Heartless,evil post

[John Adams]

No. Wrong again, but I will play.

 

 

Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population.

 

I see the pedantic, supercilious anal orifice in you is risinig to the top again Tom.

 

It isn't about "having money." It is about NOT creating a power structure that only benefits 1% of the population. You think the gov't is bad now being controlled by the few... Do you actually want it to be worse?

 

Jesus, you're a character straight out of Atlas Shugged. So your moral justification for taking money from the wealthy--money the government already swiped at 50% in taxes--is that you want fewer rich people because rich people are de facto a societal evil?

 

Holy ****. You're a dark, dark person.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Jesus, you're a character straight out of Atlas Shugged. So your moral justification for taking money from the wealthy--money the government already swiped at 50% in taxes--is that you want fewer rich people because rich people are de facto a societal evil?

 

Holy ****. You're a dark, dark person.

 

You're a blivet. You know what that is? I will use the course definition, since I am a dark, dark person: A blivet is 10 pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag.

 

Holy wrong way to connect the dots Batman!

 

Man... You still don't get it... Way to totally miss the point dolt! Carry on! And to you I am the nine year old here...

 

[John Adams]

You're a blivet. You know what that is? I will use the course definition, since I am a dark, dark person: A blivet is 10 pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag.

 

Holy wrong way to connect the dots Batman!

 

Man... You still don't get it... Way to totally miss the point dolt! Carry on! And to you I am the nine year old here...

 

 

It's "coarse" but whatever.

 

You said

 

It isn't about "having money." It is about NOT creating a power structure that only benefits 1% of the population. You think the gov't is bad now being controlled by the few... Do you actually want it to be worse?

 

The ONLY way to translate that is that you want to reduce the numbers of wealthy people by taking away their wealth. And the reason you want to do that is because they are some sort of evil. No other way to read that hoss.

 

And that is your only justification for the 55% death tax.

[DC Tom]

The ONLY way to translate that is that you want to reduce the numbers of wealthy people by taking away their wealth. And the reason you want to do that is because they are some sort of evil. No other way to read that hoss.

 

And that is your only justification for the 55% death tax.

 

His point was more that government is required to level the field, because everyone has a right to be equal under the law. Therefore, not taxing inheritance, which benefits only a very small minority of people, is inequal treatment under the law, hence immoral.

[birdog1960]

I have no idea what car Bill Gates drives or how many houses he has. And I don't know where Warren Buffett ate last night. And I don't know how many planes or boats Paul Allen owns.

 

And I don't care because unlike you, I'm not jealous and obsessed with other people's money. It's theirs and they can do what they want iwth it--charitable frivolous or miserly. It's none of my business unless it's criminal.

 

One of these days, you'll provide your moral justification for taking people's money at gunpoint. Or not.

and you have no idea of the answers to the same questions regarding me. you're making many totally unfounded assumptions about me but that is no surprise given your rhetoric and tone. i do not consider myself jealous of those who played at the olde farm tuesday. everyone is open to criticism, wealthy or not. even you. actions don't have to be criminal to be criticized, just look at the main forum here and the comments on the bills players, coaches and owner. and yes, the incredible concentration of wealth and thus power that is now present and ever increasing is an inherently negative phenomenon that threatens many people's very existence through man made disasters like wars, starvation and the destruction of the environment.

[John Adams]

and you have no idea of the answers to the same questions regarding me. you're making many totally unfounded assumptions about me but that is no surprise given your rhetoric and tone. i do not consider myself jealous of those who played at the olde farm tuesday. everyone is open to criticism, wealthy or not. even you. actions don't have to be criminal to be criticized, just look at the main forum here and the comments on the bills players, coaches and owner. and yes, the incredible concentration of wealth and thus power that is now present and ever increasing is an inherently negative phenomenon that threatens many people's very existence through man made disasters like wars, starvation and the destruction of the environment.

 

You're right. I have no idea or care about your wealth or lack thereof. Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. What I can see though, is that you've got an unhealthy obsession with how wealthy people choose to spend their money. And you are bent on taking it from them.

[Rob's House]

Bump... Facts suck:

 

"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)"

I'd like to see the raw data on that, as well as how it's broken down. Is that referring to people currently alive today? Because the majority of people who are at some point going to inherit something, to date have not done so. If you're saying that over 90% of American's will never recieve one red cent of inheritance in their lives, I'm calling bullsh*t.

[DC Tom]

You're right. I have no idea or care about your wealth or lack thereof. Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. What I can see though, is that you've got an unhealthy obsession with how wealthy people choose to spend their money. And you are bent on taking it from them.

 

But that's only because wealth is inherently evil, because it causes poor people to starve.

[Magox]

I've been reading Exiled, birdog and Matt's answer to what possible justification there is for the wealthy to pay an even higher percentage of what they earn to the government, and throughout this whole time, the only rationale that they have come up with is that they have more and that they should give more because the government is allowed to mandate it, oh and that they deserve to give more because, well, because they have more and that is why they should give more.

 

That's pretty much what I got out of it.

[John Adams]

His point was more that government is required to level the field, because everyone has a right to be equal under the law. Therefore, not taxing inheritance, which benefits only a very small minority of people, is inequal treatment under the law, hence immoral.

 

Here's betting that he posts something agreeing with you and not realizing he's also agreeing with me.

[John Adams]

I've been reading Exiled, birdog and Matt's answer to what possible justification there is for the wealthy to pay an even higher percentage of what they earn to the government, and throughout this whole time, the only rationale that they have come up with is that they have more and that they should give more because the government is allowed to mandate it, oh and that they deserve to give more because, well, because they have more and that is why they should give more.

 

That's pretty much what I got out of it.

 

And that one of them decided to regale us with where he and his wife went to college and grad school...an odd note that didn't have anything to do with the subject at hand.

[DC Tom]

Here's betting that he posts something agreeing with you and not realizing he's also agreeing with me.

 

Here's betting that he posts something agreeing with me and not realizing that I was trying to highlight the basic absurdity of the argument.

[John Adams]

Here's betting that he posts something agreeing with me and not realizing that I was trying to highlight the basic absurdity of the argument.

 

Here's betting he uses the red size 18 font.

[Magox]

Here's betting he uses the red size 18 font.

Here's betting that he basically argues once again that since they have more, that they should give more because the government is allowed to mandate it, oh and that they deserve to give more because, well, because they have more and that is why they should give more.

[MattM]

And that one of them decided to regale us with where he and his wife went to college and grad school...an odd note that didn't have anything to do with the subject at hand.

 

Go back and read my post--it had plenty to do with the point I was making, but then again, maybe you didn't understand it, which would be no great shock.

 

What I'm noticing from the last few posts from a certain direction is that it seems some folks don't actually bother to read any point of view that opposes their own, but instead simply twist what they want out of them in order to fashion their own straw men, over and over ad nauseum, rather than adding anything really constructive to the discussion. Kind of like US politics in a nutshell these days unfortunately.....

[John Adams]

Go back and read my post--it had plenty to do with the point I was making, but then again, maybe you didn't understand it, which would be no great shock.

 

No, you mentioning your schooling, if anything, made the point you're NOT trying to make. Namely, that hard work can get you into a college with a good reputation.

 

What I'm noticing from the last few posts from a certain direction is that it seems some folks don't actually bother to read any point of view that opposes their own, but instead simply twist what they want out of them in order to fashion their own straw men, over and over ad nauseum, rather than adding anything really constructive to the discussion. Kind of like US politics in a nutshell these days unfortunately.....

 

The "ad nauseum" started when the group with the pitchforks couldn't justify why they want to burn the rich except for the reason that they are rich.

[DC Tom]

Here's betting that he basically argues once again that since they have more, that they should give more because the government is allowed to mandate it, oh and that they deserve to give more because, well, because they have more and that is why they should give more.

 

Think he'll ever distinguish between the government taxing people to fund government operations, and the government taxing people simply for wealth redistribution?

[Magox]

Think he'll ever distinguish between the government taxing people to fund government operations, and the government taxing people simply for wealth redistribution?

No. Not a chance....

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Go back and read my post--it had plenty to do with the point I was making, but then again, maybe you didn't understand it, which would be no great shock.

 

What I'm noticing from the last few posts from a certain direction is that it seems some folks don't actually bother to read any point of view that opposes their own, but instead simply twist what they want out of them in order to fashion their own straw men, over and over ad nauseum, rather than adding anything really constructive to the discussion. Kind of like US politics in a nutshell these days unfortunately.....

 

so then we go down the obvious road, huh?

 

abortion v. a woman's right to choose v. the rights of the unborn child.

sensible tax policy v. tax the rich v. corporate greed v. ultra-wealthy.

secure the borders v. racial profiling v. undocumented/illegal immigrants

 

 

my approach to voting has historically been to find the candidtate that stands for things that hurts me least. typically, that candidate is from the republican party, warts and all. at the same time, as i move through life and see some things that just make me shake my head----i'm really moving the the mindset you pointed out above matt. is the big picture all about just keeping the kids arguing at the card table in the basement while the adults talk serious talk up in the fancy living room.

 

for example...i can drive home tonight, be pulled over by a uniformed, firearm-toting paramilitary type simply because i'm there. he can demand my papers, check me out in a state-sponored database that reveals many personal things about me that i might prefer not be known--and if he so desires, this paramilitary type can deprive me of my freedom and haul me off to a virtual gulag for processing.

 

at the same time, some would argue that treating a foreign national who willfully (and in some, though not all cases malisciously) disregards the sanctity of our borders should NOT be subject to similar treatment because it's unfair and really just not nice.

 

now, while all the debate rages about illegal immigration, the power elite in what my Grandmother derisivley referred to as "Warshington" go about the day-to-day business of taking more and more and leaving less and less.

 

and Matt , going back a few posts, your mention of Michael Moore and his film. I disregard virtually everything that many has to say, as he's as agenda-driven as any individual on either side of the argument. BUT, i'd concur that the military sells better in poor neighborhoods than Scarsdale.

[Alphadawg7]

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. I'm not a Michael Moore fan at all, but I must admit that he nailed that one right in Fahrenheit 911--the recruiters talking on the record about how they "don't go to the fancy mall in the rich part of town, because....well....we don't too well over there" or the incredulous looks on the Congressmen's faces when he asked them if they had kids serving or if they were going to talk to their kids about serving in the military. About 20% of the guys in my high school class were in the service within one year of graduation. I read in my local paper a year or two ago here in my Westchester town that they had 3 kids join the service out of a class of 350. Before I get jumped on about being anti-military, there's obviously nothing wrong about being in the service, but once again, the working class is asked/pushed to serve, while the upper middle class and wealthy generally are not. BTW, my wife is a fairly astute woman--I think it's much more likely that she didn't see them because they weren't there for the same reason that the two recruitersin F911 talked about not going to the "good mall". Want to get really depressed? Do some reading on the number of men killed in Vietnam who were Ivy League graduates versus the general population, or better yet, urban, inner city high schools much smaller in size......

 

I'd like to thank Timmo above for the polite nature of his response--we can disagree on some things, but that doesn't mean people have to get nasty and personal in their attacks. Something that seems to be forgotten all too often on these boards and in society.

 

Alphadawg, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm not sure you read all of my posts based on your responses. I find it a little tough to say "it's their fault for not growing up "winners"" when you're applying it to many people who never had a chance to start with--compare the case of a kid with poor, uneducated parents who don't know any better for their kids living in a place that doesn't exactly inspire hope or a sense that they can better themselves, with no role models to point the way towards sucess with your typical upper middle class kid living in a stable home, with educated, connected parents, who can teach the kid the right way to succeed and who can provide a successful role model. I'm not saying it's impossible to succeed in the former case, but it's a heckuva lot harder to do so than it is in the latter case, but I often find latter case folks blaming the poor for their own ills, when they've never experienced those situations themselves. Who are they to judge is usually what I think in those cases, but oddly enough that doesn't stop them from judging.

 

I could go on, but I suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree looking for empathy for others from someone who's self-chosen the name "Alphadawg"......

 

My reply to you was respectful in every way, so not sure if you were referring to my reply with this specific point I put in bold above, but nothing I wrote was intended to be disrespectful to you or your opinnion. Although, I did find it interesting that you found it necessary to take end that very same post with a dig on my screen name.

 

As far as the recruiter story, you didnt really answer the queston, you just pointed out that recruiters dont pitch rich kids. How does the lack of a recruiter in your school provied that student with a specific "advantage" in life and make their path to success easier? Honestly, think about that...if a recruiter showed up at a rich kids school those kids in the school are not going to suddenly have a tougher path to success, so I don't follow the logic that the lack of one somehow translates into an advantage and easier path.

 

And this is my point with the whole recruiter thing...sometimes things are just different, doesnt always have to translate as advantage or disadvantage...just because one has different experiences does not always mean they actually had a "easier" path or advantage to finding their own success. This county has become a soceity of excuse makers and everyone always wants to find fault elsewhere rather than look at themselves. This is a major problem in this country.

 

If you go back and read what I wrote, I am not denying that there are people on both ends of the spectrum that have a harder path or an easier path. My issue is not within that statement and I am not arguing that. What I have an issue with is the massive over use of this excuse to validate the lack of achievement in what ever it is people feel they are lacking.

 

Again, I know there are many examples on both ends of this spectrum where some unfortunate kid never had a chance from the start (aka the movie Precious) and some rich pompous kid had his daddy's help to achieve what they want (see the Bush Administration)...but that doesnt mean that every rich kid has things handed to them and that every poor kid didnt have opportunity for success.

 

As far as your dig on my screen name...its not what you think it is. It literally was a term used in a leadership program I did as a reminder to stand as a leader in your own life and the community...to make things happen rather than watch things happen. Thats where it came from and why I use it...

 

PS: Again, I point out that this continued conversation about rich kids is mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion as the vast majority of the heirs in estates are people 50 and above who are already who they are in life...