Footwedge;392425 wrote:#3 is totally false. The government gives shitloads without taking it from anyone. It is a well known term called deficit spending.

You saying deficit spending does not take from future generations?

isadore;392420 wrote:part of your continuing efffort to comfort the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted. Why use a bulldog as representative, a fat cat would be more appropriate.

So let me get this right. By your standards, one who works for a living and takes no handouts is a fat cat, but those who don't/won't work and increasingly rely on those who do work are bulldogs. Huh?

Footwedge;392425 wrote:#3 is totally false. The government gives shitloads without taking it from anyone. It is a well known term called deficit spending.

#4 is as dumb as it gets. Spoken like a acid tripping philosopher. Far out man.

#5 is totally inaccurate as well. The unemployed number 17% in this country. Of those 17% still looking for work, they don't want shit given to them from anybody. They want a decent job.

#3 not only takes away from future generations as majorspark said, but it also devalues the country's currency in the short term.

#4 seems incomplete to me. I would rewrite it as, "You cannot usurp the property of the wealthy, divide it among the populace and expect everyone to be wealthy."

#5 is accurate. It speaks of the 'won't work' crowd, not the 'can't work' that you reference.

BCBulldog;392487 wrote:So let me get this right. By your standards, one who works for a living and takes no handouts is a fat cat, but those who don't/won't work and increasingly rely on those who do work are bulldogs. Huh?

I prefer to think of the poor, needy, the truly suffering as humans, but of course you have your own views of them as less than that.

isadore;392622 wrote:I prefer to think of the poor, needy, the truly suffering as humans, but of course you have your own views of them as less than that.

I am not talking about those that would support themselves if they could, but can't because they lack the ability to do so. I'm talking about those who CHOOSE not to work because they don't want to for any given number of reasons. Self-sufficiency is something that should be admirable and worked toward. Sloth, entitlement and depencence seem to be the prevailing wind, however.

So, conversely you believe the rich are less human? I believe we are all created equal, have unique individual talents and abilites and are afforded the opportunity to use them for our own benefit as we see fit without interference from others.

BCBulldog;392683 wrote:Sloth, entitlement and depencence seem to be the prevailing wind, however.

Could not agree more!

And then there were:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

"The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

BCBulldog;392683 wrote:I am not talking about those that would support themselves if they could, but can't because they lack the ability to do so. I'm talking about those who CHOOSE not to work because they don't want to for any given number of reasons. Self-sufficiency is something that should be admirable and worked toward. Sloth, entitlement and depencence seem to be the prevailing wind, however.

So, conversely you believe the rich are less human? I believe we are all created equal, have unique individual talents and abilites and are afforded the opportunity to use them for our own benefit as we see fit without interference from others.

As wealth concentrates in hands of a few, we get these claims that sloth, entitlement and dependnce seem to be the prevailing wind.
Hardly the poor, the working class have been the primary victims of the prevailing wind. What sloth, American working class provide some of the best most productive workers in the world, while their productivity is used to enrich others.
Entitlement, people contribute to social security, to medicare are entitled to their benefits.
Of course we have the entitlement of protect of great wealth with the temporary elimination of the estate tax, now there is an entitlement and the protection of a continuing aristocracy of wealth as an example of a proteced dependence.

isadore;392758 wrote:As wealth concentrates in hands of a few, we get these claims that sloth, entitlement and dependnce seem to be the prevailing wind.
Hardly the poor, the working class have been the primary victims of the prevailing wind. What sloth, American working class provide some of the best most productive workers in the world, while their productivity is used to enrich others.

For the last time, I am not talking about those that would support themselves if they could, but can't because they lack the ability to do so. I'm talking about those who CHOOSE not to work because they don't want to for any given number of reasons.

isadore;392758 wrote:Entitlement, people contribute to social security, to medicare are entitled to their benefits.

No disagreement. But I would offer this, I am willing to pay into both throughout my entire working lifetime and receive no benefits from either, if that means the next generation can eliminate such inefficient and economically draining programs.

isadore;392758 wrote:Of course we have the entitlement of protect of great wealth with the temporary elimination of the estate tax, now there is an entitlement and the protection of a continuing aristocracy of wealth as an example of a proteced dependence.

Are you kidding me?! You actually believe that the government (or someone else?) has the right to a deceased persons estate other than to whom he/she bequeaths it? Estate tax, inheritance tax, death tax or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than legalized governmental theft.

