The new Bennetton GOP (?)

[roni]

Originally Posted by StephenB

The really sick part is that when we get a refund or any money back, we spend it to pay other taxes! Just for once I'd like to be able to spend that of beer and cigs!!

I do not, mostly.

I put it in the layoff fund.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

I fail to see the logic you do, just because somebody earns more money does not mean he needs it any less than you do your money...

Again, it was just a comment in response to Stephen´s about the similarity between his complaint and Bush´s policies, and that aspect of them. Was it so far off the mark?

But for your comments above, I guess we would need to redefine need and needy here or something, to get to your view...

Originally Posted by tmc

...and therefore should not be seen as a cash cow to be drained at the whim of tax cheating politicians.

Well you´ve really become the broad-brusher, it seems, the exaggerater, or something to that effect. I mean, comlaints about one particular official are fine, if that´s who you´re referring to, but they don´t cover everyone in his type of work or position. If you do have many more examples to support the implication that basically all those who might want to give tax cuts to those among the more needy (I use the word here as it is generally used in English) in our society do in fact cheat on their own taxes, well you might want to produce them or specify further, just as Jacko was asking you to do a while back about all the people conservatives like to complain about, who seem to just want to freeload off the government.

Either that or not throw out such exaggerations in such broad-brush strokes, I don´t know...

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Again, it was just a comment in response to Stephen´s about the similarity between his complaint and Bush´s policies, and that aspect of them. Was it so far off the mark?

But for your comments above, I guess we would need to redefine need and needy here or something, to get to your view...

We don't have to define anything, if I earned it, its mine; the same holds true for what you earn. I have no special right to what you've earned because I don't think you need it to live.

Well you´ve really become the broad-brusher, it seems, the exaggerater, or something to that effect. I mean, comlaints about one particular official are fine, if that´s who you´re referring to, but they don´t cover everyone in his type of work or position.

I was referring specifically to the new man in charge of the IRS; I mean, he is either an idiot or a tax cheat, perhaps both, and our now forlorn Mr. Daschle. They are the two in the news today; the former heads the tax collection agency and neglected to pay a significant tax due, the latter never saw a tax increase he didn't love while in the Senate, especially since it appears as if he had no plans to pay them.

If you do have many more examples to support the implication that basically all those who might want to give tax cuts to those among the more needy (I use the word here as it is generally used in English) in our society do in fact cheat on their own taxes, well you might want to produce them or specify further, just as Jacko was asking you to do a while back about all the people conservatives like to complain about, who seem to just want to freeload off the government.

Either that or not throw out such exaggerations in such broad-brush strokes, I don´t know...

Steve

Or perhaps, you and Jacko can just not assume what you do when reading my posts. I thought my comments to him on to whom I was referring clear enough, I trust the ones above work for you.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

We don't have to define anything, if I earned it, its mine; the same holds true for what you earn. I have no special right to what you've earned because I don't think you need it to live.

I see.

So again, we´re not talking words as they´re regularly used in English, we´re talking about what you want them to mean.

I was using regular English, you see, so that´s what the problem is between us on this point: I suggested the people getting tax cuts under the current situation might be more in need of them, and your dispute of that has to do with the fact that you´re using your special definition of need here, rather than the regular one English speakers use, a special definition that has to do not with need so much as with ideas involving very different aspects, involving what one possesses, what one deserves, things like that.

Glad we could clear that one up, at least!

Originally Posted by tmc

I was referring specifically to the new man in charge of the IRS; I mean, he is either an idiot or a tax cheat, perhaps both, and our now forlorn Mr. Daschle. They are the two in the news today; the former heads the tax collection agency and neglected to pay a significant tax due, the latter never saw a tax increase he didn't love while in the Senate, especially since it appears as if he had no plans to pay them.

Well you came up with a second. Doesn´t really justify your broad-brush comment earlier, though -- just 2 recent cases. And you do realize that there are more than 2 politicians out there, right? And that more than 2 people -- many more, in fact -- are involved in the decision-making as to what will happen with all our taxes?

Originally Posted by tmc

Or perhaps, you and Jacko can just not assume what you do when reading my posts. I thought my comments to him on to whom I was referring clear enough, I trust the ones above work for you.

Well you can see the results on those above.

Maybe again you should use less of a broad brush in your arguments. I dare say they´d be more convincing without such exaggerations, as they do contain important elements of the truth and reality and what we should consider. They´re just coming out all skewed by the gilding of the lily...

