Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:25:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
525 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> Personally I think the real reason the Democrats are always against tax cuts
> is so they can spend the money on their social engineering agenda rather than
> letting the people use their own money.
Republicans tend to spend the Federal budget into hideous deficits while
cutting useful[1] social programs, so that any subsequent tax that Democrates
apply to restore such programs can be villified as "tax-and-spend" liberals.
[1] I know, I know. There are those here who say that any government program is
a bad one, but I don't believe that any more than they do.
> So long as people get there legally (read: by hard work)
That's the illusion of so-called "meritocracy," and it has little relevance to
the modern US economic structure. I don't mind people making their way through
hard work, but "hard work" should never include cronyism, parental-coattailing,
the privilege of well-financed contacts, and simple hand-me-down super-wealth.
Anyone who succeeds by those methods (like 99% of our Legislature, and certainly
our last half-dozen or so presidents) has no right to claim that "hard work" got
them where they are.
> why should they be penalized for making more money than someone who is lazy?
As has previously been stated, the biggest welfare queens in the economy are
big businesses who win non-bid contracts while maintaining off-shore tax havens
for themselves. If those are the lazy people that you're condemning, then I
agree 100%. If, instead, you're referring to an urban single mother who
requires Federal assistance because she works 60 hours a week and still can't
afford her one-room apartment for her two kids because her husband was wrongly
convicted of marijuana possession (because they couldn't afford a better lawyer
and can't afford to appeal), then I must ask what's so lazy about her.
> As I stated earlier, the Democrats definition of "rich"
> (which is the top 20 percent of the income bracket) covers 98 percent of
> Americans for at least one third of their lives.
Is that an actual statistic, or are you speaking figuratively? If it's legit,
I'd love to see the source. Forgive me, but it sounds like a classic
Limbaugh-esque manufactured factoid (hereafter called "manufactoid").
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
