24th January 2004, 11:30 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:The rich are rich and thus have more than enough and should be giving far more back to society than the people lower down.
Does this mean "Yes, I hate the rich" or "No, I don't hate the rich"?
Quote:On my mom's side going back to my grandparent's generation I can think of five college professors... one's pretty strongly right-wing, though. The rest of the family doesn't talk about politics with them. :)
I bet they don't. But it's good to know your pedigree isn't completely tainted. ;)
Quote:Those are good sites. Not what you asked for, exactly, but good liberal sites with lots of stuff on them that proves how idiotic Bush and his administration are.
I asked for proof about social programs, not wide-based liberal propaganda machines.
Quote:Most blacks live in the south...
That is increasingly not the case.
Quote:It is impossible to prove this to you. I know I've found good things to say before and you've never listened for a second so why bother again?
Translation: I'm full of crap but too chicken to admit it.
Quote:You should care that they pay less because it means you pay more. SOMEONE has to pay. And yes, the Republicans do not, never did, and never will care about anyone other than the rich. It's been their position ever since soon after they were founded and still is.
The rich pay, percentage-wise, far, far more taxes than I do. So no, I don't feel the least bit of resentment against them. It's my goal to be rich one day. Why would I hate them?
Note: Having goals and working to achieve them is basically the centerpiece of my entire ideological belief. I don't feel resentment over not being rich because I haven't earned it. And if I do become rich, I won't feel the slightest guilt for anyone who isn't, because I did work for it.
As far as your statements on the middle-class, increased taxes hurt the middle-class. Reduced taxes help them. Liberals raise taxes. Conservatives tend to lower them.
2+2 still equals four.
Quote:And there are more things than taxes. Schools, for instance. Science. Health insurance. Etc. If taxes are higher it means we can better fund such essential programs as those, that always get cut under Republican administrations...
And if taxes are lessened, middle-class families can better afford far superior private schools for their children and better health insurance coverage. Zing!
Quote:I'll bet that there are plenty of people out there who if they really thought about it would realize that if they paid more taxes, but got free (or cheaper, as is much more realistic in the short term) health insurance in return (or their employer got breaks to get them to give their employees better coverage, especially in small businesses which are getting hit really, really hard by health and accident insurance costs), that they'd be getting a very good deal? Especially if it came with actually good education improvement too...
Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.
Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.
Quote:As I've said before, the definition of "poor" is innaccurate and misleading...
No matter how you look at it, percentage-wise there are not many poor people in America. If you count poor as making under a certain amount of money, there are few. If you count poor as destitute, that number is much smaller.
Quote:There is no way to end poverty completely... that isn't really a realistic goal... but we need to make it not as bad and make it easier for poor people to get out of poverty. Making them do it themselves does not do that, since most are unable to even begin...
Most are able to begin. Most people have the opportunity. But we can't tell because social programs stymie any hope of that happening.
Quote:And obviously welfare has helped people out of poverty. It helps you not completely fall apart while you try to improve your life... yes, getting people off the welfare rolls is a good idea... but again, only when the jobs they are going to are actually good enough to support a person or a family adaquately. So many, probably most, of the lower-end jobs just don't do that...
Again, I don't understand your logic. You have this crazed idea that it's better for people to not work for their money. Welfare usually doesn't pay anymore than a minimum wage job does.
Plus, I know you ignore most of what I say, but in the past I've said several times that I don't mind people recieving welfare IN ADDITION to income from a job, which would save money on welfare rolls AND give people more income! What I do NOT like is the idea of people getting it for absolutely nothing in return. And few of those people are physically incapable of working. What I do not like is people who intentionally create large families just to get free welfare money. I don't think it's the government's job to save you from being stupid.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR