I'd be all for that. Would you? Even today, the top 1% pays for over 1/3 of all federal income taxes. If we raised the rate on them instead of lowering it as Bush has done then I think we could do it!
I wasn't trying to - that one just stood out to me as interesting. Unbecoming? After all these months of hitting on you now you call me unbecoming?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forget BRussell, I'm not ultra-conservative regardless of what others here my think or portray.
I wouldn' raise the rate on the top 1% and I will tell you why. As we have seen it makes the incoming monies a little too volatile. I mean you have the economy go from 4 percent growth to like 1.5-2.0 and suddenly we go from 300 billion surplus to a 200 billion deficit. (I know a percentage of that is the cuts, but it isn't enough to count for even half of the 500 billion swing)
However you might remember that I am not a free-trader at all. I would be more than happy to tax and tariff a ton of stuff coming into the U.S.
It sounds like the perfect strategy for me. I mean the people in other countries can't even vote in the U.S. (well except for Mexico) so it doesn't hurt your chances for re-election. It helps you with the unions and common working man (or woman) and finally it gives you more sources of income so it doesn't vary so much.
I mean if you want to participate in the greatest economy in the world, you should pay the price of admission in my book.
Hope that satisfies...and as for hitting on me, not until after the second drink, and of course you are buying. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I actually thought of starting a Powerball thread a few moments ago when lo and behold, I've been posting in one the whole time!
Can you believe that rich West Virginian won? He said he'd expand his business which looks pretty good for the employees he laid had to lay off before. I'm a sucker for rags-to-riches lottery stories though.
I have to say SPJ has you on this one. The drug companines have really jacked up the prices on things in the past 5 years or so.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a lot of countries where the government sets drug prices. Not coincidentally it isn't in those countries where the vast majority of new drug therapies are developed.
The point was that my family obviously pays all those bills you still talk about, and guess what? We're liberal. I can't say that experience has magically transformed them from young, idealistic, inexperienced liberals to wise, experienced, "in the know" conservatives. The times may have changed since this is not the 60's and we're still hungover from the 80's- two polar extremes of ideology, but they're still as active as ever as Democrats. Perhaps even more liberal. Who knows. They obviously weren't out getting stoned when they were in college to get where my family is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually Shawn, based off of what you have told us I don't know if I would actually cite your family as an example of fiscal excellence.
You said they are a public school teacher and college professor. I would guess-timate their income at between $125-155k a year.
I mean to make that much and only have one asset to show for it (The house) really isn't saying much with regard to their ability to manage money and assets. The house might be worth 400k but what do they owe on it? The Volvo's might be nice, but what about the payments? (Cars depreciate pretty rapidly you know)
I don't say this out of malace Shawn. The ability to earn money and even to pay on a few things isn't a sign of financial intelligence. It doesn't show your net-worth. It doesn't show what you have toward retirement.(and if it is a 401k if it is growing or shrinking)
The point might not just be what do they own and make. The point really is what do they get to keep and why.
You should also consider whether they are so liberal when filing their tax returns since their income would likely have them paying about $30,000 a year in taxes.
If they gladly pay this then fine. (Though not too smart in my opinion) If they aggressively seek not to pay this, then they are being hypocritical because hey that is just the government's fair share.
That is why I asked you this...
[quote]I will propose a little challenge for you though Shawn. Let's simply move you a few years down the road in our imaginations if you want. Let's graduate you from law school, marry you to that expensive to maintain Asian girlfriend (remember your characterization, not mine) take what you think you will make and buy and see what you have left over.
In the end you simply tell us if it enough and what sort of tax increases you would support. <hr></blockquote>
I have no doubt that you will try very hard to go to a top tier school run up about 100k of loans (you have already mentioned it) and then try to get a big city law firm where you would start at about 80-100k a year. You can earn big and spend big. But what do you keep?
The reason so many of the seniors you mentioned start worrying is because now they are on a fixed income and they likely didn't keep enough. This is why they are hoping the government will come through for them because the pension (if they have one), social security, and whatever assets they have (maybe a paid off house and car) just aren't going to cut it.
Do you realize that when you start paying on your student loans the payment will be about $1250 a month to only pay them off in 10 YEARS.
Now let's say you START at 100k a year. I consider this very generous. It assumes you a bright young man who graduated from a top tier school and got in at the right law firm in a big city.
