what Obama wants and go through how this would work.
Normally if I were a rich guy and i were to donate 1,000 dollars to charity.  I would no longer have to pay income tax on that 1,000 dollars.
Now Obama wants to change the law so that if you donate 1,000 dollars to charity you have to pay 100 dollars per 1,000 donated.
So for every 1,000 donated to charity, the government makes 100 dollars.  For every 1,000 dollars not donated to charity that would have been... the government makes 350.
Now... someone may want to double check my math since i'm tired... however.
He expects this to generate 18 billion per year.
If Charity giving were to drop by 4 billion.  That would be a gain of 1.4 Billion.
Four Billion/Onethousands X 350 = 1.4 Billion
So... Ignoring the fact that people will give much less in 09 then 06.
That gives us around 200 Billion total as far as charitable giving.
Assuming that it was all donated by that tax bracket... that would be 20 Billion.
So either he expects more of a loss to charitable giving... the top tax bracket gives an inordinante amount of money away to charity.
18 Billion - 1.4 Billion =  16.6 Billion.
So he's over by 3.4 billion.
So that would mean the rich donate 83% of all money given to charity?
With the 17% left being split among all the lower tax brackets AND corporations?  (Or just the tax brackets if we assume they were talking about just personal giving.)
That can't be right.  The number shrinks even below 17 when you realize that the number will actually be lower in projections.
Edit: Actually I screwed up and put 250 instead of 280.  Making the situation look even worse for Obama's projections.  Since instead of 100 per donated 1000 it would be $70.
Making from that 200 million a gain of 14 billion.  Combining for a grand total of 15.5 Billion.  If all money was given by the top bracket.
I mean... I don't see where Obama is getting his numbers here if he expects a mere 2% drop.  Unless you can see a flaw in my math.
Either he's really massaging the numbers, or he expects it to really drop chartiable giving.  As he says he expects just that provision will create 179.8 billion over 10 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/charity-tax-challenged-by-political-friends/

First problem:  in 2011 the top bracket will be 39.6% by the time this would go into place, so:
-- it's (39.6%-28%=11.6%) $116 of $1000.  (Starting in 2011)
-- 4 x .396 = 1.584
-- 18 - 1.584 = 16.416 (although obviously not all charitable giving comes out of the top bracket)
Second problem:  If 2.1% of X is $4b, then X is ~ $190b, not 200. 
-- 190 * .116 = 22.04 (same disclaimer)

So if all the charitable givers were in the top bracket it looks to me like revenue would be (22.04+1.584) $23.624 billion starting in 2011 (31% more than $18b).  I presume this would not be in effect for this year, so there would only be one year of the 15.5 billion. 

So it still seems like either

A) The rich give a disproportionate amount of money to charity... even lots more then busisnesses?

or

B)  His numbers just aren't adding up.

 

 



Around the Network
Final-Fan on 14 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I understand that it's not small potatoes, but that doesn't mean you aren't blowing this completely out of proportion and inventing/promoting conspiracy theories.

Take your time with any reply as I'm off to work.
I think it's easier if you go through the math of what Obama wants and go through how this would work.
Normally if I were a rich guy and i were to donate 1,000 dollars to charity.  I would no longer have to pay income tax on that 1,000 dollars.
Now Obama wants to change the law so that if you donate 1,000 dollars to charity you have to pay 100 dollars per 1,000 donated.
So for every 1,000 donated to charity, the government makes 100 dollars.  For every 1,000 dollars not donated to charity that would have been... the government makes 350.
Now... someone may want to double check my math since i'm tired... however.
He expects this to generate 18 billion per year.
If Charity giving were to drop by 4 billion.  That would be a gain of 1.4 Billion.
Four Billion/Onethousands X 350 = 1.4 Billion
So... Ignoring the fact that people will give much less in 09 then 06.
That gives us around 200 Billion total as far as charitable giving.
Assuming that it was all donated by that tax bracket... that would be 20 Billion.
So either he expects more of a loss to charitable giving... the top tax bracket gives an inordinante amount of money away to charity.
18 Billion - 1.4 Billion =  16.6 Billion.
So he's over by 3.4 billion.
So that would mean the rich donate 83% of all money given to charity?
With the 17% left being split among all the lower tax brackets AND corporations?  (Or just the tax brackets if we assume they were talking about just personal giving.)
That can't be right.  The number shrinks even below 17 when you realize that the number will actually be lower in projections.
Edit: Actually I screwed up and put 250 instead of 280.  Making the situation look even worse for Obama's projections.  Since instead of 100 per donated 1000 it would be $70.
Making from that 200 million a gain of 14 billion.  Combining for a grand total of 15.5 Billion.  If all money was given by the top bracket.
I mean... I don't see where Obama is getting his numbers here if he expects a mere 2% drop.  Unless you can see a flaw in my math.
Either he's really massaging the numbers, or he expects it to really drop chartiable giving.  As he says he expects just that provision will create 179.8 billion over 10 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/charity-tax-challenged-by-political-friends/

