Quote:Not all, but some certainly are. I did say at the top after all.
That's your interpretation of it. It is not the interpretation of the liberals that espouse it. It is more along the lines of aiding to the betterment of society. The same society that enabled you to make the life you wanted in the first place. Continuing the cycle over and over would be very good for future generations and I feel it's our duty to do.
You feel it's not. That's fine.
However, where is the line drawn when someone is no longer "aiding to the betterment of society" and they are subject to un-fair taxation? Why should someone that actually
earns more money pay a larger portion of their earnings to government?
Quote:However, where is the line drawn when someone is no longer "aiding to the betterment of society" and they are subject to un-fair taxation? Why should someone that actually earns more money pay a larger portion of their earnings to government?
This is a very fair argument and one that absolutely has to be had. I do, as of now, prescribe to the idea that all taxes ought be equal in % Of course that means you make more you pay more, you make less you pay less. I also understand, as Eric has pointed out before, that there is drawbacks to doing a straight flat tax rate. It's very complicated and yes a line must be drawn, I agree with you there. I am not expert and have no clue how it could be done. In fact the extent to which I know about taxes is if you own a business you get a ton of tax breaks that I do not get because I work for someone.
Quote:This is a very fair argument and one that absolutely has to be had. I do, as of now, prescribe to the idea that all taxes ought be equal in % Of course that means you make more you pay more, you make less you pay less. I also understand, as Eric has pointed out before, that there is drawbacks to doing a straight flat tax rate. It's very complicated and yes a line must be drawn, I agree with you there. I am not expert and have no clue how it could be done. In fact the extent to which I know about taxes is if you own a business you get a ton of tax breaks that I do not get because I work for someone.
I am by no means an expert either, but I'm not a dumb man. The common progressive/liberal mantra is that the rich "don't pay their fair share". People more well off and people that actually climbed the ladder of success are "penalized" by having to pay higher taxes. That is a fact.
I started my working career at a very young age (15) and have seen with my own eyes how much of the money that I earn is taken in taxes. As I grew up and moved up, yes I have received higher compensation, but I've also seen how much more is taken from me. The salary that I make now puts me right at the cusp of being "the rich" that liberals/progressives want to tax more. I see every year when I have to write a check to the IRS other people that earn way less than me or don't hardly work at all get a "tax refund".
I not only get deeply offended, but actually ticked off when I see some liberal like Elizabeth Warren give her "you didn't build that" speech. Though I don't own a business, what she is saying is that my wealth and prosperity should be distributed to other people that didn't work as hard as I did to get to where I'm at.
Quote:I am by no means an expert either, but I'm not a dumb man. The common progressive/liberal mantra is that the rich "don't pay their fair share". People more well off and people that actually climbed the ladder of success are "penalized" by having to pay higher taxes. That is a fact.
I started my working career at a very young age (15) and have seen with my own eyes how much of the money that I earn is taken in taxes. As I grew up and moved up, yes I have received higher compensation, but I've also seen how much more is taken from me. The salary that I make now puts me right at the cusp of being "the rich" that liberals/progressives want to tax more. I see every year when I have to write a check to the IRS other people that earn way less than me or don't hardly work at all get a "tax refund".
I not only get deeply offended, but actually ticked off when I see some liberal like Elizabeth Warren give her "you didn't build that" speech. Though I don't own a business, what she is saying is that my wealth and prosperity should be distributed to other people that didn't work as hard as I did to get to where I'm at.
How are they penalized? They're incredibly well off. Going by what you said, I don't think most progressives would consider you rich for the record. Unless since the last time you posted about it your salary jumped up an outrageous amount.
Quote:How are they penalized? They're incredibly well off. Going by what you said, I don't think most progressives would consider you rich for the record. Unless since the last time you posted about it your salary jumped up an outrageous amount.
So earning more and getting taxed more is not a penalty? Regardless of whether or not someone is "well off" should they be taxed at a higher rate because of it?
Actually, my salary did jump a considerable amount after that last post. I did change jobs which increased my salary not quite but close to double. If I combine my salary with that of my wife, then we are at the cusp of being taxed higher than we have ever been.
Quote:No offense, but what you believe of so called liberals sounds exactly like the propaganda being shoveled out on radio and tv.
It appears to me that you bought that nonsense without thinking for yourself...
Again, you misjudge. I speak of my experience with my liberal friends. The conclusion I offer is after many conversations and debates with my friends. You can offer that I am biased by the media but from what I see from you the opposite is true. As for me thinking for myself, I left both parties 15 years ago. I know both parties are corrupt and the sooner the party line voters (such as yourself) realize this the sooner we can get our country back. I know for a fact the you and I can reach an accord on just about any issue as long as politics is not involved. That is the real issue.
Quote:Oh for sure both sides sling mud. The right is just much better at the fear for profit model.
Define for profit. In my eyes getting elected and raking in 3x what the job pays in pay backs is the exact same thing. The Dems do an outstanding job of this in regards to my original post. I agree the fear mongering from both sides is atrocious. I think and believe the true patriots of this great nation will come to realize this and we will shed these labels. It is also my opinion that the conservatives are a bit ahead of the liberals in this regard, which is why you see more conservatives (much like myself) abandoning the republican party and going Libertarian. I see my liberal friends coming to the same realization more and more every day; not as fast as I would like but they are coming along. It will only be a matter of time, well that is my hope.
Quote:One of my biggest problems with the basis of conservative ideology at the top of it's pyramid, in a nut shell, is "I know I am selfish and greedy therefore everyone else must be" This is obviously not the case. It's ok to do for others in a manner that benefits society and to demonize that thought process is well, very selfish and greedy.
I offer you this in response:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewS...asp?id=725
The liberal mind set from my experience has been it is ok to be generous with other peoples money but not mine. The conservative mind set is I will give as I see fit just don't force me.
Quote:I've never heard a conservative use the term 'socialist' solely as a factual term, and not as an intended insult.
And liberals aren't really socialist, they're just more socialist than conservatives. They want more equality, not complete equality. We want the income equality to be more managable, and thus have a healthier middle class. I'd hope we can both agree that the middle class is disappearing.
As for the definition of marriage.. that's not really a good reason to deny gays the right to get married.
I attended my best friend's lesbian wedding two weeks ago. She and her now wife had been dating for 12 years (and were engaged, even though they couldn't get married they were considering moving to somewhere where they could, for about 4 years). Marriage has changed a lot over the years. Women used to be considered property. And girls used to get married very young. To see one of my closest friends finally be able to marry the love of her life was nice, and denying people that based on the fact that other people disagree with it because of <i>their</i> religion just does not sit right with me. It's like saying "If we give women the vote, who's going to want to vote next? Dogs?" I'm just glad they were able to get married without moving. Because she's practically family, and my daughters consider her an Aunt. She doesn't want to marry multiple people, so I don't see why she shouldn't be given the right to marry the one person she loves just because others might want to.
I doubt I could find any links that would satisfy you.
Sure, Liberal media insults people too. I never suggested otherwise. That's why I don't watch the liberal news channels. They're not really 'news' either. I wouldn't watch Rachel Maddow anymore than I would Bill O'Reilly.
I have been pondering this issue of Gay Marriage for some time and have come to this conclusion:
What does being married have to do government benefits?
Let's be honest. Marriage is a biblical union between a man and woman in the eyes of God. Let us not debate the issue of if there is a God and how he would judge us, but acknowledge that as far as I can see this is the basis of marriage. What pray tell does this have to do with healthcare, insurance and tax returns?
Why can't we have marriage a faith based institution for those that believe and a civil union for those seeking government benefits? If two God fearing individuals wish to get married then let the church marry them. If they wish to have tax breaks and healthcare benefits then let them seek a government sanctioned civil union? Why do these two issues have to be tied together? This will allow the government sanctioned benefits be available to all parties and the Christians ideal of marriage to be totally separate.
Quote:Not all, but some certainly are. I did say at the top after all.
That's your interpretation of it. It is not the interpretation of the liberals that espouse it. It is more along the lines of aiding to the betterment of society
. The same society that enabled you to make the life you wanted in the first place. Continuing the cycle over and over would be very good for future generations and I feel it's our duty to do.
You feel it's not. That's fine.
This is the key, how you and I define how we aid the betterment of society. For me making it so comfortable that there is no reason to get off of the government teat is an issue. I would rather see individuals self empowered and making it on their own as opposed them rely on government assistance to get by day to day.
How is having human beings rely on an outside source to make it from one day to the next for a life time considered compassionate? That is no different than slavery in my opinion.
Quote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...charities/
So if I am reading this correctly because Conservative/Christians are more likely to donate to charity we should dismiss these findings because they are Christians and Christians are more likely to donate to causes because they are Christians. How does that differentiate that conservatives donate more than liberals because the are Christians? The bottom line is this: Conservative minded people donate more of their own money to what ever cause than liberal minded people.
Quote:So if I am reading this correctly because Conservative/Christians are more likely to donate to charity we should dismiss these findings because they are Christians and Christians are more likely to donate to causes because they are Christians. How does that differentiate that conservatives donate more than liberals because the are Christians? The bottom line is this: Conservative minded people donate more of their own money to what ever cause than liberal minded people.
You're
not reading it correctly.
Conservatives do
NOT donate more money than Liberals. Conservatives and Liberals donate pretty equally, just to different types of causes.
Quote:I have been pondering this issue of Gay Marriage for some time and have come to this conclusion:
What does being married have to do government benefits?
Let's be honest. Marriage is a biblical union between a man and woman in the eyes of God. Let us not debate the issue of if there is a God and how he would judge us, but acknowledge that as far as I can see this is the basis of marriage. What pray tell does this have to do with healthcare, insurance and tax returns?
Why can't we have marriage a faith based institution for those that believe and a civil union for those seeking government benefits? If two God fearing individuals wish to get married then let the church marry them. If they wish to have tax breaks and healthcare benefits then let them seek a government sanctioned civil union? Why do these two issues have to be tied together? This will allow the government sanctioned benefits be available to all parties and the Christians ideal of marriage to be totally separate.
Simple solution government has no business interfering with any union between consenting adults.
Heterosexual, homosexual, polygamy, whatever it's not a government issue it's a religious/private union. So why would anyone especially religious people advocate government regulating their religious ceremonies?
I'm all for equal marriage rights doesn't mean I agree with it, also doesn't mean I support making sexual orientation a protected discrimination class.
How we fix the issue matters, take government out of the equation all together and like most everything else the problem solves itself.
Government is the problem, are we all seeing a theme here?
Quote:I have been pondering this issue of Gay Marriage for some time and have come to this conclusion:
What does being married have to do government benefits?
Let's be honest. Marriage is a biblical union between a man and woman in the eyes of God. Let us not debate the issue of if there is a God and how he would judge us, but acknowledge that as far as I can see this is the basis of marriage. What pray tell does this have to do with healthcare, insurance and tax returns?
Why can't we have marriage a faith based institution for those that believe and a civil union for those seeking government benefits? If two God fearing individuals wish to get married then let the church marry them. If they wish to have tax breaks and healthcare benefits then let them seek a government sanctioned civil union? Why do these two issues have to be tied together? This will allow the government sanctioned benefits be available to all parties and the Christians ideal of marriage to be totally separate.
No, Marriage isn't a religious institution. Marriage pre-dates written word, and was certainly performed before monotheism. At times marriage was nothing more than a contract between two families. I'm not sure why the religious feel they need to make a claim on this for themselves. Marriage basically is a legal union between two people. And it's not just Christians that get married. People who are of other religions have long gotten married.
You have your right to believe that marriage is a sacred bond between two people if you so choose. But several different cultures have had marriage. You don't get to all of a sudden decide that only your group has access to it because you believe that your god created it.
Quote:I have been pondering this issue of Gay Marriage for some time and have come to this conclusion:
What does being married have to do government benefits?
Let's be honest. Marriage is a biblical union between a man and woman in the eyes of God. Let us not debate the issue of if there is a God and how he would judge us, but acknowledge that as far as I can see this is the basis of marriage. What pray tell does this have to do with healthcare, insurance and tax returns?
Why can't we have marriage a faith based institution for those that believe and a civil union for those seeking government benefits? If two God fearing individuals wish to get married then let the church marry them. If they wish to have tax breaks and healthcare benefits then let them seek a government sanctioned civil union? Why do these two issues have to be tied together? This will allow the government sanctioned benefits be available to all parties and the Christians ideal of marriage to be totally separate.
Actually there is evidence marriage predates or could predate religion.
But I agree, it should not be up to the Government on whether or not straight or gay people get married. Regardless of your beliefs.
Quote:You're not reading it correctly.
Conservatives do NOT donate more money than Liberals. Conservatives and Liberals donate pretty equally, just to different types of causes.
I disagree. I find more non partisan studies that point out that conservatives give more of their money than liberals.
Quote:No, Marriage isn't a religious institution. Marriage pre-dates written word, and was certainly performed before monotheism. At times marriage was nothing more than a contract between two families. I'm not sure why the religious feel they need to make a claim on this for themselves. Marriage basically is a legal union between two people. And it's not just Christians that get married. People who are of other religions have long gotten married.
You have your right to believe that marriage is a sacred bond between two people if you so choose. But several different cultures have had marriage. You don't get to all of a sudden decide that only your group has access to it because you believe that your god created it.
Can you provide me with proof of this? This is not a challenge for the sake of argument, but a genuine effort on my part to educate myself. As I stated, I cannot find any reference to the word "marriage" in history except in the bible.
Quote:Actually there is evidence marriage predates or could predate religion.
But I agree, it should not be up to the Government on whether or not straight or gay people get married. Regardless of your beliefs.
Where? As with my response to The Eleventh Doctor I can find none. As I see it the word "marriage" is what seems to put the Christians on edge. So to compromise why not give it to them. Go get married in the church of your choice. If you want the benefits of cohabitation then apply for a civil union with the government. The left screams loudly about a separation of church and state so again I ask why is getting married a governmental benefit?
Quote:Can you provide me with proof of this? This is not a challenge for the sake of argument, but a genuine effort on my part to educate myself. As I stated, I cannot find any reference to the word "marriage" in history except in the bible.
The first use of the word 'marriage' itself came after the bible was written actually. The concept itself has been around since ancient Mesopotamia. The Roman gods were married for example (using as close to the word marriage as we can get (Maritare) The word Marriage didn't first appear until circa 1250 AD. Derived from old french (It's easy to find this stuff out).
Quote:<div>
Where? As with my response to The Eleventh Doctor I can find none. As I see it the word "marriage" is what seems to put the Christians on edge. So to compromise why not give it to them. Go get married in the church of your choice. If you want the benefits of cohabitation then apply for a civil union with the government. The left screams loudly about a separation of church and state so again I ask why is getting married a governmental benefit?
</div>
Because marriage has little to do with religion.
You can't go into a church and get married today, without signing documents, and without the minister being licensed by the government. Many people get married outside of churches, and they do it without a minister.
I could get into it more, but then it might cross the line of religion.