Anyways.... Sorry for the off topic rant. Taxes are my political hot button.

Well, I assume you benefit from police presence, highways, airport security, border patrol, etc, etc, etc.    That's not to say the government doesn't **** away bilions of dollars but, if you don't feel as if you're about to be assaulted by Ahmed the terrorist at the airport when you're at baggage claim, you are receiving some benefit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2011 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Well, I assume you benefit from police presence, highways, airport security, border patrol, etc, etc, etc.    That's not to say the government doesn't **** away bilions of dollars but, if you don't feel as if you're about to be assaulted by Ahmed the terrorist at the airport when you're at baggage claim, you are receiving some benefit.

Minimal reward = some benefit. Same thing imo. If anything - defense/national security is one of the few areas I could make a case my federal tax $ is well spent. What's the price you would pay for freedom, right? Still a lot of wasted money there though.

For 2010, $105 billion was spent annually on infrastructure, $150 billion on education versus the other #s I posted in a previous post. My second political hot button - education.


EDIT - Mike, After re-reading my posts I see you were answering the top post on the page where I said 'doesn't get me anything' rather than the next post where i said 'minimal reward' . Guess I exaggerated there. Sorry.

padna, I'm not going to quote that whole post, but I do want to respond to a few things in there.

When I say point the finger at Wall Street, I'm not just talking about the last few years. More like the last 30. The stock market is supposed to reflect the growth of the country, which is why long-term it's been such a reliable place to park your money. But that's been predicated on the companies and assets being traded actually contributing to the growth of the country. More and more, that's no longer the case. Some time in the 80s Wall Street figured out how to start cutting anything tangible out of the equation. The tech bubble, at least, involved companies having their values inflated. The derivatives bubble was based on... well, there were shaky mortgages buried deep in there somewhere, but the bubble was mostly made up of works of economic fiction. CDO's don't employ people. AAA tranches don't build anything.

Wall Street, as a culture, figured it could make more money selling things that weren't real. That has had the combined effect of not just divorcing the market's performance from the economic health of the country but actually harming it, by sucking more and more money out of the economy rather than recycling it.

Towards the end of your post you asked what incentive people had to invest their money when the top marginal rate was 90%. Well, clearly they had some sort of incentive, because money still got invested hand over fist. I'm not advocating a return to those kinds of rates, but maybe you need to ask yourself what those other incentives were, and what happened to them, before dismissing Wall Street's contribution to the current situation.

Spending is absolutely an issue, but it's not 'purely and simply' the only issue. It's as much symptom as cause. And if you ignore those other causes, you're no better than any politician ignoring ugly realities and kicking the can down the road until the next electoral cycle.

It's easier to demonize a portion of the country if one of them is Satan.   Everyone does it.    And it's just as ugly as racism even though it's not based on skin color.  

So are you saying that Bernie Sanders going on Randi Rhodes and saying that the rich are destroying the middle class and American business is trying to destroy the economy for their own profits could be thought of as wors than making a comment about Obama chuggin a 40?

One could make that argument.   Hating on a specific class is no different than hating on a skin color. 

What's the difference between saying "I'd love to punch Paris Hilton because she's rich" and "I'd love to punch Herman Cain because he's black"?    I don't know either of these people.   Neither would like to be punched.    Is the difference that one has a pile of money and the other has darker skin?   Someone will argue that Herman Cain didn't choose his skin color but I'd counter that Paris Hilton was born rich. 

And, before someone throws a hissy fit, I don't want to punch either of them.   I was just asking the difference.

Define "hating on".

Posted by antonsirius on 7/28/2011 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Define "hating on".

So you think that instead of addressing the big issue that racial terms get responded to, but actually saying that a group of people are trying to destroy America is considered ok, you feel that looking into the semantics of the issue and nailing someone on technical issues is the best way to address the issue?

Posted by antonsirius on 7/28/2011 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Define "hating on".

Define it for me.  It's obvious that I define it by choosing to punch a stranger in the face based on his lot in life. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2011 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/28/2011 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Define "hating on".

Define it for me.  It's obvious that I define it by choosing to punch a stranger in the face based on his lot in life. 

yeah, although I'm sure anton is 'only' looking for clarification, pretty much the words 'hating on' are irrelevent. With what Mike said It could be "Hating on a specific class is no different than hating on a skin color." or "Punching a person because they are a specific class is no different than punching a person because they are a skin color." or " Slandering a specific class is no different than slandering a skin color". Make no difference to the argument.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/28/2011 1:59:00 PM (view original):
One could make that argument.   Hating on a specific class is no different than hating on a skin color. 

What's the difference between saying "I'd love to punch Paris Hilton because she's rich" and "I'd love to punch Herman Cain because he's black"?    I don't know either of these people.   Neither would like to be punched.    Is the difference that one has a pile of money and the other has darker skin?   Someone will argue that Herman Cain didn't choose his skin color but I'd counter that Paris Hilton was born rich. 

The difference is you do not punch a women for any reason. Grow some and seek out a rich man if that is the case,. However, both scenarios would be stupid.