Obama '08?

@okie,

Quote:

I was responding to squinney's claim that rich people receive more government services, which is a claim often put forth by liberals.

Responding to her statement would be possible, if she wrote that rich people receive more government services, which she did not.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Citizen A owns $100,000 in assets.
Citizen B owns $10,000,000 in assets.
Who benefits more from national defense? Citizen A or Citizen B?

That is my point. The life of Citizen A is not worth any more than the life of Citizen B, so in respect to life and rights under the constitution, they both benefit equally. Comparing 100,000 and 10,000,000 in assets is also not a valid numerical comparison, because the 100,000 may very well mean just as much to citizen A as the 10,000,000 means to Citizen B. How much a man owns does not determine the worth of a man, and it does not determine what they might be worth them. After all, some people do not judge their value or the value of their life according to their assets.

Quote:

One of the biggest expense for our federal government is national defense.

If they were taxes at 10% of their asset value, Citizen A would pay $10,000, and Citizen B would pay 1,000,000.

Why isn't this happening if all are equal?

I have just explained to you why that is an invalid comparison.

3 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:

I was responding to squinney's claim that rich people receive more government services, which is a claim often put forth by liberals.

Responding to her statement would be possible, if she wrote that rich people receive more government services, which she did not.

Perhaps you did not comprehend what was written. I definitely got the impression that squinney's post indicated that rich people use government services and benefit more from government services, and so I wrote an opinion of disagreement, and I stated some of the reasons why that may not be true.

I am not aware of anyone that has established how much the government spends to serve rich people vs poor people, and if so, whether it would have any validity anyway, but common sense would seem to indicate that poorer people receive more government services, simply because of the fact that more wealthy people can provide more for themselves without government assistance programs.

2 Replies

@okie,

You are numb in your brain; the value of one's asset in this country that is protected by our national defense "should" have more interest in protecting it. It's not about "life." Those assets will transfer to his/her beneficiaries when he/she dies. Your subjective value of assets belongs on the laffer curve. You try to explain with stupid ideas why one's worth is the same when the different is huge. You are dumber than rock.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Enough of your pathetic name calling. I am on here for a few minutes to try to talk sense to you, and you again go back to your inane name calling. You are the one dumber than a rock. I try to talk to you civilly, and frankly I am sick of your stupidity and your childish name calling, ci.

2 Replies

@okie,

You are the one who is pathetic; you try to explain away value from your own perspective just to argue one point. Your imagination runs away from reality, and you expect respect; you ain't gonna get it from me!

Civility is earned, and has nothing to do with your perspective of life; you have no respect of your fellow a2kers when you use dumb ideas to explain away serious issues. You also lie, and backtrack when you realize you were wrong. You never apologize, but demand apologies from others. You're one big fraud!

0 Replies

America's Love Affair With Obama Is Over

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

They said on our news that he is buying 500,000 jobs off India. That's a turn up for the books. I can't think what the loungers in the bar of the Torquay Bowling Club would have thought about that not so long ago.

Still- I suppose they are discussing The X-Factor now.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

That is my point. The life of Citizen A is not worth any more than the life of Citizen B, so in respect to life and rights under the constitution, they both benefit equally. Comparing 100,000 and 10,000,000 in assets is also not a valid numerical comparison, because the 100,000 may very well mean just as much to citizen A as the 10,000,000 means to Citizen B. How much a man owns does not determine the worth of a man, and it does not determine what they might be worth them. After all, some people do not judge their value or the value of their life according to their assets.

Sounds like a valid argument for taxing people at different rates okie. If money is meaningless in determining value then what a person pays in taxes is meaningless and taxing one person at 10% and another at 90% would not determine the value of those people.

1 Reply

The country just slapped Obama with a restraining order.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

After all, some people do not judge their value or the value of their life according to their assets.

What's with all the whining then, Okie?

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie - The rich benefit from having an organized government more than the poor. Period.

Should anarchy break out, who has the most to lose? The poor man or the rich man? If you consider that both of their physical lives are equal, which you argued above, the rich man still has all of his assets at risk from not having an organized government. The poor man only loses his life.

Who organizes government? The poor or the rich elite? Why do you think that is?

Who has the most interest in not allowing the economy to collapse?

