Iraq and MONEY!

[Legion]

What a snob you are.

Typical baseless retort from the opposition.

Not all choices are yours to control.

Oh? Major life choices like having children, quiting colleging, divorce, overspending, and indolence aren't life choices? How are anyone of the above forced apon you.

Say the factory you work at closes down or you are injured and cannot support yourself, what would you do then?

If i couldn't work at all then i'd turn to my family for support. If i couldn't then i would turn to justifiable government aid.

However is this really the case? This is simply an empty pathos argument.

According to you, you should just die because it's your choice to be injured or out of work.

Is that what i said? Did i say there was no such thing as beneficial subsidies?

Get off your high horse and face reality sometime.

-FUDie

Quit whining and turning to empty, rhetorical, emotional, and completely unrealitistic scenerios to justify over spending on welfare. I am tired of the bullshit sob stories.

This kind of bunk is the same kind of crap feminists use to justify over 30,000,000 aborted children in the US since the late 1960's. DO you really think rape/incest applied to all of those cases? I should hope not. Likewise i'd hope you can see a hell of a lot of people on welfare on it because they are indolent.

 

[Natoma]

You assume that he won't cut spending. You also assume he will increase taxes. I think you are assuming the worst case scenario. However it is possible but it goes against the values of the Republican Party in particular their libertarians. I assume that he will follow party philosophies just like he was doing when he reduced taxation next is cutting spending to match revenues or at least start the process of cutting spending to reduce deficit spending. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens, right?.

You show me where we have any spending to cut in significant quantity to affect our deficits this year and next year. A large part of that spending is defense and homeland security. You really think anyone is going to propose cutting defense and homeland security spending now?

Eventually something will give. If it's not politically or realistically feasible to cut out the largest spending programs (Homeland Security, Medicare, Defense, Iraq), then the government will have to increase its revenues dramatically. A $2 Trillion rollback to the Clinton era would just about do it.

As I said before, Reagan is held as the epitome of republican conservatism, and even he couldn't keep the tax cuts and spending double edged sword under control. It's not fiscally responsible or feasible long term to significantly cut revenues. We aren't realistically going to be able to decrease spending 21% to bring it back in line with the spending that was in effect at the end of the clinton era (it's increased 26% in that time).

 

[Natoma]

Legion and Sabastian,

You two really do have a snobbish attitude of someone who's never been dirt poor and needed a helping hand. Accepting government assistance does not equal laziness or lack of character. Things happen in life.

If I lose my job tomorrow because my company goes out of business and work my ass off trying to find a new one but can't for whatever reason, am I lazy for accepting government assistance for as long as possible until I can get a new job, whatever it is? Is that some reflection on my character? Cripes.

 

[RussSchultz]

You show me where we have any spending to cut in significant quantity to affect our deficits this year and next year.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html#Spending

There's the whole list.

 

[Legion]

In theory. Again, what is useless spending and subsidies? Granted there are some things that are really not useful to us, such as the millions going to teach kids how to play golf, or the millions going to repair a congressman's pool in his home town that he messed up when he was a kid. But what about corn subsidies for ethanol fuel development that will hopefully help move us away from our dependence on foreign oil? Again, what we need is a public audit of congressional spending. Not a broad stroke.

There is definately much research that needs to go into searching through such matters. I myself would like to see a list of government subsidies. I feel a good deal needs to be done to monitor the spending.

You don't know that spending will decrease as the years go by.

neither do you thusly defeating your arugment by revealing your baseless assumption. As pointed out by Sabastian you assume the spending will remain the same or increase unjustifiably.

You talk of subsidies but you haven't really given any. Do you know of any off the top of your head? I do, and I listed a few above, but you don't know all of them.

Do you know all of them? Are they all necessary? Can you argue this objectively rather than subjectively. You opinion i feel is far to influenced by your ideologies rather than reason.

As I said, what would really be helpful would be a public audit of congressional spending so we can really see where the american taxpayer's money is going.

Sounds like a plan. I though i made reference to this before...

What the heck are you talking about? Clinton's savage taxation plans?

Clinton raised taxes on the upper income bracket and lowered them on the middle class. What exactly are you referring to??

He lowered middle class taxes from Natoma? Who raised them to such high levels? I feel that taxation out to be based on a flat tax. I see no reason why being more successful entitles the government to more of your money to feed its coffers rather than to tackle national debt.

This is an ideology based in class warfare.

Well let's see if there's any way to get a line item reporting of congressional spending. You'd find many people in this country interested in that.

Again, sounds interesting.

And my mom and millions of other people who were on government assistance at one time aren't? Please Legion. Enough.

Your emotional involvement in the situation seems to cloud your perception.

I stated to you i've never been on public aid. I didn't state i wasn't ever poor.