First problem:  in 2011 the top bracket will be 39.6% by the time this would go into place, so:
-- it's (39.6%-28%=11.6%) $116 of $1000.  (Starting in 2011)
-- 4 x .396 = 1.584
-- 18 - 1.584 = 16.416 (although obviously not all charitable giving comes out of the top bracket)
Second problem:  If 2.1% of X is $4b, then X is ~ $190b, not 200. 
-- 190 * .116 = 22.04 (same disclaimer)

So if all the charitable givers were in the top bracket it looks to me like revenue would be (22.04+1.584) $23.624 billion starting in 2011 (31% more than $18b).  I presume this would not be in effect for this year, so there would only be one year of the 15.5 billion. 
So it still seems like either
A) The rich give a disproportionate amount of money to charity... even lots more then busisnesses?
or
B)  His numbers just aren't adding up.

Well, I'm sure they do give disproportionately, because, well, they have a lot of money to throw around, and someone like Bill Gates can probably skew the numbers singlehandedly. 

But using the top-bracket assumption we're like 30% over the bar.  Do you really know how a more realistic spread would fit the numbers?  Please do share. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 14 March 2009
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I understand that it's not small potatoes, but that doesn't mean you aren't blowing this completely out of proportion and inventing/promoting conspiracy theories.

Take your time with any reply as I'm off to work.
I think it's easier if you go through the math of what Obama wants and go through how this would work.
Normally if I were a rich guy and i were to donate 1,000 dollars to charity.  I would no longer have to pay income tax on that 1,000 dollars.
Now Obama wants to change the law so that if you donate 1,000 dollars to charity you have to pay 100 dollars per 1,000 donated.
So for every 1,000 donated to charity, the government makes 100 dollars.  For every 1,000 dollars not donated to charity that would have been... the government makes 350.
Now... someone may want to double check my math since i'm tired... however.
He expects this to generate 18 billion per year.
If Charity giving were to drop by 4 billion.  That would be a gain of 1.4 Billion.
Four Billion/Onethousands X 350 = 1.4 Billion
So... Ignoring the fact that people will give much less in 09 then 06.
That gives us around 200 Billion total as far as charitable giving.
Assuming that it was all donated by that tax bracket... that would be 20 Billion.
So either he expects more of a loss to charitable giving... the top tax bracket gives an inordinante amount of money away to charity.
18 Billion - 1.4 Billion =  16.6 Billion.
So he's over by 3.4 billion.
So that would mean the rich donate 83% of all money given to charity?
With the 17% left being split among all the lower tax brackets AND corporations?  (Or just the tax brackets if we assume they were talking about just personal giving.)
That can't be right.  The number shrinks even below 17 when you realize that the number will actually be lower in projections.
Edit: Actually I screwed up and put 250 instead of 280.  Making the situation look even worse for Obama's projections.  Since instead of 100 per donated 1000 it would be $70.
Making from that 200 million a gain of 14 billion.  Combining for a grand total of 15.5 Billion.  If all money was given by the top bracket.
I mean... I don't see where Obama is getting his numbers here if he expects a mere 2% drop.  Unless you can see a flaw in my math.
Either he's really massaging the numbers, or he expects it to really drop chartiable giving.  As he says he expects just that provision will create 179.8 billion over 10 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/charity-tax-challenged-by-political-friends/

First problem:  in 2011 the top bracket will be 39.6% by the time this would go into place, so:
-- it's (39.6%-28%=11.6%) $116 of $1000.  (Starting in 2011)
-- 4 x .396 = 1.584
-- 18 - 1.584 = 16.416 (although obviously not all charitable giving comes out of the top bracket)
Second problem:  If 2.1% of X is $4b, then X is ~ $190b, not 200. 
-- 190 * .116 = 22.04 (same disclaimer)

So if all the charitable givers were in the top bracket it looks to me like revenue would be (22.04+1.584) $23.624 billion starting in 2011 (31% more than $18b).  I presume this would not be in effect for this year, so there would only be one year of the 15.5 billion. 
So it still seems like either
A) The rich give a disproportionate amount of money to charity... even lots more then busisnesses?
or
B)  His numbers just aren't adding up.

Well, I'm sure they do give disproportionately, because, well, they have a lot of money to throw around, and someone like Bill Gates can probably skew the numbers singlehandedly. 

But using the top-bracket assumption we're like 30% over the bar.  Do you really know how a more realistic spread would fit the numbers?  Please do share. 

Not really... i'd think by taking the percentage we know each tax bracket donates and divide it by what percentage of the national income they make per year.

But i have no data for people who make over 5 million plus said data is based on IRS numbers vs survey data.

Suvery data actually being more reliable since a lot of people don't put down their charity giving as deductables and some people don't even have taxes that they can deduct said givings out of.

Still everyones relative charity burden could be somewhat figured out this way though it would once again be givign a benifit to the doubt towards the Obama position.  Little too tired to do the math right now.

Basically would involve this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

and this

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2007-11-26-holiday-charity_N.htm



BTFeather55 on 14 March 2009
mrstickball said:
BTFeather55 said:

     You must not have read the first part of A Christmas Carol because Scrooge only donated anything to the poor after he was visited by a few ghosts one night.  I didn't ignore the body of your message.  You said that the rich were going to stop donating to charity because they would have to pay 10% of that money to taxes.  If 10% going to taxes (which will further benefit the poor under Obama's plan) cuts down on the rich's donating to charity, then that just goes to show that they are not very charitable as you always try to say that they are.  I mean WWJD?  It's funny how you get p*ssed if someone ignores what you say when when everytime calls you on the bs you're spouting, you go on to say that person's comments were useless.

 

Jesus would place a high premium on giving to the poor as a civil act, and not a governmental one. Jesus never once stated that it was anyone else's responsibility to help the poor other than your own.

Also:

     I would if I was making over $250,000.00 a year.  As it is, I stand to benefit from Obama's social programs.  When I was working at a fast food restaurant and paying for company health insurance that wouldn't come anywhere near paying for blood work, a catscan, and a colonoscopy, I really could have used some subsidized government healthcare.  Mccain's plan was going to provide for a $2,000.00 tax credit for health insurance, but would that really have covered anything serious?  And, it is difficult to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, drive eighty miles to work each day, for just eight dollars a day, then buy healthcare, videogames, take a hot chick to a movie.  If the government wants to help me out with all that I'm fine with it.  Bush sure didn't seem like he was very interested in doing so.

First off, your making a very stupid decision to drive 80 miles to work, and especially at $4.00 a gallon. Move closer to work, or find another job. Furthermore, taking a hot chick to a movie and buying video games are entirely luxury purchases, and are not needed to maintain life. Complain however you want, but we can't help it if you make poor decisions on work, and how you spend your discretionary income.

     Yeah, but according to you, the rich won't help the poor if they have to pay 10% of that amount in taxes.  Also, to be the people that traditionally try to throw Jesus' weight around, at the heart of the matter it appears that conservative / republicans only follow Jesus' teachings when it fits their purposes.

     I live in a county with a population of less than 10,000 people where the county seat of that county has a population of less than 1,000 people.  And there are no jobs in this county unless you are a farmer or in education.  The stores around here seem to only hire people that are in highschool or just out of highschool.  And there is only one factory.  Furthermore the people of this county voted to not have an interstate connection to I-75 hooked up here way back in the 1930s, and I live in the middle of the county, so it is about 40 miles in any direction from jobs or services of any kind.  But this is where my parents moved after my father graduated from law school because his uncle was a political bigwig in a neighboring county and you don't have to pay back as much of your educational loans here to professional schools like the law school or local medical school if you move to one of the rural areas to work.

     Then, after my parents were married for thirty years, they got divorced and my dad married two more times before he died leaving his third wife of a couple of years all of his money while I didn't receive anything.  Anyway, I don't own a car right now, so I'm kind of stuck here.  And, in the neighboring counties, a couple of college communities, they like to keep people from here from moving there, so they have jacked up the rent in those counties to well over $400.00 a month on even the smallest one bedroom apartment, so it is hard to work there for minimum wage and be able to buy decent food to survive on as well.

     You might view such purchases as luxury goods that aren't needed to maintain life; however, if you can't take a lady out on a date, that definitely puts a damper on your ability to propagate life.  And how is a person going to advance their aesthetic or educational sensibilities if they can't afford dvds, cds, books, games, or movie tickets?

 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

mrstickball on 14 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
mrstickball said:
BTFeather55 said:

     You must not have read the first part of A Christmas Carol because Scrooge only donated anything to the poor after he was visited by a few ghosts one night.  I didn't ignore the body of your message.  You said that the rich were going to stop donating to charity because they would have to pay 10% of that money to taxes.  If 10% going to taxes (which will further benefit the poor under Obama's plan) cuts down on the rich's donating to charity, then that just goes to show that they are not very charitable as you always try to say that they are.  I mean WWJD?  It's funny how you get p*ssed if someone ignores what you say when when everytime calls you on the bs you're spouting, you go on to say that person's comments were useless.

 

Jesus would place a high premium on giving to the poor as a civil act, and not a governmental one. Jesus never once stated that it was anyone else's responsibility to help the poor other than your own.

Also:

     I would if I was making over $250,000.00 a year.  As it is, I stand to benefit from Obama's social programs.  When I was working at a fast food restaurant and paying for company health insurance that wouldn't come anywhere near paying for blood work, a catscan, and a colonoscopy, I really could have used some subsidized government healthcare.  Mccain's plan was going to provide for a $2,000.00 tax credit for health insurance, but would that really have covered anything serious?  And, it is difficult to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, drive eighty miles to work each day, for just eight dollars a day, then buy healthcare, videogames, take a hot chick to a movie.  If the government wants to help me out with all that I'm fine with it.  Bush sure didn't seem like he was very interested in doing so.

First off, your making a very stupid decision to drive 80 miles to work, and especially at $4.00 a gallon. Move closer to work, or find another job. Furthermore, taking a hot chick to a movie and buying video games are entirely luxury purchases, and are not needed to maintain life. Complain however you want, but we can't help it if you make poor decisions on work, and how you spend your discretionary income.

     Yeah, but according to you, the rich won't help the poor if they have to pay 10% of that amount in taxes.  Also, to be the people that traditionally try to throw Jesus' weight around, at the heart of the matter it appears that conservative / republicans only follow Jesus' teachings when it fits their purposes.

     I live in a county with a population of less than 10,000 people where the county seat of that county has a population of less than 1,000 people.  And there are no jobs in this county unless you are a farmer or in education.  The stores around here seem to only hire people that are in highschool or just out of highschool.  And there is only one factory.  Furthermore the people of this county voted to not have an interstate connection to I-75 hooked up here way back in the 1930s, and I live in the middle of the county, so it is about 40 miles in any direction from jobs or services of any kind.  But this is where my parents moved after my father graduated from law school because his uncle was a political bigwig in a neighboring county and you don't have to pay back as much of your educational loans here to professional schools like the law school or local medical school if you move to one of the rural areas to work.

     Then, after my parents were married for thirty years, they got divorced and my dad married two more times before he died leaving his third wife of a couple of years all of his money while I didn't receive anything.  Anyway, I don't own a car right now, so I'm kind of stuck here.  And, in the neighboring counties, a couple of college communities, they like to keep people from here from moving there, so they have jacked up the rent in those counties to well over $400.00 a month on even the smallest one bedroom apartment, so it is hard to work there for minimum wage and be able to buy decent food to survive on as well.

     You might view such purchases as luxury goods that aren't needed to maintain life; however, if you can't take a lady out on a date, that definitely puts a damper on your ability to propagate life.  And how is a person going to advance their aesthetic or educational sensibilities if they can't afford dvds, cds, books, games, or movie tickets?

 

1) Where in this entire thread have I even talked about rich people giving less due to the change in tax structure for charitable giving? I never got involved in that debate. Don't say I said something, when I didn't.

2) Taking a lady on a date can be a lot cheaper than you think. Instead of paying $20 to go to the movies, why not go to a park? Instead of taking her out to eat for another $20-40, why not cook her food and spend far less? Besides, she'll think your far more romantic if you make her something than pay some schmoe to make it instead. And how the heck do you advance educational sensibilities with DVDs, CDs, Games or movies? Those are some of the most 1-dimensional products out there. You aren't going to learn a whole lot from those things. Don't act like you 'need' them. You do not. I'm not saying those products are 'bad', but if you are struggling to make ends meet, they are the last thing you need to buy. Just go to your local library and rent DVDs/CDs, and find internet games that are free. Watch movies on hulu.com. That way you save a lot of cash.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

BTFeather55 on 14 March 2009
mrstickball said:
BTFeather55 said:
mrstickball said:
BTFeather55 said:

     You must not have read the first part of A Christmas Carol because Scrooge only donated anything to the poor after he was visited by a few ghosts one night.  I didn't ignore the body of your message.  You said that the rich were going to stop donating to charity because they would have to pay 10% of that money to taxes.  If 10% going to taxes (which will further benefit the poor under Obama's plan) cuts down on the rich's donating to charity, then that just goes to show that they are not very charitable as you always try to say that they are.  I mean WWJD?  It's funny how you get p*ssed if someone ignores what you say when when everytime calls you on the bs you're spouting, you go on to say that person's comments were useless.