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I see.

So again, we´re not talking words as they´re regularly used in English, we´re talking about what you want them to mean.

I was using regular English, you see, so that´s what the problem is between us on this point: I suggested the people getting tax cuts under the current situation might be more in need of them, and your dispute of that has to do with the fact that you´re using your special definition of need here, rather than the regular one English speakers use, a special definition that has to do not with need so much as with ideas involving very different aspects, involving what one possesses, what one deserves, things like that.

Glad we could clear that one up, at least!

Unless you know the specific circumstance of everyone in the country, you have no way of knowing how much a person needs to live. It may be that a person making 100K a year needs all of that to care for his ailing parents and severely disabled children, all while living in a very high tax state like NY; a couple earning 50K in Oklahoma may not have the same responsibilities; who are you to decide who needs the tax rebates more? I am not using any special meaning of the word, but nice try.

Well you came up with a second. Doesn´t really justify your broad-brush comment earlier, though -- just 2 recent cases. And you do realize that there are more than 2 politicians out there, right? And that more than 2 people -- many more, in fact -- are involved in the decision-making as to what will happen with all our taxes?


Well you can see the results on those above.

You inferred the broad brush, that's your problem. If you'd been following the news, you might have recognized the two most popular names being bandied about and might have made the connection I was trying to make; that's ok, I think I made it clear enough for you now, no?

Maybe again you should use less of a broad brush in your arguments. I dare say they´d be more convincing without such exaggerations, as they do contain important elements of the truth and reality and what we should consider. They´re just coming out all skewed by the gilding of the lily...

Steve

Who are you kidding, you have no intention of considering the arguments I posited! Now that I've made it clear to you, do you agree with my premise; thought not.

[ryberg]

OK, dude. I just imagined your broad brush (I guess like Jacko did in responding to similar comments of yours on other points, earlier), and I just lied when I said there was any merit to what you're discussing. You're right.

I never thought your approach and Stogey's were very similar, but you guys have sure done a good job today of teaming up and telling me what my views really are, despite what I've said!

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

OK, dude. I just imagined your broad brush (I guess like Jacko did in responding to similar comments of yours on other points, earlier),

Why don't you let Jacko speak for himself, rather than you drag him into your efforts with me here? He clearly understood what I meant when I added my latest post in response to him, why can't you? If he had issues with my added statements, I'm sure he would let me know directly, unless you two are teaming up on me and he is the silent one for now.

and I just lied when I said there was any merit to what you're discussing. You're right.

I never thought your approach and Stogey's were very similar, but you guys have sure done a good job today of teaming up and telling me what my views really are, despite what I've said!

Steve

I haven't attributed any views to you at all, I just called you on your bs about my arguments being more convincing if written differently; you never give an inch in any discussion, why would a change in form make a difference?

What's the point of bringing up another poster on this matter? Is it an effort to deflect and change the subject, as clearly you are floundering here? Isn't it odd that you are the only one failing to grasp my point, or that has taken any time out of his day to address things of marginal consequence to the argument? Can't you just accept what I've written as I've explained it; no, you're right, I lied when I wrote what I did (does that make both of us liars now)?

I don't know Stogey, nor have we made any effort to team. Perhaps you inability to tell the difference between the approach we take in posting should be one of your main areas of concern?

[Jacko]

I think we all just need to have a few drinks together on a beach somewhere sometime...then we would all start to better understand each other...

[STOGEY]

First of all anyone who calls themselves a conservative and freeloads off the govt aint no conservative. Real conservatives want as little govt as possible.


Its the libs that are concerned about money. They think that just because your spending money, you're fixing a problem. Just like in onesauty if you donly change the life style even if you live on a diet of naked beans. All you're gonna have is a day person that sits a lot.

[STOGEY]

Steve you must think that everobe here has fallen off the turnip trucj. However you know perfectly well that other than faschel and his other tax cheating accomplise that's head of the IRS , if the majority of us did what they did, we'd either be in jail or making a pay off plan.


Plus there's no way that an average person would be considered for employment at the IRS until the matter was resolved. Why should they get special treatment, just because they're pretty boys?


I know that the feds read places like this. I can expect an audit anytime now. When it does come down I'll ask Baracko to be appointed to a cabinet post.

[Jacko]

I believe ALL people want as little government as possible....we get hung up on agreeing upon "what is possible" I think.