Again, not everyone who "works hard" is able to support themselves.

And not all people make good choices. This doesn't entitle them to anything.

I feel really insulted by the idea that if you simply "work hard" you won't need government assistance.

Natoma, do you honestly believe everyone on welfare is on welfare because they can't afford to live on their own? Did all of these people get on welfare by the contribution of poor choices in their lives (ie having children without the capacity to afford them).

THere is nothing that I detest more than poor Americans who whine about their "poverty" when they have no idea what destitute really means. Even with a yearly income of $24,000 the average poor american makes a hell of a lot more than the poor of many other nations and has much higher standards of living.

There are many people in this country making minimum wage working 12 hour days who are on government assistance. There are many people who are building businesses who are on government assistance until they can get themselves off the ground.

in terms of a few thousand people i am sure there are "many". In terms of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions i'd say no. I'd even been willing wager some of these people work only to meet stricter welfare policies enforced in recent years.

My friend James was laid off a couple of months ago and went into business for himself. It's starting slowly and he's slowly getting his clientele together for his workout business, but he still needs that government assistance check every month until he gets himself completely off the ground.

and my "friend" Jody lives on welfare and exploits the situation selling her food stamps to buy drugs all the while refusing to seek parental counciling for her neglected children. Its absolutely a travesty.

You've obviously never been dealt an unexpected card in life. When you experience life for yourself instead of pandering high falutin ideas about "those people", get back to me.

I have dealth with many infact. I have just been prepared and have made good choices. People all over America are dealt unexpected cards, murphy's law yet they aren't all on welfare. Why is that?

My mother made no choice to be poor when I was born.

How so? Did she have a choice to have you? Obviously having a child affected her spending.

She worked her ass off and pulled herself out of that situation and is completely self sufficient today. To insinuate that she was in the situation she was in simply as some punishment for being irresponsible is extremely insulting and immature.

No Natoma, turning to emotional rhetoric instead of evaluating the situation is immature. Your involvement and aggrandizement of your mother is evidence of your lack of objectivity.

 

[Natoma]

That was 2001 spending. Spending has increased 26% since then.

 

[Legion]

Legion and Sabastian,

You two really do have a snobbish attitude of someone who's never been dirt poor and needed a helping hand. Accepting government assistance does not equal laziness or lack of character. Things happen in life.

Actually your behavior is rank with emotion. You lump us together in a category of "snobbish" souly becuase we share a different view then you. You have no idea how our lives have been. You have no idea what we have been through. You have absolutely no right or authority to tell me or anyone else our thoughts are invalid, especially when you no hardly anything about said individuals. Please spare me your sanctimony. A liberal is the last person on Earth i'd expect to attempt to force your beliefs on anyone else.

If I lose my job tomorrow because my company goes out of business and work my ass off trying to find a new one but can't for whatever reason,

Do you really believe you couldn't find another Natoma? Lets be realistic.

am I lazy for accepting government assistance for as long as possible until I can get a new job, whatever it is? Is that some reflection on my character? Cripes.

If you have no other recourse (which of course you can't even provide a reason for) then no Natoma.

 

[Natoma]

You don't know that spending will decrease as the years go by.

neither do you thusly defeating your arugment by revealing your baseless assumption. As pointed out by Sabastian you assume the spending will remain the same or increase unjustifiably.

Actually I know spending will increase. Again, Homeland Security is still woefully underfunded, especially with regard to US Border Patrol Security and Port Security, and the Medicare Bill doesn't kick in until 2006. Even then, there is a huge coverage gap that will eventually be closed simply due to political pressure from seniors and retiring baby boomers. And of course there is the year over year increases in Defense Spending as a direct result of the war on terror. Do you see this slowing down? Baseless assumption? I think not.

You talk of subsidies but you haven't really given any. Do you know of any off the top of your head? I do, and I listed a few above, but you don't know all of them.

Do you know all of them? Are they all necessary? Can you argue this objectively rather than subjectively. You opinion i feel is far to influenced by your ideologies rather than reason.

I wasn't accusing you of anything. Merely stating a fact. You don't know all of the subsidies. I know a few, but not all of them. What I said directly after is that we need a public audit of congressional spending. This first part you quoted was meant to be taken in full with what you commented on below, i.e.

As I said, what would really be helpful would be a public audit of congressional spending so we can really see where the american taxpayer's money is going.

What the heck are you talking about? Clinton's savage taxation plans?

Clinton raised taxes on the upper income bracket and lowered them on the middle class. What exactly are you referring to??

He lowered middle class taxes from Natoma? Who raised them to such high levels? I feel that taxation out to be based on a flat tax. I see no reason why being more successful entitles the government to more of your money to feed its coffers rather than to tackle national debt.