 

Jesus would place a high premium on giving to the poor as a civil act, and not a governmental one. Jesus never once stated that it was anyone else's responsibility to help the poor other than your own.

Also:

     I would if I was making over $250,000.00 a year.  As it is, I stand to benefit from Obama's social programs.  When I was working at a fast food restaurant and paying for company health insurance that wouldn't come anywhere near paying for blood work, a catscan, and a colonoscopy, I really could have used some subsidized government healthcare.  Mccain's plan was going to provide for a $2,000.00 tax credit for health insurance, but would that really have covered anything serious?  And, it is difficult to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, drive eighty miles to work each day, for just eight dollars a day, then buy healthcare, videogames, take a hot chick to a movie.  If the government wants to help me out with all that I'm fine with it.  Bush sure didn't seem like he was very interested in doing so.

First off, your making a very stupid decision to drive 80 miles to work, and especially at $4.00 a gallon. Move closer to work, or find another job. Furthermore, taking a hot chick to a movie and buying video games are entirely luxury purchases, and are not needed to maintain life. Complain however you want, but we can't help it if you make poor decisions on work, and how you spend your discretionary income.

     Yeah, but according to you, the rich won't help the poor if they have to pay 10% of that amount in taxes.  Also, to be the people that traditionally try to throw Jesus' weight around, at the heart of the matter it appears that conservative / republicans only follow Jesus' teachings when it fits their purposes.

     I live in a county with a population of less than 10,000 people where the county seat of that county has a population of less than 1,000 people.  And there are no jobs in this county unless you are a farmer or in education.  The stores around here seem to only hire people that are in highschool or just out of highschool.  And there is only one factory.  Furthermore the people of this county voted to not have an interstate connection to I-75 hooked up here way back in the 1930s, and I live in the middle of the county, so it is about 40 miles in any direction from jobs or services of any kind.  But this is where my parents moved after my father graduated from law school because his uncle was a political bigwig in a neighboring county and you don't have to pay back as much of your educational loans here to professional schools like the law school or local medical school if you move to one of the rural areas to work.

     Then, after my parents were married for thirty years, they got divorced and my dad married two more times before he died leaving his third wife of a couple of years all of his money while I didn't receive anything.  Anyway, I don't own a car right now, so I'm kind of stuck here.  And, in the neighboring counties, a couple of college communities, they like to keep people from here from moving there, so they have jacked up the rent in those counties to well over $400.00 a month on even the smallest one bedroom apartment, so it is hard to work there for minimum wage and be able to buy decent food to survive on as well.

     You might view such purchases as luxury goods that aren't needed to maintain life; however, if you can't take a lady out on a date, that definitely puts a damper on your ability to propagate life.  And how is a person going to advance their aesthetic or educational sensibilities if they can't afford dvds, cds, books, games, or movie tickets?

 

1) Where in this entire thread have I even talked about rich people giving less due to the change in tax structure for charitable giving? I never got involved in that debate. Don't say I said something, when I didn't.

2) Taking a lady on a date can be a lot cheaper than you think. Instead of paying $20 to go to the movies, why not go to a park? Instead of taking her out to eat for another $20-40, why not cook her food and spend far less? Besides, she'll think your far more romantic if you make her something than pay some schmoe to make it instead. And how the heck do you advance educational sensibilities with DVDs, CDs, Games or movies? Those are some of the most 1-dimensional products out there. You aren't going to learn a whole lot from those things. Don't act like you 'need' them. You do not. I'm not saying those products are 'bad', but if you are struggling to make ends meet, they are the last thing you need to buy. Just go to your local library and rent DVDs/CDs, and find internet games that are free. Watch movies on hulu.com. That way you save a lot of cash.

 


Oh, on the charitable giving thing, I thought you were Kazs615. There isn't a park or library around here worthy of the name imo.

Heavens to Murgatoids.