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 22:48:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
479 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
Yeah so they are both full of crap.
>
> > 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.
I agree, that is basicly what my indended meaning was.
>
> > 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.
Nothing, however for the 1 person like her there are 100 that are just leaching
off the system. Half my aunts and uncles come to mind. I am quite serious, my
one uncle was fired (and it was his own dumb fault) and was going to get another
job, IF he couldn't get on disability for being "overwheight." His wife was
already on disability for the same reason and now he is too. They are lazy. I
read an article in the paper a few years ago about a different aunt, how she was
so bad off and she couldn't feed her kids and they gave her close to $500 in
groceries. All the while oblivious to the fact that she collects over $3000 a
month just from child support, rent, and alimony without even working! To top it
all off she is the one that is the alcoholic and was cheating on her husband.
She is lazy. If I sound angry at some of my relatives, it is because I am.
>
> > 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").
Well unfortunately the original source was one of Walter E. Williams columns
which only stay on the web for about 2 weeks.
http://www.Creators.com/opinion_Shell.cfm?pg=biography.html&columnsname=wwi
I am fairly certain we can trust his credentials and assume the fact was
legitiment.
While on the subject his current article:
http://www.Creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=wwi
which will probably get bumped back soon to here:
http://www.Creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=wwi
Is a very interesting take on the "liberal media" issue. (refers to the July 9th
article)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
