The most comprehensive info I have found on this subject on the net. Will be back soon to follow up.

Quick auganite payday loans for Astronauts

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Comment by Matt G — April 18, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

No one is mad. Just having a discussion. Nothing silly about greedy. In fact, there’s probably very little attention to give to that subject. It is in a grey box, after all.

Congress was probably wrong to temporarily eliminate the limits on deductible charitable contributions for the last three months of 2005, and then not require contributions over the limit to have at least something to do with Katrina relief.

But Cheney would be an idiot if he DIDN’T take advantage of this opportunity. He’s been saying for ages he was gonna get rid of his (useless to him, since he’s said all along he’d donate the proceeds) Halliburton stock options, and picked a pretty good time to do it.

The dude just gave away almost 80% of his earnings for 2005. The underlying reason is not the best I’ve ever heard (to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest), but he did it. And he gave it to a legit set of nonprofits. He did a good thing, and nobody got shot.

There are lots of reasons to be mad. This is not one of them.

The thing is, if there’s a god, he was brilliant enough to know that diversity is the spice, and the requirement of life and would not be in favor of homogenizing the people or the universe. And i happen to agree.

Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 18, 2006 @ 11:40 am

Well said. I think that’s it in a nutshell.

I freely admit that I’m not perfect!

Comment by C Storms — April 18, 2006 @ 11:06 am

If I weren’t interested in debate, I wouldn’t have bothered to type all that above and post a link. It takes time. I also wouldn’t hang out here.

But you didn’t address my argument to you, you started trying to spin it and extract what I’d said into something I didn’t mean. Those are not debate tactics, they are dodge and evade tactics, and I don’t fall for them or play into them.

Giacomo and I have a history. There are other people I’d rather talk to than get into a slapping contest with him again. I figured someone else here would be happy to engage him, and someone did.

If you want a debate, then let’s talk economics and moderation, otherwise, you’re right, it won’t happen with me.

For the record, I grew up Republican. I’m ‘Left of Center’ and not an extreme liberal.

I disagree with “Unbelievable” over limited mass wealth. I just expect those who amass that level of wealth to have common decency to pay their fair share of taxes. When those people are making millions of dollars monthly, then I find it hard to cry a river for them having a 39% tax bracket. Just because they’ve got a higher share of taxes does not mean they’re being discriminated against. It just means that they’ve got the where-with-all to provide more help than the “lower 99%” of the income earners.

I do, however, agree that the “we work harder to make our money” to be a disingenuous argument. Do they REALLY work 100,000 times harder than myself?!? Get real. . . .

Don’t worry. You’re not the only “conservative” on this site. I think the only difference is they’re more willing to debate the topics and don’t “cut & run” quite as easily when their arguments are undercut. Come back when you’re ready to debate!

Don’t worry. You’re not the only “conservative” on this site. I think the only difference is they’re more willing to debate the topics and don’t “cut & run” quite as easily when their arguments are undercut. Come back when you’re ready to debate!

Excellent arguments. I’m an idiot, irrational, and emotional.

Giacomo has a head in the sand, is somehow a victim, and has no accountability.

I don’t konw about Giacomo, but it’s hard enough for me to take liberals seriously. I do enjoy good debate though, so I thought I’d give it a shot. But I guess you’re not interested in a real discussion.

Well said. As someone in the middle, I think that there’s no need for anyone to make millions of dollars a year when there are starving children.

I’m not saying that we should all have an equal amount of money, that competition breeds invention – but that it should be limited. When someone else’s ability to accumulate mass wealth impedes on the ability of others to eat, I see a huge problem. And ofcourse those with the huge wealth are going to say that they earned it by working harder, which is the biggest load of nonsense. No one works 100,000 times harder than someone else. There simply aren’t that many hours in the day.

I concur. I also applaud your proper use of “pernicious”! You’ve got a good vocabulary. I guess that’s from the “liberal” education you were provided by “the state”. (I couldn’t resist that jab! My failure as a liberal! ;-)

“I cannot agree with your thesis that wealth is created at the expense of others (or that wealth is only the result of unmitigated greed) … this does not need be the case and is very often not the case, especially in the USA. ”

Creating or building wealth does not necessarily equal unmitigated greed. Nor does it necessitate the expense of others. The question is: how is the “expense of others” defined when comparing (excessive) wealth to (excessive) poverty?

This is a question that is not easily answered. Those at the bottom tend to blame those at the top for their poverty. Those at the top refuse to consider their actions as perpetuating the hierarchical fiscal status of those below themselves.

What I question is those at the pinnacle (uber-wealthy) who complain about having a tax bracket that doesn’t impact their lifestyle in any appreciable way. When they make multi-millions, why do they complain about the difference between 35% and 39%? Don’t they want the government to have the fiscal capability to continue to support the society that allowed them to amass the massive wealth they control?

This is a problem that has no easy answer, no matter which side you find yourself supporting.

As long as yo insist on arguing with your head in the sand, there is nothing I can say to you that you won’t try to spin into making yourself look like a victim. I am not incorrect. You just don’t like the consequences. It’s why people like you exist. No accountability.

Don’t be an idiot. Your example is not valid. And unless you can have a rational, unemotional discussion, I’m wasting my time.

I humbly submit that you could not be any more incorrect. Your situation is certainly true in a slave state, but our economy is way more nuanced than your allowing for. Maybe this example will help … should a person in New York not fill his jacuzzi tub with water because a person in Kansas is experiencing crippling drought … maybe in some weird spiritual/esoteric sense, but anyone would say that the impact from one to the other is nil. The reason is the many variables that go into being “rich” with water or “poor” with the same … weather conditions, water table, reservoirs, legislation, etc. You can’t say that this person has plenty at the expense of this other person (in either an individual or group sense) in the USA, without accounting for the MANY other variables that play into wealth and poorness.

I would agree that there is such thing as too much money, and I would also agree that the rich should be the most benevolent among us (at least fiscally) … further, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, and greed is pernicious in our society. I cannot agree with your thesis that wealth is created at the expense of others (or that wealth is only the result of unmitigated greed) … this does not need be the case and is very often not the case, especially in the USA. Hope this clarifies my earlier comments.

Liberal economic policy makes sense if there was just one pot of limited cash, but that’s the basis of the flawed thinking, and that’s why liberals always want to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Comment by Giacomo — April 18, 2006 @ 9:58 am

He doesn’t have to TAKE it when he doesn’t need it in the first place either. Therein lies the greed aspect. Sheesh. I there anything you won’t spin to assuage your own habits?

Stop with all the bloated theory and take a look at the reality. It’s a fact. The divide between the wealthy and the poor is a direct result of the poor making less and the wealthy making more. If the government doesn’t add more money to the system, then it is limited. And in any limited system is is GREEDY to take more than you need. Accept it. And then leave your rich white fairytale neighborhood for once to see that there are children starving because their parents who work full time cannot afford to feed them adequately because the prices of gas force them to choose. It’s all about money. Sorry if you feel guilty, but don’t try to hide the truth to exempt yourself from that.