The Liberal Nightmare Begins (LOL! ROTFLMAO!!!)

NewsMax.com ^ | 1 February 2006 | Philip V. Brennan

[AgThorn]

...that is why there approval ratings are in the toilet and they have lost the Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS.

Lib's haven't lost SCOTUS yet, considering they still have 5 of the 9 justices to count on. We need one more.

[bjc]

Let me ask you some simple questions.
Do you run a business? Do have any employees, apart from personal servants (a la Ted Kennedy and John Kerry)? Have you ever had to forego your paycheck to ensure that your employees get paid? Do you know anyone who runs a business with more than say 20 employees?
Your notions of fairness and justice are perverse. Sure there are people with a lot of disposable income who add little to the "general welfare", but how do you differentiate those "coupon clippers" from individuals who are creating jobs and doing all kinds of good deeds?
The entire liberal ideology is based on the assumption that someone knows better than I do what should be done with the product of my labor - deconstruct "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", i.e., who decides? Your pursuit of social justice through the tax code is doomed to failure and will, as others have pointed out, shrink the pie for all.

P.S. I do run a business, I do employ 20 plus people, I have foregone paychecks and my tax expropriations and personal charitable donations are % wise significantly greater than "short-arms" Kerry.

[TX Conservative]

I would like to know where and when the idea arose that the it's the government's place to "create jobs"???

[getitright]

Isn't it a tad early to lump Roberts and Alito with the conservatives? That is what I am expecting of course, but remember there was a time when we would have said the same about O'Conner, Kennedy, and Souter.

Here's hoping you're right!

[liberallarry]

Would it be too much to ask you to demonstrate that Bush's tax cuts applied disproportionally to the top 5%, or would you not have space for that here?

First, a caveat. "Wage" earners is a technical term and may exclude those whose earnings come from other sources. Those exclusions are not considered when the percentages are calculated.

It's time I don't have, time to do the research. But what I do remember is that 41% of the tax savings went to the rich. Whether that meant to the top 10% or 5% or 1% I can't say.

[liberallarry]

I would like to know where and when the idea arose that the it's the government's place to "create jobs"???

It's in the Constitution. You know the phrase about "promoting the general welfare"? If the private sector can't do it then the job falls to the government.

[TheForceOfOne]

You know that, and I know that, but don't tell them that. I enjoy watching the swimmer and the rest of the Liberals lose their minds thinking it is.

It's very likely to be a "Kennedy Court" for the time being.

[liberallarry]

I've never employeed more than 2 or 3 people and never had to struggle to pay them. But I watched a college friend run $100,000 up to $250 million (500+ employees) and then lose it all. I have another friend who's one of the most successful contractors in one of the wealthiest areas in the country. A third is a real-estate tycoon. Another inherited a large school-supply business. I think I understand - in a general way - the pressures such people face.

"Your notions of fairness and justice are perverse... deconstruct "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need""

You're conflating me with modern liberals and both with communism. My approach is not from "fairness and justice" and certainly not from the current favored piece of propaganda "social justice"...but rather from the old Roman notion of "noblesse oblige". You can't live in a society and be oblivious to the welfare of your fellow citizens. Not if you want the society to survive.

[ShadowAce]

But what I do remember is that 41% of the tax savings went to the rich. Whether that meant to the top 10% or 5% or 1% I can't say.

Suppose, for argument's sake, that you are correct.

What do you think the rich DO with their newfound tax breaks? Do they just sit on the money? No. They usually spend it or re-invest it. That money gets out and goes to workers.

Joe RichDude just got $10,000 back from the gov't. "Great!" he thinks. "I'm gonna remodel my home study/build a media room, etc" He PAYS the workers with that tax refund. He's giving work to those who don't make as much as he does.

Perhaps he decides to buy a new car--the salesman makes a commission off that tax break, the UAW earns money from that sale, and another company gets to contribute the profits from that sale into the health care and pension plan of its workers.

Bottom line--it doesn't matter who gets tax breaks--everyone eventually wins.

[DM1]

yikes
i cannot wait for that broad to retire
i pray that Stevens and Bryer and Souter any or all retire while we still have a majority in the Senate and control the White House
imagine having at least 7 conservatives on the bench :)

[mvpel]

If you are poor or shiftless enough that you aren't paying any taxes at all, and are in fact getting a paycheck from the government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit or some other such scheme, then how is the government supposed to "cut" your taxes?

If I pay $15,000 in taxes each year and get a 10% cut, or $1500, and someone who pays $1,000 in taxes per year gets a 25% cut, or $250, who got the bigger tax cut?

[starbase]

It's time I don't have, time to do the research. But what I do remember is that 41% of the tax savings went to the rich. Whether that meant to the top 10% or 5% or 1% I can't say.

Well that's lame. If you didn't know I wish you would have just said so in the first place. In the end you only prove me correct. From my Post #70:

Come on now, one more chance, if you're going to talk about "the rich" then tell us what "a rich" is. Otherwise it will show you are addressing something you haven't taken the time to understand.

So you didn't know what "a rich" was, as I charged you did not,(because here you're bandying 10%, 5%, and 1% around again) and now you don't know how much of the tax cut went to that "rich" (and of course you don't know what "rich" is anyway).

Well you're a smart guy, but you're a typical liberal, talking around in big circles trying to delay, delay, delay, (just like an ex-president we all know) until your opponent forgets your points. Too bad for you I am not so easily confused.

In the end you don't know how much "went to the rich" and you don't even know what a rich person is, but you still try to build a political viewpoint on that towering mass of jello. Not a good combination!!!

Well, nice talking with you. See you around FR,

Cheers, starbase

[John O]

Human beings are just naturally jealous of those who have more.

Disagree. Liberals are jealous of others success, conservatives look at others success as a sign of what we can have too if we work at it.

[John O]

Then do John Ashcroft. After their heads explode do Janice Rogers Brown and she'll cakewalk in.

[John O]

It's about whether or not the Bush tax cuts created private sector jobs.

Somewhere around 4.6 million in the last two years. It's a pretty proven fact that tax cuts ALWAYS produce jobs.

[John O]

Why is the Administration emphasizing chastity and opposing birth control all over the world?

Because chastity before marriage has a long proven history of being the absolute best policy.

Almost all social problems are tied to pre-marital promiscuity.

[John O]

A rising tide lifts all boats

[John O]

Great idea

[John O]

If the private sector can't do it then the job falls to the government.

Government jobs programs (or any government welfare type program) do not promote the general welfare. almost all of them are in fact damaging to the general welfare. If you want to see something other than defense or foreign relations or regulation of interstate trade turn to caca, let the government do it.

[bjc]

I do not believe I am conflating you inappropriately with liberals or communists. Taxation is a manifestation of collective versus individual will. I believe fiercely in minimizing the former so as to maximize the latter. Liberals and communists believe that the only way to maximize the latter is to increase the former.
From an ethical pov, we agree on the end state, but disagree on the means. My point is that you cannot coerce "noblesse oblige" through the tax laws - it is a contradiction in terms. Liberals like Kerry and Kennedy, my Senators alas, who advocate high tax rates while shielding their own wealth in tax-exempt trusts and bonds are total hypocrites. Their public service is driven by unfettered ego and a desire for power - the direct opposite of "noblesse oblige". It infuriates me to no end to have individuals who fly first class to Davos on a whim and then tell me I have to pay more taxes rather than give my employees a pay increase or hire a new employee. They simply do not have a clue. Bush's foreshortened campaign around an "ownership society" is exactly the right direction to go in so as to put permanent pressure on our elected officials to limit taxation.