Reply
Thu 29 Jul, 2004 10:55 am
I'm an equal opportunity basher, here's something I have against both parties: When somebody takes money from me and gives it to somebody else, it's called robbery. When the government does it, it's given euphemisms like "Wealth-redistribution" and "Social Security". It's still the same thing, and it's immoral. Just because everybody says it ought to be done doesn't make it moral alluvasudden. The only dif between the two parties is that Dem's like giving to poor people and artists, and Repubs like giving to businesses and 'wealth-creating' entities. It's still wrong. I know best what to do with my money, and I'm more efficient in distributing my wealth than the government.
Anything that just PO's you about both parties? Lemme know.
Re: Equal Opportunity Bashing
music2myear wrote:I'm an equal opportunity basher, here's something I have against both parties: When somebody takes money from me and gives it to somebody else, it's called robbery. When the government does it, it's given euphemisms like "Wealth-redistribution" and "Social Security". It's still the same thing, and it's immoral. Just because everybody says it ought to be done doesn't make it moral alluvasudden. The only dif between the two parties is that Dem's like giving to poor people and artists, and Repubs like giving to businesses and 'wealth-creating' entities. It's still wrong. I know best what to do with my money, and I'm more efficient in distributing my wealth than the government.
Anything that just PO's you about both parties? Lemme know.
Wow, you're on this website... And you said something pertaining to politics that I agree with.... That's ... Strange.
I vote libertarian, but I wish they weren't so extremist.
So what do you want to do? Pay the cops every time you need them? Maybe we could have police and fire insurance instead! Anyone who wanted to utilize these services could just open a policy. Then only the people who can afford it could be protected, Yeah! That's morality! Buy all your books instead of go to the library? Pay for your kid's school, teachers, books, etc by writing a check each semester? Build the roads yourself? Pay for an independant food tester before each meal to make sure your food is safe? Eh, who needs taxes?
I don't like that they're ALL beholden to somebody.
We've got the best government money can buy . . . again and again and again and . . .
I don't like it that both parties are soft on immigration. We need to seal the border a little bit better and get the illegals off of welfare and back home where their own countries can take care of them. If you want a job here then come across legally and let us know your here so that you can get some decent cash for your work. Working under the table not only hurts them but it hurts the US citizens who need jobs as well.
Suzy forget to mention a few of the other things that we pay for.
In Maryland, they built 400,000 dollar townhomes on the water to be used for section 8 housing.
we pay for welfare, some need it, but some are just lazy and milking the system.
basically, lets just look at all the social programs that are used for wealth distribution, instead of needed services that benefit everyone.
I've heard it's about 1% of the budget for welfare. Not much coming out of your pocket.
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:I've heard it's about 1% of the budget for welfare. Not much coming out of your pocket.
It isn't the point of how much it is, it is some people wanting for doing nothing. I'd be willing to bet that if we eliminated welfare, those that are mooching off of the system would have jobs very quickly. I know there are those that are in need for real but I also know that those people are few and far between. There is no need to be on welfare for over 5 years, the programs that are offered to help should take care of that.
Baldimo
I dont know where you live but I live in the midwest. In the area in which I live 10,500 manufacturing jobs have been lost in a peroid of 15 years. The city in which these factories were located has gone from a population of 50,000 to about 25,000. The only new jobs in this area is a gambling boat and Walmart and a multitude of burger joints. About 1600 part time jobs with no insurance and low pay. The kind of jobs Bush now classifies as manufacturing. Afterall they are manufacturing burgers. The lazy no good family workers in this area usually have both wife and husband working 25 hours at 2 jobs each to make enough money to pay some slum lords exorbantent rent for a rat infested house and feed thier kids. This is Bushes wonderful trickle down economy that you seem to think is so great. This describes most of the welfare mouches that live in my area.
Maybe if we eliminate the corporate welfare, the cheaters who support Bush might become efficient business managers, instead of hogs slopping at the public troth.
Setanta wrote:Maybe if we eliminate the corporate welfare, the cheaters who support Bush might become efficient business managers, instead of hogs slopping at the public troth.
Describe corporate welfare.
Give some solid examples of what constitutes corporate welfare.
Why? never heard of it before?
How about the saving and loan bailout during daddy Bushes reign. It cost the taxpayers about 300 billion bucks.
The savings and loan bailout was not corporate welfare, it was outright theft from the American People.
and your estimate of 300 billion is actually going to end up closer to over 1 trillion by the time all the numbers come in on this.
The bailout was a one time theft.
Corporate welfare would be something that is givin to business through government incentives on an ongoing basis.
What incentives are we refering to as corporate welfare?
are we talking about taxes?
Are we talking about easing of land use restrictions?
Im curious, what are you thinking goes on that should not?
Business uses the services of our army, police, roads, highways, firedepartments, ect. But all they have to do to keep from paying taxes is move thier corporate headquarters to some island. Our government gives them tax incentives to move thier manufacturing overseas. If they are going to enjoy the use of our services they should pay taxes just as I have too. If they dont want to pay taxes than we should go back to chargeing a tariff for all imported goods and refuse to protect companies who have moved overseas with our military. If they get into trouble in foriegn countries let them hang.
rabel22 wrote:Business uses the services of our army, police, roads, highways, firedepartments, ect. But all they have to do to keep from paying taxes is move thier corporate headquarters to some island. Our government gives them tax incentives to move thier manufacturing overseas. If they are going to enjoy the use of our services they should pay taxes just as I have too. If they dont want to pay taxes than we should go back to chargeing a tariff for all imported goods and refuse to protect companies who have moved overseas with our military. If they get into trouble in foriegn countries let them hang.
What company has the military protected over seas? What companies have used our police forces for protection? When you look at the way that people what to tax companies can you blame them for wanting to keep as much of the money as they can? I'm not saying what they are doing is right but I can see why. I agree with someone above that we should be putting a tariff on companies that want to move operations off shore, which goes for HQ's as well as manufacturing. They aren't helping Americans by moving jobs over seas.
I agree with you when it comes to the companies that close up shop in the states and move over seas.
We should put heavy tarriffs on them now, then refuse them to move back to this country when they figure out that they screwed up.
My question however, was more directed to the organizations that do stay in and operate in this country.
What corporate welfare do they recieve?
Re: Equal Opportunity Bashing
music2myear wrote:I'm an equal opportunity basher, here's something I have against both parties: When somebody takes money from me and gives it to somebody else, it's called robbery. When the government does it, it's given euphemisms like "Wealth-redistribution" and "Social Security". It's still the same thing, and it's immoral. Just because everybody says it ought to be done doesn't make it moral alluvasudden. The only dif between the two parties is that Dem's like giving to poor people and artists, and Repubs like giving to businesses and 'wealth-creating' entities. It's still wrong. I know best what to do with my money, and I'm more efficient in distributing my wealth than the government.
How on earth am I supposed to top that post? Well said!!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace