On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First off, this is two emails in a row denigrating poor kids. WTF? Why > the hate? I saw the same thing with welfare reform. "All the money is > going to irresponsible young black mothers who want to do crack and > not work!". Do you really think that sort of thing? Do you honestly > believe that the bulk of the people making $20,000 a year are doing it > because they are lazy and stupid and just don't want anything out of > life? If so, I feel very sad for you, because that's not how it is. > Poor people are not just hanging out, rubbing their hands together > while maniacally waiting for their plan to cheat you out of your money > to come to fruition and all their time spent in a shitty cold > apartment will be paid off by not having to work because the Democrats > gave them all your money. Why is it racist now? Most poor people in the US are white. I would guess more than half the poor could change their lives with motivation. Some people can't change there situation and will always be poor. > Secondly, you obviously have a rather provincial understanding of the > common good. Yes, you pay taxes for a bridge that you can drive over. > But you also pay taxes for a school that hopefully will produce an > educated workforce that will help fund your Social Security checks > should your stock market investments tank. Its not just about what you > can see and feel in your own little world right in front of you. The schools, the roads and the bridges are meant to be shared by the masses not for an individual. SS tax is a separate issue. > That would surely explain the lack of job creation engines in > California, like Silicon Valley. You don't get it, do you? Taxes is > certainly a factor to consider when choosing to locate your > family/business in a place. But it isn't nearly at the top, not even > close. Things like infrastructure, markets, an educated workforce and > quality of life far outweigh taxes. Many people and companies are moving out of CA because of the tax burden. > No, they don't. Most people try to dodge the system no matter what. > If you can find a way to be "creative" on your tax forms, most people > will. As for people that choose to "earn less money", I can't say that > I've met many. I have met a couple actually, but that had nothing to > do with taxes. They voluntarily decided to simplify their lives, cut > work out of it as much as possible and get out of the rat race period. Do they have their hands out or are they self-suffient? I remember years ago many people telling me they turned down promotions because it would put them in a higher tax bracket and they'd take home less. > There is an unspoken bit here though in your argument, I think. The > argument is that those people that make more money do so because they > work more, because they work harder. And that's not true. I work my > butt off 40 to 60 hours a week (when not checking cf-community > obviously). I did that when I was making $30K a year out of college, > I'd be doing the same as a senior programmer at $100K a year. CEO's > don't make $5 million a year because they work 100 times harder than a > guy making $50K. The CEO's skills may be more specialized, but that > CEO is going to be expected to work as hard at a job that pays him > $100K as he is at $5 million. Pay rate is not based on hours of labor, it's knowledge and experience you bring to the table. Working the mailroom for forty years might give you the same hours as a CEO but nothing else is useful to the company. > Yes you should. And if that sounds like being bent over a table and > screwed (which actually sounds like a lot of fun to me, but I > digress...) then I'm sorry you think that way. Somebody's taxes went > to the welfare to work training program that my mother was in. As a > result of that job, she was able to get off of welfare and get in a > job that she loved, even though it paid for shit and trashed her body. > As a result of that job, we were able to settle down in one place, > even own a home for a bit and I was able to get a stable education > (once again, paid for by taxes) and do well enough to go to a good > school and take out loans (partly subsidized by taxes) and get a > degree that has since that time put me in a position of paying for the > roads you drive on, the bridges you cross and the clean water you > drink. That's how investing in society works. Training programs exist now and are not the issue. We have many nets to catch the needy and help them with medical, food, housing and retraining. When they are ready to move up we smile and help the next. What Obama is talking about is taking money out of my pocket and putting it in every pocket that makes below a certain amount. What does that do to help? If you took the same money and said it was going to help poor people eat or go to school fine. That's accountability. Obama's talking about handing it out just because they're not as fortunate. > Once again, you neglect to understand how he came to be in the > position he is in. He's not just fortunate to have been successful in > his career. He is fortunate to have been in the position where he > could become successful in his career. All the investment in the > fabric of our society, not just roads and sewers, but also education, > home ownership, economic stability...all of these things help create > an environment that allows us to succeed, to create jobs, to become a > better educated society and to grow as a people. That matters. That's the existing system, nothing to do with handouts based on earnings. > Why yes, you've got that exactly right. What happened to the sense of > pride people had in growing Victory Gardens in WWII? Of tightening > belts to deal with rationing? For the good of the country? I want you > to be able to go out and earn $5 million a year Robert. And I don't > begrudge Warren Buffett his 8 Billion that he's come through with this > year. But if you make $5 million in a year, then yes, I will ask you > to give $100K towards making our country better and helping create the > situation where 5 more people in the next generation can make $5 > million a year. As to who decides, yes, the government. That is, in > fact, what its there for. And that is why we have elections and why > you have elected representatives. That's why I'm not voting for Obama. BTW, $5m at 35% would be $1.75m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:274913 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