Your taxes, right off the bat are going to be about $20,000(assuming you are a bit aggressive with your deductions). Add in another $7500 for your contribution toward Social Security.
Now add in 15,000 a year just in student loan payments.
You are already down to $57,500. You don't even have a house, car or clothes yet.
Now out of that $57,500, you have to figure out how much you are going to put into your 401k. Your company matches it dollar for dollar so you have a great benefit.(You get an instant 100% return) You decide to contribute close to the maximum. So you put in 10k. Now you are down to $47,500.
Next up... the big house. I mean the expensive to maintain girlfri... I mean wife wants the best. She is use to hanging out in the best neighborhoods and riding in the best cars. I mean she wants the cars and the house. So you buy a nice $400,000 house. They payment with PMI (you don't have 20% down do you) is only about $3100 a month at 7% interest. (This is a very kind figure)
That's...$37,200 a year. (PITI and PMI)
So now you are down to...$10,300.
Were you going to buy a new car? (and insurance)
Hmmm.....do you think the wife will drive a used car? I mean two new cars would be awful hard to swing. How did you pay for the engagement ring? I hope that isn't on payments.
The new house of course needs new furniture. It also needs some remodeling. Did I mention that since you have a new job you need a new wardrobe to go with it? Of course it can't be shabby. Shabby people don't make partner bucko.
Of course you could just send the wife off to work. What about when you have kids though? I mean are you going to trust someone who makes $7 an hour with Shawn Jr.? Of course there are also all those other dregs who don't make 100k a year. Look at how their kids behave because their parents are both off working all through their preschool years. Besides they don't care about the quality of the day care because they don't even pay for it. They don't make enough and are subsidized... by you of course.
I already knocked 10k off your taxes for mortgage interest, loan payments, things like that. You should owe about 30k.
Car time... how about the Volvo C70 convertable. You totally deserve it dude. I mean you graduated law school. You got the house, the job, the wife, you totally need to complete the package.
Only $8,148 leased (not owned) with insurance. I know you would totally buy it, but little things like food are important. Wifey, well she's driving used buddy. Your outta cash.
$10,300 minus $8148. That is $2,152.. pays for food, nights out (gotta keep that romance up buddy), credit cards, house stuff, etc.
BTW did I mention that there is talk in Congress of raising the top rate from 30% you currently pay to 33%? Seems that they want universal preschool and this would be a nice downpayment on it.
Good luck, :eek: :eek:
Nick
P.S. Yes I have no f*cking life.. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
There are a lot of countries where the government sets drug prices. Not coincidentally it isn't in those countries where the vast majority of new drug therapies are developed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I know. There's got to be a healthy (no pun intended) balance though, and complete free market isn't it. Patents allow for price gauging and interefere with competition. The price of widgets can fluctuate and move based on a whim, but I think medicine is more important than widgets.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You should get one because what I am about to say will "piss the hell out of you" as they say. Your efforts are in vain because I don't care what I'll have to pay. I just don't view taxes in the negative, conservative kind of way. I'm more European in that regard. Whether or not that will change remains to be seen. Although I am entering a fairly liberal profession so its likelihood of changing is slim.
And you're right, my parents are fiscal failures. That's what I always tell them when they say NO to my new BMW requests... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Geez, I leave for one night, and this darn topic goes to 2 pages??? Should have known it all came from a downward spiral into political parties. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Honestly, I was just pissed that winning 280 mil could go to 90-something in an eyeblink. Nowhere had I expected people would take a Republican vs. Democrat spin on it.
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>But it's the truth. Trumpt, Pscates, Murbot, Randycat all slander what it means to be a Democrat.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real smooth, slick- I'm slandering what it means to be a Democrat now? I don't have any party denomination, AT ALL. I don't bother with any sort of politics. Look at my post history if you have to- you won't find me at all in any political parties topics. I'm just the average Joe who wonders how 280 mil can turn into 94 mil- that's all. You have it all figured out though, right- that's how you can casually lump us all into a group you can easily demonize.
<strong>Because it's a favorite Democrat tactic to scare them into thinking that Republicans want to take away their Social Security. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>Why is it "scaring" them? Are Republicans using scare tactics when they say Democrats are going to raise taxes, or take away their guns, etc. etc.? I think the implication is that old people are dumb and gullible and susceptible to scare tactics. That's bad enough in itself, but it also implies there is no substance to what Democrats say about the issue. But there is substance to it.