BCBulldog:
So we have t his enormous mass of idle poor out there in our nation. But me and I take it, you from what you wrote,
don’t consider those receiving social security and medicare as part of the idle mass.
And I sure don’t consider the large majority of those unemployed or underemployed as part of that group.
The average unemployment rate in 2007 was 4.6 %. The large overwhelming majority of Americans working, most of them undervalued but still working.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
Now that figure is more than doubled with an accompanying growth in underemployment.
I guess these folks are your mass of idle poor.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
I don’t see it that way.
The inheritance tax:
Of course the government has the right to tax estates. You are so worried about the “idle poor” but so sympathetic to the “idle rich.”

I'm not talking about those who can't find a job either. I'm talking about those who won't look for a job or take a job that they feel is 'beneath' them. They are drains on the economy and their sloth, apathy and feelings of entitlement should not be acceptable reasons to send money their way.

How do you figure the government has a right to someone else's earnings and property? The government only has what power "We the people" give it. When they start taking what is not theirs (Fourth Amendment anybody?), they overstep their bounds.

By the way, do you really believe that the government can more efficiently care for the poor than private charities? If so, then why did Bill Gates and Warren Buffett give their money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation instead of the government to help those in need?

Another thing, those who are 'idle' rich, often times become the working poor because they too lack incentive to achieve. I am more interested in helping the active, be they poor or rich. They are the producers and the more resources they have, the better off all of us are.

BCBulldog:
The government of the United States, who are lead in the legislative and executive branch by our elected representatives have the power “ lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States (Article I, section 8, clause 1) and “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived.” US Constitution
During times of extreme need the resource of private charity are inadequate as could be seen when the Great Depression hit. In the extremes only the government has the resources to handle the basic needs of the people.
It is interesting that you bring up the Gates and Warren Buffett in arguing for the rich not being hit by estate tax. Since based on their experiences those families both opposed lowering or doing away with an estate tax, saying it served a necessary function.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm
That sense of entitlement, slothful, considering jobs beneath, seems to be more a characteristic of the idle rich in our society rather than any other group

isadore;392984 wrote:BCBulldog:
The government of the United States, who are lead in the legislative and executive branch by our elected representatives have the power “ lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States (Article I, section 8, clause 1) and “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived.” US Constitution
During times of extreme need the resource of private charity are inadequate as could be seen when the Great Depression hit. In the extremes only the government has the resources to handle the basic needs of the people.

So your solution in times of extreme economic downturns is to either levy heavier taxes on the few that actually have jobs or to devalue the currency through deficit spending? Brilliant!

isadore;392984 wrote:It is interesting that you bring up the Gates and Warren Buffett in arguing for the rich not being hit by estate tax. Since based on their experiences those families both opposed lowering or doing away with an estate tax, saying it served a necessary function.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm
That sense of entitlement, slothful, considering jobs beneath, seems to be more a characteristic of the idle rich in our society rather than any other group

Sure they say that, but look where there money is. Actions speak louder than words. They did not put their money where their mouths were.

BCBulldog:
You offer no solution, unless you are implying to let the unemployed starve.
In hard times charitable giving declines as can be seen in last two years, when need is greatest funds decrease. Government needs to act, spending to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
Or do you think it is better Americans starve in times of economic hardship rather than actually increase taxes on the rich. Yes let them die and decrease the excess population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/us/10charity.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704256604575294913333857770.html
Of course Gates and Buffett put their money where their mouth is. They wanted a estate tax on this large fortunes. They did not think these continuing fortunes were a good thing. When the government refused to act on the whole group of super rich. They did what they could about breaking up their own fortunes.

isadore;393049 wrote:BCBulldog:
You offer no solution, unless you are implying to let the unemployed starve.
In hard times charitable giving declines as can be seen in last two years, when need is greatest funds decrease. Government needs to act, spending to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
Or do you think it is better Americans starve in times of economic hardship rather than actually increase taxes on the rich. Yes let them die and decrease the excess population.

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
1 Thessalonians 3:10b

isadore;393049 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/us/10charity.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704256604575294913333857770.html
Of course Gates and Buffett put their money where their mouth is. They wanted a estate tax on this large fortunes. They did not think these continuing fortunes were a good thing. When the government refused to act on the whole group of super rich. They did what they could about breaking up their own fortunes.

LOL, you actually believe that?! They can say what they want, but it is obvious to anyone who works with money or knows anything about estate law that they were simply protecting their money the best they knew how. Otherwise, why not just donate to the federal government or just leave their money unsheltered when they die?

BCBulldog;393089 wrote:"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
1 Thessalonians 3:10b



LOL, you actually believe that?! They can say what they want, but it is obvious to anyone who works with money or knows anything about estate law that they were simply protecting their money the best they knew how. Otherwise, why not just donate to the federal government or just leave their money unsheltered when they die?

and if a man is living in an economy with 25% unemployment like we saw in 1933, let him and his family starve. Your cup runneth over.

Bull Buffet is not protecting his money to pass on to the next generation of little buffettes. They are not getting it.

majorspark;392430 wrote:You saying deficit spending does not take from future generations?

This response is to BC Bulldog as well. My reference to deficit spending is geared towards the fact that we, as a people, do not grasp the concept of what you've stated. Over the past 35 years or so, it has become ever apparent to me that nobody cares about the escalating debt. If they did, then we wouldn't have such a national debt. Do I think the younger generation is on the hook? Absolutely. I voted for Ross Perot and Ron Paul. I am a deficit hawk, by definition. But like Belushi said in animal House..."it just doesn't matter".

Deficit spending is the only way to keep a modicum of employed Americans. The migration of private enterprise jobs in "for profit" businesses to 3rd world countries is the ultimate source behind our never ending path to nationalized employment.

Sadly...if someone is young...and wants some security...then stay the hell away from private industry...and go work for the government. Being a hard working, successful business person in the private sector, has become a recipe for disaster.

isadore;393110 wrote:and if a man is living in an economy with 25% unemployment like we saw in 1933, let him and his family starve. Your cup runneth over.

Bull Buffet is not protecting his money to pass on to the next generation of little buffettes. They are not getting it.

You really don't pay attention, do you? Again, not "can't work", but "WON'T WORK". For clarity, let me repeat it a few times:

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

On Buffet and Gates, I never said they were protecting it to give to their heirs, just protecting in from the government seizing it through inheritance taxes. In the meantime, they can still direct where that money goes.

BCBulldog;393764 wrote:Y
I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

You're a little unclear. What are you talking about?

BCBulldog;393764 wrote:You really don't pay attention, do you? Again, not "can't work", but "WON'T WORK". For clarity, let me repeat it a few times:

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

I am not talking about those who can't work, but those who won't work.

On Buffet and Gates, I never said they were protecting it to give to their heirs, just protecting in from the government seizing it through inheritance taxes. In the meantime, they can still direct where that money goes.

BCBulldog wrote:By the way, do you really believe that the government can more efficiently care for the poor than private charities?

38#

BCBulldog wrote: So your solution in times of extreme economic downturns is to either levy heavier taxes on the few that actually have jobs or to devalue the currency through deficit spending? Brilliant!

40#
And when it shown that government is the only agency that can provide basic economic needs in a time of extreme economic hardship with 25% of the people unemployed, what do you reply to that situation of mass unemployment.

BCBulldog wrote:If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
1 Thessalonians 3:10b

That was your answer to what we had just mentioned
Your answer to what to do with people when there is 25% unemployment instead of government aid.
How about
Is. 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights.”

An inheritance is passed on to others when you die. Mr. Buffet and the Gates family believe there should be an appreciable tax on large inheritances. They do not believe the pass on of enormous estates is a good thing for the country The government of the United States has not acted a tax to the level they wish, but has even temporarily ended the tax. So they while still alive are taxing themselves.

isadore;393802 wrote:38#

40#

???

isadore;393802 wrote:And when it shown that government is the only agency that can provide basic economic needs in a time of extreme economic hardship with 25% of the people unemployed, what do you reply to that situation of mass unemployment.

Still not talking about the unemployed who are willing to work but can't find it.

isadore;393802 wrote:That was your answer to what we had just mentioned
Your answer to what to do with people when there is 25% unemployment instead of government aid.
How about
Is. 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights.”

Nice try, but that verse speaks to oppressive judges and rulers whose actions did not serve justice and oppresed them of their rights. It says nothing about the rulers not providing financial subsidization of them.

isadore;393802 wrote:An inheritance is passed on to others when you die. Mr. Buffet and the Gates family believe there should be an appreciable tax on large inheritances. They do not believe the pass on of enormous estates is a good thing for the country The government of the United States has not acted a tax to the level they wish, but has even temporarily ended the tax. So they while still alive are taxing themselves.

Again, then why even create or give to a foundation if they are being purely altruistic? Why not just let the government take it at their death or even give it to the government right now?

BCBulldog;393816 wrote:???



Still not talking about the unemployed who are willing to work but can't find it.



Nice try, but that verse speaks to oppressive judges and rulers whose actions did not serve justice and oppresed them of their rights. It says nothing about the rulers not providing financial subsidization of them.



Again, then why even create or give to a foundation if they are being purely altruistic? Why not just let the government take it at their death or even give it to the government right now?

In 38# and 40# you were obviously talking about government aid to all in need at time of economic crisis. And criticizing it as being too expensive.

BCBulldog wrote: By the way, do you really believe that the government can more efficiently care for the poor than private charities?

BCBulldog wrote: So your solution in times of extreme economic downturns is to either levy heavier taxes on the few that actually have jobs or to devalue the currency through deficit spending? Brilliant!

Discounting the proven fact that at a time of nation wide severe economic downturn, private charities do not have the resources to provide all the necessary aid.

Of course you continue to attack the massive group of idle poor who you seem to think make up the large majority of the needy in our nation. Not those who have lost jobs, not children, not the aged, not the handicapped, but
this mass of idle poor.

BCBULLDOG wrote:Are you kidding me?! You actually believe that the government (or someone else?) has the right to a deceased persons estate other than to whom he/she bequeaths it? Estate tax, inheritance tax, death tax or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than legalized governmental theft.

Mr. Buffet and the Gate family reject your view. They have fought and lobbied against repealing or lowering the estate tax as was shown above. They think that these enormous estates passed from one generation to a next are not a good thing. And their political and other actions demonstrate it.

isadore;394026 wrote:In 38# and 40# you were obviously talking about government aid to all in need at time of economic crisis. And criticizing it as being too expensive.

As usual, you make a wild assumption not based on evidence. I am talking about worthless stimulus spending that creates no jobs and stimulates nothing. For all the good that $700 billion has done, we would have been better off just randomly sending out 700,000 $1 million checks to those who filed a tax return last year.

isadore;394026 wrote:Discounting the proven fact that at a time of nation wide severe economic downturn, private charities do not have the resources to provide all the necessary aid.

Of course you continue to attack the massive group of idle poor who you seem to think make up the large majority of the needy in our nation. Not those who have lost jobs, not children, not the aged, not the handicapped, but
this mass of idle poor.

Yes, I am talking about the idle poor. There is more than you think. Add in those who "work the system" through bogus disability claims, intentionally rejecting employment offers to stay on unemployment benefits and other frauds and misuses while you are at it.

isadore;394026 wrote:Mr. Buffet and the Gate family reject your view. They have fought and lobbied against repealing or lowering the estate tax as was shown above. They think that these enormous estates passed from one generation to a next are not a good thing. And their political and other actions demonstrate it.

Yet their money will stay with a foundation that they run and can name any successor they choose to run it once they are gone. The actual wealth will not directly transfer, but the ability to control where it goes most certainly does. So technicaly, the estate itself may not transfer directly to the descendants, but that really makes no difference when looking at the larger scope of what they are doing. The point being, they don't want the government seizing their estates, but they realize it is going to happen, so they say they support it, but act entirely different with their own money.

Charity contribution decrease in times of economic need, as can be seen during the Depression and during 2008 and 2009. In times of extreme need the federal government is the only institution that has the resources to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation. And if the rich have to pay some more taxes, so be it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060903233.html
http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/news-releases/2009/eighth-annual-guidestar-nonprofit-economic-survey.aspxBuffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap

You seem to think that social security, medicare, Medicaid, etc mainly exist to support an enormous group of idle poor. Why I am sure there are some, the mass majority of those receiving benefits need and deserve them Oldsters who have contributed to social security and medicare, the handicapped, children who have lost a breadwinner, the unemployed. But of course in your view of the world, if they are not contributing then….

Mr. Buffet and some of the other super rich disagree with your view of the estate tax and not fear government taxing his estate.
Buffett backs estate tax, descries wealth gap
(Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett on Wednesday endorsed the estate tax as a check on wealth accumulation,
"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline," Buffett said. "A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1442383020071114

Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

isadore;396143 wrote:... In times of extreme need the federal government is the only institution that has the resources to prevent mass suffering, homelessness and starvation. ...

The government does not currently have the resources to provide for the mass suffering, homelessness and starvation while the private community does. The private community has much more resources than the federal government.