This is an idealogy based in class warfare.

First off, where in the world did you get that 75% that you spoke about in your earlier post Legion. Taxes were never that high for anyone. Second, Clinton was raising taxes on the upper class and lowering them on the lower class from the tax plans enacted by Republicans Reagan and Bush I.

The reason there is a graduated tax is that there is a base standard of living. The closer to that standard of living, the higher % of your money is required to simply live, which goes in effect to determine, roughly, your tax bracket. Not everyone can afford to pay the same % of their income in taxes. That's not class warfare at all. If you make more you can pay more.

And my mom and millions of other people who were on government assistance at one time aren't? Please Legion. Enough.

Your emotional involvement in the situation seems to cloud your perception.

I stated to you i've never been on public aid. I didn't state i wasn't ever poor.

And yet you feel the need to make baseless and snobbish judgements about those who have been or are on public aid.

Again, not everyone who "works hard" is able to support themselves.

And not all people make good choices. This doesn't entitle them to anything.

There you go again making broad statements about people's character and judgements when you don't know a damn thing.

I feel really insulted by the idea that if you simply "work hard" you won't need government assistance.

Natoma, do you honestly believe everyone on welfare is on welfare because they can't afford to live on their own? Did all of these people get on welfare by the contribution of poor choices in their lives (ie having children without the capacity to afford them).

And do you honestly believe that everyone on welfare is on welfare because they made poor choices in life or are there because they deserve to be there? Jesus.

THere is nothing that detests me more than poor Americans who whine about their "poverty" when they have no idea what destitute really means. Even with a yearly income of $24,000 the average poor american makes a hell of a lot more than the poor of many other nations and has much higher standards of living.

The standard of living in *this* country is different in almost every state. If you make $30,000 a year in NY, you could easily be struggling in a studio. If you make that same amount in West Virginia, you're living damn comfortably, probably with a house. If you make $50,000 in NY, you're living pretty well off. If you make that in certain parts of california you're barely surviving.

We're not talking about taking some poor family who makes $24,000 here and plopping them in India where you're "rich" if you make $6,000 a year and can live a very high standard of living for *that* country. We're talking about what constitutes the standard of living *here* because of the prices required to live *here*.

There are many people in this country making minimum wage working 12 hour days who are on government assistance. There are many people who are building businesses who are on government assistance until they can get themselves off the ground.

in terms of a few thousand people i am sure there are "many". In terms of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions i'd say no. I'd even been willing wager some of these people work only to meet stricter welfare policies enforced in recent years.

You probably don't even know anyone who's ever been on public assistance....

My friend James was laid off a couple of months ago and went into business for himself. It's starting slowly and he's slowly getting his clientele together for his workout business, but he still needs that government assistance check every month until he gets himself completely off the ground.

and my "friend" Jody lives on welfare and exploits the situation selling her food stamps to buy drugs all the while refusing to seek parental counciling for her neglected children. Its absolutely a travesty.

And that's obviously good enough to tar everyone who requires public assistance? Because of her alone? You don't know James. You don't know my mother. You don't know my aunt. Hell you don't know me, but you seem pretty damn comfortable with saying that if I ever fell on hard times and needed public assistance it must be my fault.

You've obviously never been dealt an unexpected card in life. When you experience life for yourself instead of pandering high falutin ideas about "those people", get back to me.

I have dealth with many infact. I have just been prepared and have made good choices. People all over America are dealt unexpected cards, murphy's law yet they aren't all on welfare. Why is that?

You were lucky. Not everyone who prepares "properly" in life sees things happen to them in the way they thought i would.

My mother made no choice to be poor when I was born.

How so? Did she have a choice to have you? Obviously having a child affected her spending.

She worked her ass off and pulled herself out of that situation and is completely self sufficient today. To insinuate that she was in the situation she was in simply as some punishment for being irresponsible is extremely insulting and immature.

No Natoma, turning to emotional rhetoric instead of evaluating the situation is immature. Your involvement and aggrandizement of your mother is evidence of your lack of objectivity.

Excuse me Legion? When you decide to stop making lump judgements about peoples lives and mature, then maybe you can talk about this objectively. Until then, stop trying. You're only making an ass out of yourself. And I say that kindly.

 

[Natoma]

Legion and Sabastian,

You two really do have a snobbish attitude of someone who's never been dirt poor and needed a helping hand. Accepting government assistance does not equal laziness or lack of character. Things happen in life.

Actually your behavior is rank with emotion. You lump us together in a category of "snobbish" souly becuase we share a different view then you. You have no idea how our lives have been. You have no idea what we have been through. You have absolutely no right or authority to tell me or anyone else our thoughts are invalid, especially when you no hardly anything about said individuals. Please spare me your sanctimony. A liberal is the last person on Earth i'd expect to attempt to force your beliefs on anyone else.

When you make lump judgements about *EVERYONE* on public assistance that it is somehow their fault or their lack of ability and responsibility, then yes you are indeed being snobbish. You have a different view, and it is absolutely wrong.

If I lose my job tomorrow because my company goes out of business and work my ass off trying to find a new one but can't for whatever reason,

Do you really believe you couldn't find another Natoma? Lets be realistic.

Yes, let us be realistic. I read stories every day of people sending out hundreds of resumes, having college degrees and years of experience in their field, and getting no callbacks or interviews. I've tested the job market at times over the past couple of years and I know exactly how difficult it is to find a job. I've watched friends who graduated this year finally land a job after spending almost their entire college career looking for one after they graduated.

I said for whatever reason. Things happen in life. You don't have total control over everything that occurs. No one does. I could lose my job tomorrow and despite my education at Yale, despite my 5 years experience in my field of expertise (7 overall, but the first two were no professionally), I *still* might not be able to find a job any time soon, especially in this job market when until the last couple of months, more jobs were lost than created.

It's called life Legion. And it's full of unexpected variables.

am I lazy for accepting government assistance for as long as possible until I can get a new job, whatever it is? Is that some reflection on my character? Cripes.

If you have no other recourse (which of course you can't even provide a reason for) then no Natoma.

Gee thanks for tossing even that little bit of a bone. As I said before, things happen in life.

 

[Legion]

Actually I know spending will increase.

How do you know?

Again, Homeland Security is still woefully underfunded, especially......

I see no valid reason at all to milk the populas of their incomes to pay for over spending.

I wasn't accusing you of anything. Merely stating a fact. You don't know all of the subsidies.

Of course not. If i did i'd tell you which are wasteful and which aren't .

I know a few, but not all of them. What I said directly after is that we need a public audit of congressional spending. This first part you quoted was meant to be taken in full with what you commented on below, i.e.

A public audit sounds like a good plan. However i can see how numerous problems with that could evolve.

First off, where in the world did you get that 75% that you spoke about in your earlier post Legion. Taxes were never that high for anyone. Second, Clinton was raising taxes on the upper class and lowering them on the lower class from the tax plans enacted by Republicans Reagan and Bush I.

There is no reason why the wealthy should pay more in taxes then any one else. I would consider this an act of class warfare.

The reason there is a graduated tax is that there is a base standard of living. The closer to that standard of living, the higher % of your money is required to simply live, which goes in effect to determine, roughly, your tax bracket. Not everyone can afford to pay the same % of their income in taxes. That's not class warfare at all. If you make more you can pay more.

No, that is exactly class warefare. You are making the presumption people who are wealthy can afford higher standards of living thusly ought to pay more. They, as less than 20% of the US population make up more than 75% of the total value of income taxes. Certainly they can afford to paymore. That shouldn't be the issue. The issue is why should they paymore? Why should they be made the be the brunt of the over spending of the government? How do the wealthy feel about this? I am certain as a democracy you can justify in your mind Natoma everyone else can vote away their money.

The standard of living in *this* country is different in almost every state. If you make $30,000 a year in NY, you could easily be struggling in a studio. If you make that same amount in West Virginia, you're living damn comfortably, probably with a house. If you make $50,000 in NY, you're living pretty well off. If you make that in certain parts of california you're barely surviving.

Care to compare this to the standards of living in India, Mexico, China, etc?

How can you reason "struggling in a studio" when plenty people in japan don't even have that and survive?

We're not talking about taking some poor family who makes $24,000 here and plopping them in India where you're "rich" if you make $6,000 a year and can live a very high standard of living for *that* country. We're talking about what constitutes the standard of living *here* because of the prices required to live *here*.

Of course we are considering that. It happens to be very much in the same. With the amount of money people make here compared to what they spend put them on much better standings then the poor in other countries. The comparison stands. The poor in this nation have much higher standards of living.

You probably don't even know anyone who's ever been on public assistance....

And knowing them would lead me to your reasoning?

And that's obviously good enough to tar everyone who requires public assistance?

Where did i tar everyone on public assitance?

Because of her alone? You don't know James. You don't know my mother. You don't know my aunt. Hell you don't know me, but you seem pretty damn comfortable with saying that if I ever fell on hard times and needed public assistance it must be my fault.

Did i tar them for being on public assitance?

WHat i did do is give you a person who is on public aid who is quite different. People like her are the very reason i'd like to look futher into government subsidies. There is no legal reason why CPS hasn't taken her children, none. They simply aren't doing their jobs. Money wasted. I can graunteed you she isn't the only one doing this nor is she in the vast minority.

You were lucky. Not everyone who prepares "properly" in life sees things happen to them in the way they thought i would.

Lucky? No. Prepared. Yes. I hardly see the rest of the people in the US as luck Natoma. Do you honestly believe success is something that just "happens" to you?

Excuse me Legion? When you decide to stop making lump judgements about peoples lives and mature,

ehem, like you did by calling Sabastian and I snobs?

then maybe you can talk about this objectively. Until then, stop trying. You're only making an ass out of yourself. And I say that kindly.

Uh huh, until then you'll avoid answering my question i suppose as well...go figure.

 

[Legion]

When you make lump judgements about *EVERYONE* on public assistance that it is somehow their fault or their lack of ability and responsibility, then yes you are indeed being snobbish. You have a different view, and it is absolutely wrong.

Oh my. Where did i make a statement everyone on public aid was something negative?

Yes, let us be realistic. I read stories every day of people sending out hundreds of resumes, having college degrees and years of experience in their field, and getting no callbacks or interviews.

Are these stories true? Could these people not get other jobs?

I've tested the job market at times over the past couple of years and I know exactly how difficult it is to find a job. I've watched friends who graduated this year finally land a job after spending almost their entire college career looking for one after they graduated.

Perhaps they ought to have made better choices in colleges as to what occupation they will be training for.

I said for whatever reason. Things happen in life. You don't have total control over everything that occurs.

No, but most of america goes through life without welfare. I wonder why.

No one does. I could lose my job tomorrow and despite my education at Yale, despite my 5 years experience in my field of expertise (7 overall, but the first two were no professionally), I *still* might not be able to find a job any time soon, especially in this job market when until the last couple of months, more jobs were lost than created.

Yes, you MIGHT not be able to find a job. But lets be realistic. You more than likely would.

It's called life Legion. And it's full of unexpected variables.

Of course. However the vast majority of people aren't on welfare.

Gee thanks for tossing even that little bit of a bone. As I said before, things happen in life.

With your talent in drama how is it you couldn't find a job anywhere Natoma?

 

[Natoma]

Actually I know spending will increase.

How do you know?

If you read the entire paragraph you would know.

Actually I know spending will increase. Again, Homeland Security is still woefully underfunded, especially with regard to US Border Patrol Security and Port Security, and the Medicare Bill doesn't kick in until 2006. Even then, there is a huge coverage gap that will eventually be closed simply due to political pressure from seniors and retiring baby boomers. And of course there is the year over year increases in Defense Spending as a direct result of the war on terror. Do you see this slowing down? Baseless assumption? I think not.

Again, Homeland Security is still woefully underfunded, especially......

I see no valid reason at all to milk the populas of their incomes to pay for over spending.

First of all if you're going to quote me, quote me in full. Second, what in the world are you talking about? How is properly funding Homeland Security over spending in any way shape or form, especially when it comes to the national security interests of this nation?

The reason there is a graduated tax is that there is a base standard of living. The closer to that standard of living, the higher % of your money is required to simply live, which goes in effect to determine, roughly, your tax bracket. Not everyone can afford to pay the same % of their income in taxes. That's not class warfare at all. If you make more you can pay more.

No, that is exactly class warefare. You are making the presumption people who are wealthy can afford higher standards of living thusly ought to pay more. They, as less than 20% of the US population make up more than 75% of the total value of income taxes. Certainly they can afford to paymore. That shouldn't be the issue. The issue is why should they paymore? Why should they be made the be the brunt of the over spending of the government? How do the wealthy feel about this? I am certain as a democracy you can justify in your mind Natoma everyone else can vote away their money.

If the bare minimum required to survive in this nation is $5.15 an hour, and you make $5.16 an hour, do you honestly believe you can give 20% of your income to taxes?

If you make $51.60 an hour, do you honestly believe that, as compared to the bare minimum required to live in *this* country, you couldn't pay more of your income and still live comfortably than someone who is right on the edge? :?

My boyfriend and I make $90,000 a year in New York. By the average american income, and the average household income in New York, we are considered "rich". Can we afford to pay 30% of our income in taxes if you need $25,000 just to live? Certainly. Can a family making $30,000 a year in New York afford to pay 30% of their income in taxes if you need $25,000 just to live? Certainly not.

This isn't class warfare. This is reality.

The standard of living in *this* country is different in almost every state. If you make $30,000 a year in NY, you could easily be struggling in a studio. If you make that same amount in West Virginia, you're living damn comfortably, probably with a house. If you make $50,000 in NY, you're living pretty well off. If you make that in certain parts of california you're barely surviving.

Care to compare this to the standards of living in India, Mexico, China, etc?

How can you reason "struggling in a studio" when plenty people in japan don't even have that and survive?