It seems to me that our recent history of providing tax reductions that we do not pay for is spending money just as surely as spending it on some social program and might also be considered "freeloading" off the government by some.......

Many conseravatives have supported these unpaid for tax reductions in the past and continue to support them in the current stimulus legislation being considered.......therefore by some folks definition of a conservative (and by recent elections results), there must be very few "real" conservatives left in the country.

Beyond that, I find that many of these few remaining "real" conservatives tend to talk the talk of tax cuts and smaller government all the time....but when the services that government provides go missing, first, they shift the responsibility to the states...then when they find the states are also broke, they still want their tax cuts and wonder why we all just can't do a better job being better individuals, better businesses or being better politicians...ahhhhhh......the differences some folks have in viewing the world the way we wish it to be and seeking to change that world, yet ACTING upon the world today the way it really is.....

[roni]

Originally Posted by tmc

We don't have to define anything, if I earned it, its mine; the same holds true for what you earn. I have no special right to what you've earned because I don't think you need it to live.

We the people, through our government, have the legal right and duty to levy and collect taxes for purposes decided on by we the people as the government.

We have that right at the federal, state, and local levels.

This is a fact.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I believe ALL people want as little government as possible....

I disagree, there are some for whom there is never enough government, most of them gravitate towards the capitol regions of the several states and this country.

we get hung up on agreeing upon "what is possible" I think.

It seems to me that our recent history of providing tax reductions that we do not pay for is spending money just as surely as spending it on some social program and might also be considered "freeloading" off the government by some.......

How could a return of my money be considered "freeloading"? The leaders in DC want it both ways, provide tax breaks without the concomitant spending cuts, that is indeed reckless, but does not constitute "freeloading" by the persons paying the tax bill, as the government still chooses to keep quite a bit of our money, tax reductions notwithstanding. I can see your point if you talk about people who receive "refunds" even if they paid no income taxes, but isn't that being a little harsh?

Many conseravatives have supported these unpaid for tax reductions in the past and continue to support them in the current stimulus legislation being considered.......therefore by some folks definition of a conservative (and by recent elections results), there must be very few "real" conservatives left in the country.

I imagine many have supported the tax reductions in hopes that their elected officials would do the right thing and cut spending as well, but alas, our feckless leaders have failed to do so. It does make sense, however, to blame the taxpayer for this failure of nerve on the part of Congress, rather than Congress itself, is that your point?

Beyond that, I find that many of these few remaining "real" conservatives tend to talk the talk of tax cuts and smaller government all the time....but when the services that government provides go missing, first, they shift the responsibility to the states...then when they find the states are also broke, they still want their tax cuts and wonder why we all just can't do a better job being better individuals, better businesses or being better politicians...ahhhhhh......the differences some folks have in viewing the world the way we wish it to be and seeking to change that world, yet ACTING upon the world today the way it really is.....

I'm not sure to whom you are referring, but most people I know don't object to paying taxes for those programs that they feel are in the rightful sphere of the federal or state/local government, respectively. What sense does it make to take a dollar in tax paid in a town in NY, send it to DC to have it routed through the federal bureaucracy, to be returned to the State of NY where it gets distribute to the town from whence it came, all the while the "middlemen" involved in the process taking a cut? Those things that make sense to address at a federal level should be done that way, others issues should be addressed at the state/local level accordingly. The reason why the system breaks down, in part, is because the federal government doesn't get smaller, and it thus starves the states of the monies they can raise.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by roni

We the people, through our government, have the legal right and duty to levy and collect taxes for purposes decided on by we the people as the government.

We have that right at the federal, state, and local levels.

This is a fact.

What you say is true, but we also have the responsibility to ensure that we do so wisely; that seems to be the bone of contention here. We should not, merely because we have numbers on our side, allow a class of people to take monies from others just because we can; imagine if that notion spread to other areas of behavior?

[roni]

Originally Posted by tmc

What you say is true, but we also have the responsibility to ensure that we do so wisely; that seems to be the bone of contention here. We should not, merely because we have numbers on our side, allow a class of people to take monies from others just because we can; imagine if that notion spread to other areas of behavior?

I would gently suggest that the fiscal irresponsibility practiced during the past 28 years is partly responsible for the current state of affairs. We heard mostly cheers for that fiscal insanity from the Republican party.

Those policies were about shifting the burden from the relatively better off to the relatively less well off. Or, perhaps a Sheriff of Nottingham type of income redistribution