In article <7csf22t0oape8g4kma6i1bclcpk41r0iv6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
laffs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'em-all.com wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:07:55 -0500, ray
> <xxxrayted@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >In article <r5ge225d2alv0p1ht0jk9aq04hi20ne2dm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > laffs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'em-all.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:40:07 -0500, ray
> >> <xxxrayted@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Well since I'm so stupid, I have to hire a Professional Tax
Preparer
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >do my taxes. And according to him, I got my tax break even
though I'm
> >> >> >far from rich.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did your accountant tell you how much more you had to
> >> >> pay for your Health Care, the higher cost of state and
> >> >> local taxes to cover funneling a trillion to the
> >> >> richest 2%, how much you lost in real wages, how much
> >> >> you (or your offspring) will have to repay in debt
> >> >> caused by failed economic policies and the elective
> >> >> war?
> >> >>
> >> >> Did your accountant tell you that whatever you do,
> >> >> don't ever have to file bankruptcy, even in case of
> >> >> catastrophic illness or accident, or ever have to sue a
> >> >> cor****ation for some harm they caused you, or a product
> >> >> that caused harm?
> >> >>
> >> >> EVERY piece of legislation (including that puny "tax
> >> >> cut" YOU got) was geared to screwing the majority.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your "tax cut" wouldn't buy the signs on one mile of
> >> >> interstate highways.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Well better a tax cut than a tax increase like Clinton gave us when
he
> >> >first took office.
> >>
> >> C'mon
> >>
> >> His tax increase affected the highest incomes for the
> >> most part.
> >
> >Only upper income people drive automobiles? First thing he did was
> >raise gasoline taxes.
>
> Low end income get benefit of some rebates on those
> taxes
Nobody got no such thing.
> >Then he raised taxes on SS as well.
>
> On the higher incomes
No, on the average SS person who HAD to work part time in order to make
ends meet. Higher income people don't even need SS nor do they work
unless they perhaps have their own business.
> >But beyond
> >that, wasn't it Al Gore who stood behind the law suits in this country
> >against BIG TOBACCO?
>
> Absolutely
>
> THe tobacco companies lied to congress about the danger
> in products, lied about "spiking" various additives to
> make addiction easier.
No, because trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributers to the
Democrat party. You mean to tell me that Americans didn't know smoking
was addicting? Or that nicotine is the main reason people purchased
cigarettes and became addicted? If people purchase Pepsi because of
it's sweet taste and Pepsi decided to add more sugar to their product,
they too should be sued?
> >Then they had to raise the price of their product
> >to cover these multi-billion dollar suits. Do you know what class of
> >people have the highest percentage of smokers? That's right, the poor,
> >and mostly, the Black poor.
>
> Which is costing the States billions in added health
> care which is paid in STATE taxes.
Not according to statistics. Smokers die much earlier than non-smokers
who live forever collecting SS and Medicare benefits that can run up
bills into the millions. Many smokers pay into these social programs
and get very little if anything back.
> >And just how are they going to **** me? By investing their money? By
> >creating jobs that I may need? And I'm a middle class working guy. If
> >anything, I'm sticking up for people other than myself here. It is YOU
> >who wants to take everything he can get--and take it from the wallets
of
> >the wealthy.
>
> a) the investment of money can crash at any time. That
> leaves those investors with no fall-back except SS
> which your "side" wants to eliminate. The scam is to
> free up more money for more speculation.
There is nobody on my side that even suggested getting rid of SS. Our
attempt was to provide choice in the matter. I understand how Democrats
hate choice which is why they were against it. Democrats don't want
people to have choice in: schools, Medical Care or retirement. That's
what a Democrat is--a person who wants people to have no choice but
Government.
> b) It is defensible in EVERY way to "take from the
> wealthy". The redistribution of wealth has been the
> greatest asset of a society. Redistributing wealth
> isn't just "taking" from individuals, it's
> redistribution from states, or heavily populated to
> less populated. The eras we didn't redistribute wealth
> was a disaster---that's why we instituted it. If
> nothing else, history is replete with the demise of
> societies that disallowed it.
What you just described is Socialism at least and Communist at best.
The reason they began taking from the rich is to sup****t their social
programs and taking the credit themselves. Typical of Democrats, they
look for minority groups of people who can't defend themselves via vote
such as the wealthy or cigarette smokers and waste this money for
whatever they see fit.
If it's so defensible to take from those who have more, what would you
say if a poor person came to your home and took your cell phone, your
television set or even your car? If they have less than you, it's
justifiable by your standards, right?
And where in a free country is this written that it's quite proper to
take from those who have more? And just who is it that is so superior
to the rest of us to dictate how much is taken? If that's the way you
feel, you don't need Government to do that. All you have to do is go to
Wallmart, find a shelf stocker and promise her that whatever she didn't
earn that week, you will make up the difference by giving her money from
your paycheck so that you both earn the same amount.
> >What is the difference how much wealth they have?
>
> I rest my case.
See you at Wallmart.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
|