What did Democrats say in 2000? Gore said that Bush's plans would create problems for Social Security. Bush accused Gore of using fuzzy math, and promised that he would not need the social security surplus to balance the budget. But that's exactly what has happened. (Now Bush lies again and says during the campaign he laid out conditions under which a deficit would be acceptable, which he never did.)
Bush also proposed partially privatizing social security (after the tax cut and the recession and the wars this does seem to have gone away now), which DOES in fact pose difficulties for current retirees because the money for privatization has to come from somewhere.
The fact is there ARE differences between Republicans' and Democrats' views of Social Security.
There's no casual grouping or demonization. I was just wrong to include you with the others, all of whom except you explicitly agree with Pscates. But you do defend them when you talk about "us." So that includes you. Unless you just meant that you're not a part, so they must not be either.
The point was that my family obviously pays all those bills you still talk about, and guess what? We're liberal. I can't say that experience has magically transformed them from young, idealistic, inexperienced liberals to wise, experienced, "in the know" conservatives. The times may have changed since this is not the 60's and we're still hungover from the 80's- two polar extremes of ideology, but they're still as active as ever as Democrats. Perhaps even more liberal. Who knows. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then they are the ones with the point of reference for "real life" who have remained liberal, and NOT you. So put the keyboard in your parent's hands, and let them explain their disagreement with pscates' post.
At the very least, I am sure they could disagree more reasonably and politely than your posts in this thread have been so far.
<strong> [quote]They obviously weren't out getting stoned when they were in college to get where my family is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as your inference that your parents are more successful than I am because of what I did and they didn't while in college, well...
while I own a modest little condo, both my parents and my younger sister own houses and cars worth more than what your parents do (and in an area of the country with less inflated real estate values than yours, also).
I don't think my parents smoked anything in college in the 1950's (or even knew anyone who did), but they knew how to get drunk at frat parties. However both my younger sister and brother in law DID (and not because I "corrupted" them either!), and today they own and run a $5 million per year business. My business is more modest, only doing about $1.5 million a year.... and I am on the founding Board of Directors of a nonprofit organization similar in mission to Habitat for Humanity, so don't try to go painting me as some selfish, right-wing, card-carrying John Bircher, just because I agree more with pscates than with you.
<strong>I actually thought of starting a Powerball thread a few moments ago when lo and behold, I've been posting in one the whole time!
Can you believe that rich West Virginian won? He said he'd expand his business which looks pretty good for the employees he laid had to lay off before. I'm a sucker for rags-to-riches lottery stories though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yep, I know exactly what you mean, I was talking with my sister and brother in law about this very thing tonight.
Also, a few weeks ago in Florida, they had the 3rd highest Lottery jackpot in history, and one of the winners was a business owner that lived on Marco Island (think Cape Cod or Hamptons south).
<strong> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You should get one because what I am about to say will "piss the hell out of you" as they say. Your efforts are in vain because I don't care what I'll have to pay. I just don't view taxes in the negative, conservative kind of way. I'm more European in that regard. Whether or not that will change remains to be seen. Although I am entering a fairly liberal profession so its likelihood of changing is slim.
And you're right, my parents are fiscal failures. That's what I always tell them when they say NO to my new BMW requests... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I assure you that if I had a temper, that still wouldn't raise it. In case you hadn't noticed, I type about 80 wpm. So that post was about a 10 minute affair for me. However there are probably better ways to spend my time.
We will see Shawn. When you have to look the wife in the eye and tell her that you can't get the house that she wants, or that she is driving used instead of new, or that she should consider part time work so that you can afford the things you desire because your largest expense outside your mortgage is taxes, we will see if you are inclined to be so happy about it.
Money isn't everything. It isn't even close. However someday when you are sitting on the expressway, wishing you were at home with the kids and wife, you will realize that the time you have spend away from them would be so much less if the government didn't need 25-37% of your income. This of course could go up to 45% of your income after you include sales tax, state tax, gas tax, utility taxes, etc.
You have all the time in the world right now so enjoy it. But when you have to choose between a case that might get you the raise you need to afford what you want AFTER taxes, or the kids soccer practice, we will see if you don't become a little more conservative then.
When you watch you others get a benefit ahead of your family and at no cost while you spent time AWAY from them to give them what was needed, we will see.
See Shawn, someday, there won't be all the time in the world. You will miss time that you can never get back (not for all the money in the world) because you will be working not only for your family, but for the government. You can explain to your family why they might do with fewer things,less money but more of you.
How is that any different than the other times I've told you no? Really. It's like you think by the power of repetition I will break under the sheer prolificness of "80 wpm" and a Republican outlook.
Like I said. My family managed. And I am perfectly justified to use them as an example, Former Lurker.
Like I said. My family managed. And I am perfectly justified to use them as an example, Former Lurker.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's take a closer look at a few things that apply to your particular situation and argument:
[quote] From pscates' original post that "made you glow red with anger (is that why they are called 'flames'?)" <strong>
You're surrounded by nothing but like-minded people and tweedy, left-leaning teachers and professors spouting stuff (and inserting their little commentary during class on events of the day). Nobody wants to appear "against the grain", or, worse, "conservative" or right-of-center.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
Now WHAT was your parents' profession again?
Oh yeah and your other parent teaches public school.... a member of the teacher's union, perhaps? When do you suppose was the last time that the NEA endorsed a conservative politician running against a liberal??
Now, don't get me wrong here... I have the utmost respect for teachers and professors, several of them have had a great impact on my life, and I even have a few friends who teach (why, some of my best friends are teachers ) . Not to mention, I am a professional computer guru, and do lots of teaching/tutoring myself.
All I am saying is, using your parents as (anectodal) "proof" that young liberals stay liberal even as they age, have kids, make money, & pay taxes, mortgages, car payments, etc. etc., is a fallacious argument.
You're right. That's why I would never generalize that all young liberals stay liberal.
In fact, to add to that, if you're of the middle class, then voting democratic actually makes things easier on your economic hardships. After all, the President's tax cut package doesn't benefit the middle class nearly as well as it benefits those higher ups who don't need as much help. In fact, that's a perfect strategy to make middle class voters hate the government and taxes even more! The simple fact is that the party of the middle class is the Democrats. If you think overwise, then tell your leader to redirect the brunt of the tax cut package to those that need it- the middle class.
Nor would I (or pscates or any of us old codgers agreeing with him) ever generalize that ALL young liberals turn conservative, just that the majority of them will become more.... shall we say... pragmatic? realistic? opposed to higher taxes?
I have to say SPJ has you on this one. The drug companines have really jacked up the prices on things in the past 5 years or so.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The absolute worst thing the federal government has done in terms of jacking up prices on prescription drugs was to allow drug companies the right to advertise their products on tv, magazines, etc. Now we have to pay marketing costs, which are astronomical. You're going to a doctor to get a prescription. YOU don't need to be informed in Newsweek what the doctor should be informed as his job. Really. There's no benefit to us here.
Cool, Former Lurker. And I too must say that the trend definitely exists that people become more conservative as they age, but I entirely disagree with the reasons set forth.
Comments
<strong>
I'd be all for that. Would you? Even today, the top 1% pays for over 1/3 of all federal income taxes. If we raised the rate on them instead of lowering it as Bush has done then I think we could do it!
I wasn't trying to - that one just stood out to me as interesting. Unbecoming? After all these months of hitting on you now you call me unbecoming?
You forget BRussell, I'm not ultra-conservative regardless of what others here my think or portray.
I wouldn' raise the rate on the top 1% and I will tell you why. As we have seen it makes the incoming monies a little too volatile. I mean you have the economy go from 4 percent growth to like 1.5-2.0 and suddenly we go from 300 billion surplus to a 200 billion deficit. (I know a percentage of that is the cuts, but it isn't enough to count for even half of the 500 billion swing)
However you might remember that I am not a free-trader at all. I would be more than happy to tax and tariff a ton of stuff coming into the U.S.
It sounds like the perfect strategy for me. I mean the people in other countries can't even vote in the U.S. (well except for Mexico) so it doesn't hurt your chances for re-election. It helps you with the unions and common working man (or woman) and finally it gives you more sources of income so it doesn't vary so much.
I mean if you want to participate in the greatest economy in the world, you should pay the price of admission in my book.
Hope that satisfies...and as for hitting on me, not until after the second drink, and of course you are buying. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nick
[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
Can you believe that rich West Virginian won? He said he'd expand his business which looks pretty good for the employees he laid had to lay off before. I'm a sucker for rags-to-riches lottery stories though.
<strong>
I suppose you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to say SPJ has you on this one. The drug companines have really jacked up the prices on things in the past 5 years or so.
But...your location is the bomb. (For future reference, assuming it changes at some point in time, he's Lost in the Supermarket)
<strong>
I have to say SPJ has you on this one. The drug companines have really jacked up the prices on things in the past 5 years or so.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a lot of countries where the government sets drug prices. Not coincidentally it isn't in those countries where the vast majority of new drug therapies are developed.
<strong>
The point was that my family obviously pays all those bills you still talk about, and guess what? We're liberal. I can't say that experience has magically transformed them from young, idealistic, inexperienced liberals to wise, experienced, "in the know" conservatives. The times may have changed since this is not the 60's and we're still hungover from the 80's- two polar extremes of ideology, but they're still as active as ever as Democrats. Perhaps even more liberal. Who knows. They obviously weren't out getting stoned when they were in college to get where my family is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually Shawn, based off of what you have told us I don't know if I would actually cite your family as an example of fiscal excellence.
You said they are a public school teacher and college professor. I would guess-timate their income at between $125-155k a year.
I mean to make that much and only have one asset to show for it (The house) really isn't saying much with regard to their ability to manage money and assets. The house might be worth 400k but what do they owe on it? The Volvo's might be nice, but what about the payments? (Cars depreciate pretty rapidly you know)
I don't say this out of malace Shawn. The ability to earn money and even to pay on a few things isn't a sign of financial intelligence. It doesn't show your net-worth. It doesn't show what you have toward retirement.(and if it is a 401k if it is growing or shrinking)
The point might not just be what do they own and make. The point really is what do they get to keep and why.
You should also consider whether they are so liberal when filing their tax returns since their income would likely have them paying about $30,000 a year in taxes.
If they gladly pay this then fine. (Though not too smart in my opinion) If they aggressively seek not to pay this, then they are being hypocritical because hey that is just the government's fair share.
That is why I asked you this...
[quote]I will propose a little challenge for you though Shawn. Let's simply move you a few years down the road in our imaginations if you want. Let's graduate you from law school, marry you to that expensive to maintain Asian girlfriend (remember your characterization, not mine) take what you think you will make and buy and see what you have left over.
In the end you simply tell us if it enough and what sort of tax increases you would support. <hr></blockquote>
I have no doubt that you will try very hard to go to a top tier school run up about 100k of loans (you have already mentioned it) and then try to get a big city law firm where you would start at about 80-100k a year. You can earn big and spend big. But what do you keep?
The reason so many of the seniors you mentioned start worrying is because now they are on a fixed income and they likely didn't keep enough. This is why they are hoping the government will come through for them because the pension (if they have one), social security, and whatever assets they have (maybe a paid off house and car) just aren't going to cut it.
Do you realize that when you start paying on your student loans the payment will be about $1250 a month to only pay them off in 10 YEARS.
Now let's say you START at 100k a year. I consider this very generous. It assumes you a bright young man who graduated from a top tier school and got in at the right law firm in a big city.
Your taxes, right off the bat are going to be about $20,000(assuming you are a bit aggressive with your deductions). Add in another $7500 for your contribution toward Social Security.
Now add in 15,000 a year just in student loan payments.
You are already down to $57,500. You don't even have a house, car or clothes yet.
Now out of that $57,500, you have to figure out how much you are going to put into your 401k. Your company matches it dollar for dollar so you have a great benefit.(You get an instant 100% return) You decide to contribute close to the maximum. So you put in 10k. Now you are down to $47,500.
Next up... the big house. I mean the expensive to maintain girlfri... I mean wife wants the best. She is use to hanging out in the best neighborhoods and riding in the best cars. I mean she wants the cars and the house. So you buy a nice $400,000 house. They payment with PMI (you don't have 20% down do you) is only about $3100 a month at 7% interest. (This is a very kind figure)
That's...$37,200 a year. (PITI and PMI)
So now you are down to...$10,300.
Were you going to buy a new car? (and insurance)
Hmmm.....do you think the wife will drive a used car? I mean two new cars would be awful hard to swing. How did you pay for the engagement ring? I hope that isn't on payments.
The new house of course needs new furniture. It also needs some remodeling. Did I mention that since you have a new job you need a new wardrobe to go with it? Of course it can't be shabby. Shabby people don't make partner bucko.
Of course you could just send the wife off to work. What about when you have kids though? I mean are you going to trust someone who makes $7 an hour with Shawn Jr.? Of course there are also all those other dregs who don't make 100k a year. Look at how their kids behave because their parents are both off working all through their preschool years. Besides they don't care about the quality of the day care because they don't even pay for it. They don't make enough and are subsidized... by you of course.