When the economy comes close to collapse, who pulls out and moves their business to another country leaving the rest to fend for themselves?

The rich absolutely benefit more than the poor or middle class by having government. Otherwise, they wouldn't be pouring millions of dollars into elections.

3 Replies

@squinney,

I dont think you mean what you just wrote, at least not in the form you wrote it.

Lets examine this part of your statement again...

Quote:

If you consider that both of their physical lives are equal, which you argued above, the rich man still has all of his assets at risk from not having an organized government. The poor man only loses his life.

So, by this wording, you appear to be saying that a rich mans assets are more valuable then a poor mans life.
Now while we dont often agree, I know you well enough to know that you didnt mean that.

You might want to rewrite your statement.

1 Reply

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

The rich benefit from having an organized government more than the poor.

And the radical democrat left wants to keep it that way because it keeps more people (the poor) on their liberal plantation.

The radical democrat politician and their ilk want to be the only wealthy elite in the US.

The left wants to increase the number of poor, conservative want to decrease the number of poor.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Stick to water softeners as you appear to be hard out of softerners.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

I hope you find something you're good at and are able to stick with it before you die angry and alone.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

No, I meant what I said. I just wasn't clear. The rich man risks his life and his assets, the poor man only risks his life. The poor mans only asset is his life.

! = man
$ = assets

Okie is arguing that ! + $ = ! + ... nothing

When the police (government) get two home invasion calls, who benefits more from their response, me or Trump? You or Warren Buffet? Okie or Bill Gates?

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Citizen A owns $100,000 in assets.
Citizen B owns $10,000,000 in assets.
Who benefits more from national defense? Citizen A or Citizen B?

One of the biggest expense for our federal government is national defense.

If they were taxes at 10% of their asset value, Citizen A would pay $10,000, and Citizen B would pay 1,000,000.

Why isn't this happening if all are equal?

Wow, Cice!
We agree on something! I'm stunned!

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the primary function of our government is to secure our lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Or as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

Or as stated in the first clause of Article I. Section 8:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This all costs and/or is valued at significant dollars. I too think these annual costs and/or values should be allocated uniformly in the form of federal taxes in direct proportion to the dollar values of the property which people own.

Those folks who rent property rather than own property would find that the owners from whom they rent will make sure that rental includes the renters share of the cost of these federal taxes.

It has not occurred to me to have advocated this before. However, it is this post of yours, Cice, that has convinced me to now advocate it.

Thank you!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Cripes ican--had you not heard the cannon fodder argument before.

Citizen A dies so Citizen B can have parties. $$$s are for nursery rhymes. And the dying don't all do so quickly.

Quote:

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the primary function of our government is to secure our lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness.

Get Nurse to dry your ears mate.

0 Replies

@squinney,

squinney, Besides the issue of assets and net worth of individuals, most of the wealthiest Americans already voiced their opinion that they should pay more in taxes.

From the Motley Fool:

Quote:

Source: Tax Policy Center.

Any rational debate on the fairness of raising top tax rates has to acknowledge that current rates are historically low to begin with. The focus shouldn't be on whether top rates go up or down; it should be on the raw level of rates. And right now, they're low. This is very likely why some wealthy corporate elites like Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK-A) (NYSE: BRK-B) Warren Buffett, Bill Gates Sr. -- father of the Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) co-founder -- and Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings have come out practically begging to have their taxes raised.

More specifically, here's Buffett yesterday:

We're going to have to get more [tax] money from somebody. The question is, do we get more money from the person that's going to serve me lunch today, or do we get it from me? I think we should get it from me. I have a lower tax rate, counting payroll taxes, than anybody in my office. And I don't have a tax shelter -- I just take the form and fill out the numbers. I think that's very wrong, and I think that if we're going to get money -- and we're going to need money; we are not taking in enough money at the federal government level ... it shouldn't be [from] the bottom 98%. It should be more from people at the top.

okie never knows what he argues for and about; his brain has been washed clean of any common sense, and he rattles off b.s. from his own imagination that is not realistic or even supported by evidence. Why he continues to argue that the rich shouldn't have to pay more taxes is in direct conflict with what the wealthy is saying.

Do you think he will apologize for his arrogance, his opinion without any evidence or support, and wrong-headedness?

He wants civility while he insults our intelligence with his crap.

He's never going to see it from me!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know