The costs of living in India, Mexico, China, etc are far lower than living here. This isn't about mere survival. I can live on the streets eating out of garbage cans making $5000 a year begging for change and "survive". That is completely missing the point.

We're not talking about taking some poor family who makes $24,000 here and plopping them in India where you're "rich" if you make $6,000 a year and can live a very high standard of living for *that* country. We're talking about what constitutes the standard of living *here* because of the prices required to live *here*.

Of course we are considering that. It happens to be very much in the same. With the amount of money people make here compared to what they spend put them on much better standings then the poor in other countries. The comparison stands. The poor in this nation have much higher standards of living.

People make a hell of a lot more money, but a hell of a lot more money is required to *live* here. A person in India making $6,000 at a Call Center is considered wealthy. That same job here in America makes maybe $20,000 a year, and people with that level of income are considered poor. Why? Because the cost of living here is much higher as a proportion of income than the cost of living in India. I can't believe I actually have to spell that out for you.

You probably don't even know anyone who's ever been on public assistance....

And knowing them would lead me to your reasoning?

Maybe give you a better perspective on life. I found it funny when Paris Hilton said on her show that she had never heard of Wal-Mart. When I think about her "station" in life, it's completely understandable. What would a billionaire heiress need with a thrift store?

But if she then came out and made ridiculous comments about "those people" who shop at Wal-Mart being where they are simply because they deserve to be "poor", that would be highly offensive would it not? It's called perspective, and you are showing none whatsoever.

And that's obviously good enough to tar everyone who requires public assistance?

Where did i tar anyone on public assitance?

Check your posts over the last couple of pages. Why do you think FUDie responded in the same manner I did hmm?

Because of her alone? You don't know James. You don't know my mother. You don't know my aunt. Hell you don't know me, but you seem pretty damn comfortable with saying that if I ever fell on hard times and needed public assistance it must be my fault.

Did i tar them for being on public assitance?

WHat i did do is give you a person who is on public aid who is quite different. People like her are the very reason i'd like to look futher into government subsidies. There is no legal reason why CPA hasn't taken her children, none. They simply aren't doing their jobs. Money wasted. I can graunteed you she isn't the only one doing this nor is she in the vast minority.

You will find abuses in every system, and evils in every belief or sector of society. Enron was an example of Corporate Abuse. Is that endemic of all Corporations? No. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Is that endemic of all who say they follow Islam? No. David Duke is a white supremacist. Is he endemic of all white persons? No. Al Sharpton is a race baiter. Is he endemic of all black persons? No.

You clean up the system. You clean up sectors of society. You root out the abusers. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water, to use another aphorism.

You were lucky. Not everyone who prepares "properly" in life sees things happen to them in the way they thought i would.

Lucky? No. Prepared. Yes. I hardly see the rest of the people in the US as luck Natoma. Do you honestly believe success is something that just "happens" to you?

Of course not. But success has a lot to do with luck. Many people who are high up will tell you that they worked their ass off. But part of it is being in the right place at the right time to meet that right connection who you use to move up the ladder.

Success is timing. Success is hard work. Success is luck. All play a factor in it.

Excuse me Legion? When you decide to stop making lump judgements about peoples lives and mature,

ehem, like you did by calling Sabastian and I snobs?

You two are snobs. I didn't make blanket statements and judgements about an entire sector of society.

then maybe you can talk about this objectively. Until then, stop trying. You're only making an ass out of yourself. And I say that kindly.

Uh huh, until then you'll avoid answering my question i suppose as well...go figure.

You haven't asked any question of note on this.

 

[Natoma]

You wanted to know where you were making blanket statements about people on government assistance?

I feel as long as i put for a consistant effort that won't happen. Honestly i see little need for government assitance. I see it as simply pandering to indolence.

As if people who are on government assistance somehow didn't work hard enough or put in enough consistent effort. Obviously they are wallowing in their own crapulence and just want to leech off the system.

People make choices in life Natoma, they ought to be called to stand responsible.

As if people on government assistance somehow made wrong decisions in life and got there because it was their fault.

Oh? Major life choices like having children, quiting colleging, divorce, overspending, and indolence aren't life choices? How are anyone of the above forced apon you.

As if people on government assistance are there simply because they had kids or quit college or got divorced or were guilty of overspending or are guilty of indolence. Somehow it's their fault that they're there, all of them.

Natoma, do you honestly believe everyone on welfare is on welfare because they can't afford to live on their own? Did all of these people get on welfare by the contribution of poor choices in their lives (ie having children without the capacity to afford them).

As if people on government assistance obviously did something to be where they are in life. They obviously screwed up somewhere or they wouldn't require help.

 

[Natoma]

When you make lump judgements about *EVERYONE* on public assistance that it is somehow their fault or their lack of ability and responsibility, then yes you are indeed being snobbish. You have a different view, and it is absolutely wrong.

Oh my. Where did i make a statement everyone on public aid was something negative?

I dedicated a whole post to this one. See the post directly above.

Yes, let us be realistic. I read stories every day of people sending out hundreds of resumes, having college degrees and years of experience in their field, and getting no callbacks or interviews.

Are these stories true? Could these people not get other jobs?

It took some of them months. Some of them got jobs immediately, others were not so fortunate.

I've tested the job market at times over the past couple of years and I know exactly how difficult it is to find a job. I've watched friends who graduated this year finally land a job after spending almost their entire college career looking for one after they graduated.

Perhaps they ought to have made better choices in colleges as to what occupation they will be training for.

Uhm, one of my friends going to medical school at Tufts has been unable to find a job yet. And my friend who just graduated from Drexel, right next to UPENN, majored in electrical engineering and software development. He finally found a job at Adobe this July, after 2 years of searching while he was in college.

But of course they made poor decisions in what occupation to train for.

I said for whatever reason. Things happen in life. You don't have total control over everything that occurs.

No, but most of america goes through life without welfare. I wonder why.

Uhm maybe because someone has to fill those jobs somewhere? Obviously if there are a lack of jobs people can't get one. You can't just show up to a company and say "Hire me" if they don't have any positions to be filled.

No one does. I could lose my job tomorrow and despite my education at Yale, despite my 5 years experience in my field of expertise (7 overall, but the first two were no professionally), I *still* might not be able to find a job any time soon, especially in this job market when until the last couple of months, more jobs were lost than created.

Yes, you MIGHT not be able to find a job. But lets be realistic. You more than likely would.

I take nothing for granted. I could lose my job tomorrow and be jobless for a month, a day, or a year. Shit happens.

 

[Legion]

If you read the entire paragraph you would know.

This spending increase is a continuous? How does this justify over taxation of the population to cover past debts created by vast overspending?

First of all if you're going to quote me, quote me in full.

You don't like paraphrasing?

Second, what in the world are you talking about? How is properly funding Homeland Security over spending in any way shape or form, especially when it comes to the national security interests of this nation?

When did i refer to Homeland Security spendings as "over spendings". They most certainly could be. What exactly is "adequate" spending on Homeland Securities? Could we be investing funding is imporper areas, groups, etc, etc? Homeland Security wasn't an issue back in the days of Clinton, why is it such a big deal with certain liberals now?

If the bare minimum required to survive in this nation is $5.15 an hour, and you make $5.16 an hour, do you honestly believe you can give 20% of your income to taxes?

Where did this 20% arbitrary figure come from?

If you make $51.60 an hour, do you honestly believe that, as compared to the bare minimum required to live in *this* country, you couldn't pay more of your income and still live comfortably than someone who is right on the edge? :?

If you earned that much an hour you could possible pay 60% of your income. Why not? This is an improper question. There is no valid reason they should have to pay more. The fact they earn more shouldn't factor into having to contribute more to taxes.

My boyfriend and I make $90,000 a year in New York. By the average american income, and the average household income in New York, we are considered "rich". Can we afford to pay 30% of our income in taxes if you need $25,000 just to live? Certainly. Can a family making $30,000 a year in New York afford to pay 30% of their income in taxes if you need $25,000 just to live? Certainly not.

Again, why should the wealthy have to pay more. You keep telling me they can you aren't answering as to why.

This isn't class warfare. This is reality.

No, this is class warfare justified in your mind by their increased wealth. There is no reason why they should have to pay more then anyone else.

You keep repeating the fact they can afford to pay more. You haven't provided a reason why they should.

The costs of living in India, Mexico, China, etc are far lower than living here. This isn't about mere survival. I can live on the streets eating out of garbage cans making $5000 a year begging for change and "survive". That is completely missing the point.

This is irrelevant when put to scale. Their standards of living are far lower.

People make a hell of a lot more money, but a hell of a lot more money is required to *live* here.

If you believe this some how equalizes the two i suggest you take a trip to Indian, Mexico, or Japan and see for yourself.

A person in India making $6,000 at a Call Center is considered wealthy. That same job here in America makes maybe $20,000 a year, and people with that level of income are considered poor. Why? Because the cost of living here is much higher as a proportion of income than the cost of living in India. I can't believe I actually have to spell that out for you.

Again, when put to scale Natoma a person in american who makes $20,000 is on far better standing then some one in India who makes $6,000. This standards of living in india are far lower than ours.

But if she then came out and made ridiculous comments about "those people" who shop at Wal-Mart being where they are simply because they deserve to be "poor", that would be highly offensive would it not? It's called perspective, and you are showing none whatsoever.