I already knocked 10k off your taxes for mortgage interest, loan payments, things like that. You should owe about 30k.
Car time... how about the Volvo C70 convertable. You totally deserve it dude. I mean you graduated law school. You got the house, the job, the wife, you totally need to complete the package.
Only $8,148 leased (not owned) with insurance. I know you would totally buy it, but little things like food are important. Wifey, well she's driving used buddy. Your outta cash.
$10,300 minus $8148. That is $2,152.. pays for food, nights out (gotta keep that romance up buddy), credit cards, house stuff, etc.
BTW did I mention that there is talk in Congress of raising the top rate from 30% you currently pay to 33%? Seems that they want universal preschool and this would be a nice downpayment on it.
Good luck, :eek: :eek:
Nick
P.S. Yes I have no f*cking life.. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
There are a lot of countries where the government sets drug prices. Not coincidentally it isn't in those countries where the vast majority of new drug therapies are developed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I know. There's got to be a healthy (no pun intended) balance though, and complete free market isn't it. Patents allow for price gauging and interefere with competition. The price of widgets can fluctuate and move based on a whim, but I think medicine is more important than widgets.
And you're right, my parents are fiscal failures. That's what I always tell them when they say NO to my new BMW requests... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>But it's the truth. Trumpt, Pscates, Murbot, Randycat all slander what it means to be a Democrat.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real smooth, slick- I'm slandering what it means to be a Democrat now? I don't have any party denomination, AT ALL. I don't bother with any sort of politics. Look at my post history if you have to- you won't find me at all in any political parties topics. I'm just the average Joe who wonders how 280 mil can turn into 94 mil- that's all. You have it all figured out though, right- that's how you can casually lump us all into a group you can easily demonize.
[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>Because it's a favorite Democrat tactic to scare them into thinking that Republicans want to take away their Social Security. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>Why is it "scaring" them? Are Republicans using scare tactics when they say Democrats are going to raise taxes, or take away their guns, etc. etc.? I think the implication is that old people are dumb and gullible and susceptible to scare tactics. That's bad enough in itself, but it also implies there is no substance to what Democrats say about the issue. But there is substance to it.
What did Democrats say in 2000? Gore said that Bush's plans would create problems for Social Security. Bush accused Gore of using fuzzy math, and promised that he would not need the social security surplus to balance the budget. But that's exactly what has happened. (Now Bush lies again and says during the campaign he laid out conditions under which a deficit would be acceptable, which he never did.)
Bush also proposed partially privatizing social security (after the tax cut and the recession and the wars this does seem to have gone away now), which DOES in fact pose difficulties for current retirees because the money for privatization has to come from somewhere.
The fact is there ARE differences between Republicans' and Democrats' views of Social Security.
<strong>
The point was that my family obviously pays all those bills you still talk about, and guess what? We're liberal. I can't say that experience has magically transformed them from young, idealistic, inexperienced liberals to wise, experienced, "in the know" conservatives. The times may have changed since this is not the 60's and we're still hungover from the 80's- two polar extremes of ideology, but they're still as active as ever as Democrats. Perhaps even more liberal. Who knows. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then they are the ones with the point of reference for "real life" who have remained liberal, and NOT you. So put the keyboard in your parent's hands, and let them explain their disagreement with pscates' post.
At the very least, I am sure they could disagree more reasonably and politely than your posts in this thread have been so far.
<strong> [quote]They obviously weren't out getting stoned when they were in college to get where my family is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as your inference that your parents are more successful than I am because of what I did and they didn't while in college, well...
while I own a modest little condo, both my parents and my younger sister own houses and cars worth more than what your parents do (and in an area of the country with less inflated real estate values than yours, also).
I don't think my parents smoked anything in college in the 1950's (or even knew anyone who did), but they knew how to get drunk at frat parties. However both my younger sister and brother in law DID (and not because I "corrupted" them either!), and today they own and run a $5 million per year business. My business is more modest, only doing about $1.5 million a year.... and I am on the founding Board of Directors of a nonprofit organization similar in mission to Habitat for Humanity, so don't try to go painting me as some selfish, right-wing, card-carrying John Bircher, just because I agree more with pscates than with you.
<strong>I actually thought of starting a Powerball thread a few moments ago when lo and behold, I've been posting in one the whole time!
Can you believe that rich West Virginian won? He said he'd expand his business which looks pretty good for the employees he laid had to lay off before. I'm a sucker for rags-to-riches lottery stories though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yep, I know exactly what you mean, I was talking with my sister and brother in law about this very thing tonight.
Also, a few weeks ago in Florida, they had the 3rd highest Lottery jackpot in history, and one of the winners was a business owner that lived on Marco Island (think Cape Cod or Hamptons south).
<strong>
Good luck, :eek: :eek:
Nick
P.S. Yes I have no f*cking life.. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if it make you feel any better, you DO have the second best post I've seen in a while !!!!
<strong> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> You should get one because what I am about to say will "piss the hell out of you" as they say. Your efforts are in vain because I don't care what I'll have to pay. I just don't view taxes in the negative, conservative kind of way. I'm more European in that regard. Whether or not that will change remains to be seen. Although I am entering a fairly liberal profession so its likelihood of changing is slim.
And you're right, my parents are fiscal failures. That's what I always tell them when they say NO to my new BMW requests... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
We will see Shawn. When you have to look the wife in the eye and tell her that you can't get the house that she wants, or that she is driving used instead of new, or that she should consider part time work so that you can afford the things you desire because your largest expense outside your mortgage is taxes, we will see if you are inclined to be so happy about it.
Money isn't everything. It isn't even close. However someday when you are sitting on the expressway, wishing you were at home with the kids and wife, you will realize that the time you have spend away from them would be so much less if the government didn't need 25-37% of your income. This of course could go up to 45% of your income after you include sales tax, state tax, gas tax, utility taxes, etc.
You have all the time in the world right now so enjoy it. But when you have to choose between a case that might get you the raise you need to afford what you want AFTER taxes, or the kids soccer practice, we will see if you don't become a little more conservative then.
When you watch you others get a benefit ahead of your family and at no cost while you spent time AWAY from them to give them what was needed, we will see.
See Shawn, someday, there won't be all the time in the world. You will miss time that you can never get back (not for all the money in the world) because you will be working not only for your family, but for the government. You can explain to your family why they might do with fewer things,less money but more of you.
Too bad the government will never think that way.
Nick
Like I said. My family managed. And I am perfectly justified to use them as an example, Former Lurker.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>
Like I said. My family managed. And I am perfectly justified to use them as an example, Former Lurker.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's take a closer look at a few things that apply to your particular situation and argument:
[quote] From pscates' original post that "made you glow red with anger (is that why they are called 'flames'?)" <strong>
You're surrounded by nothing but like-minded people and tweedy, left-leaning teachers and professors spouting stuff (and inserting their little commentary during class on events of the day). Nobody wants to appear "against the grain", or, worse, "conservative" or right-of-center.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
Now WHAT was your parents' profession again?
Oh yeah and your other parent teaches public school.... a member of the teacher's union, perhaps? When do you suppose was the last time that the NEA endorsed a conservative politician running against a liberal??
Now, don't get me wrong here... I have the utmost respect for teachers and professors, several of them have had a great impact on my life, and I even have a few friends who teach (why, some of my best friends are teachers
All I am saying is, using your parents as (anectodal) "proof" that young liberals stay liberal even as they age, have kids, make money, & pay taxes, mortgages, car payments, etc. etc., is a fallacious argument.
In fact, to add to that, if you're of the middle class, then voting democratic actually makes things easier on your economic hardships. After all, the President's tax cut package doesn't benefit the middle class nearly as well as it benefits those higher ups who don't need as much help. In fact, that's a perfect strategy to make middle class voters hate the government and taxes even more! The simple fact is that the party of the middle class is the Democrats. If you think overwise, then tell your leader to redirect the brunt of the tax cut package to those that need it- the middle class.
Nor would I (or pscates or any of us old codgers agreeing with him) ever generalize that ALL young liberals turn conservative, just that the majority of them will become more.... shall we say... pragmatic? realistic? opposed to higher taxes?
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
<strong>
I have to say SPJ has you on this one. The drug companines have really jacked up the prices on things in the past 5 years or so.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The absolute worst thing the federal government has done in terms of jacking up prices on prescription drugs was to allow drug companies the right to advertise their products on tv, magazines, etc. Now we have to pay marketing costs, which are astronomical. You're going to a doctor to get a prescription. YOU don't need to be informed in Newsweek what the doctor should be informed as his job. Really. There's no benefit to us here.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>