Oh my, have i said anything in league with that?

Check your posts over the last couple of pages. Why do you think FUDie responded in the same manner I did hmm?

No surprise really, leftists tend to be emotional.

You will find abuses in every system, and evils in every belief or sector of society. Enron was an example of Corporate Abuse. Is that endemic of all Corporations? No. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Is that endemic of all who say they follow Islam? No. David Duke is a white supremacist. Is he endemic of all white persons? No. Al Sharpton is a race baiter. Is he endemic of all black persons? No.

Of course we will find then in every system. This is why i would like to review spending to see if cutting services to various people is in order.

I never stated all people who are on welfare are lazy Natoma. Please point out where i said this. I have already asked your several time to point out to me the negative comments i made about all people on welfare. WHy do you keep avoiding answering the question?

You clean up the system. You clean up sectors of society. You root out the abusers. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water, to use another aphorism.

I didn't say i wanted to get rid of it all. You are putting words into my mouth.

Of course not. But success has a lot to do with luck. Many people who are high up will tell you that they worked their ass off. But part of it is being in the right place at the right time to meet that right connection who you use to move up the ladder.

and a great portion of it is education and dedication.

Success is timing. Success is hard work. Success is luck. All play a factor in it.

Success is many things and not souly luck.

You two are snobs. I didn't make blanket statements and judgements about an entire sector of society.

How are we snobs? Please show me where i made judgements about an entire sector of society.

You haven't asked any question of note on this.

Yes i did. I asked you if having you as a child was an act of choice or immaculate conception....

 

[Sxotty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12CND-PENT.html?hp

So no even busj is saying haliburton overcharged good .

Alluding to a Pentagon audit that has found that Halliburton may indeed have overcharged the government by some $61 million for fuel deliveries, the president said: ``I appreciate the Pentagon looking after the taxpayers' money. They felt like there was an overcharge issue.''

Now all you fiscal conservatives thank the democrats for making a big stink ad nauseum please.

 

[Legion]

I dedicated a whole post to this one. See the post directly above.

I just don't see any examples.

It took some of them months. Some of them got jobs immediately, others were not so fortunate.

Maybe they should have chosen other majors .

Uhm, one of my friends going to medical school at Tufts has been unable to find a job yet. And my friend who just graduated from Drexel, right next to UPENN, majored in electrical engineering and software development. He finally found a job at Adobe this July, after 2 years of searching while he was in college.

There are factors of Supply and Demand Natoma. That is apart of reality.

But of course they made poor decisions in what occupation to train for.

If they couldn't find jobs i may have reason to believe just that. There are many factors one should look at ie where was he looking for a job?

Uhm maybe because someone has to fill those jobs somewhere? Obviously if there are a lack of jobs people can't get one. You can't just show up to a company and say "Hire me" if they don't have any positions to be filled.

And you think this is the case for most people on welfare without reason?

I take nothing for granted. I could lose my job tomorrow and be jobless for a month, a day, or a year. Shit happens.

Then you ought to prepare yourself for that Natoma. Such is life. You shoulnd't expect eveyone else to want to take care of you.

 

[Legion]

fiscal conservatives thank the democrats for making a big stink ad nauseum please.

The very moment fiscal liberals thank republicans for pointing out the mass economic failures of calif electric power decisions and the blunders of Grey Davis.

 

[Natoma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12CND-PENT.html?hp

So no even busj is saying haliburton overcharged good .

Alluding to a Pentagon audit that has found that Halliburton may indeed have overcharged the government by some $61 million for fuel deliveries, the president said: ``I appreciate the Pentagon looking after the taxpayers' money. They felt like there was an overcharge issue.''

Now all you fiscal conservatives thank the democrats for making a big stink ad nauseum please.

Actually the democrats and republicans have made a big stink about the problem. Fiscal conservatism exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

<-- Fiscal conservative, Social liberal.

I'm glad Bush came out and made that statement. Things like that do go a long way with me. Not enough to make up for the last 3 years of crap from him, but it's a start.

And Legion, it's like beating my head against a brick wall with you. I give up. Talking to you is pointless. This quote "I just don't see any examples." is a perfect example. What did the queen say when told that her subjects were starving? "Let them eat cake" was it? Yea.......

 

[Natoma]

fiscal conservatives thank the democrats for making a big stink ad nauseum please.

The very moment fiscal liberals thank republicans for pointing out the mass economic failures of calif electric power decisions and the blunders of Grey Davis.

You're spouting off about that too? Good god that was a criminal event, not the failings of a politician. Enron, Dynegy, and others gouged the state of california, especially since those companies created the energy shortage themselves to pump up the prices and make a profit. Why do you think they're under investigation?

God please read about the situations you comment on.