Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It's worked well for the majority of our country's history over the last 100 years.  Switching to a system that creates more of a tax burden on the lower class and hoping (because again, we don't know what they'd do) that the wealthy conservatives "create avenues for the less fortunate" doesn't sound wise.

So the lower class is doing just fine "as is"?

No, I'd rather the ultra-wealthy pay more.  It felt like years ago, but I said that there should be higher brackets for the millionaires.  More money in the lower and middle class' pockets.

And I'm all for finding ways to curb government spending as well.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/26/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, I think the biggest divide is between people who believe that people have to take control of their life vs. people who believe you have to hold the hand and guide people thru their life. 

Personally, I think people do better when you say "Hey, it's your life. This is how it's going to be.   Make it work." 

Obviously, others don't share that philosophy.

THIS....

this is the biggest difference between libs and conservatives.

both want to help people.... conservatives provide outlets for help (foundations, charities, shelters, donate time, etc) for someone who WANTS to help themselves. Liberals want to hold the hand of EVERY person in need all the way to the foundation, charity, shelter, etc.

my problem is that its a waste of money to try to help those that don't truly want help (only money). Like a teaching a class... if a kid does not want to learn, will they really benefit from your teaching? No, so you focus on those that want to learn.... and hope those that don't have a wake up call when they finally hit rock bottom.

The other big difference between conservatives and liberals:

Conservatives want people to take ownership of their situation, accept responsibility for where you are and how you got there, come up with a plan to better your situation, and then execute that plan.  If you're unable to do all that yourself, we''ll provide resources to help you.

Liberals like to skip the ownership, responsibility planning and execution aspects, and instead substitute "find somebody to blame" in it's place.

When you think about it, the conservative approach sounds very much like good parenting.

I disagree that liberals don't work hard to help their situation and instead "find someone to blame." Come on.

At the 10,000 foot level, that's pretty much the way it is.

"Blame the rich people for keeping the poor people down".

It's the entire basis of BL's war against the rich.

To be fair, it is BL's argument but I'm sure plenty of libs work hard to help themselves without pointing a finger at someone else when they aren't rich the next day.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It's worked well for the majority of our country's history over the last 100 years.  Switching to a system that creates more of a tax burden on the lower class and hoping (because again, we don't know what they'd do) that the wealthy conservatives "create avenues for the less fortunate" doesn't sound wise.

So the lower class is doing just fine "as is"?

No, I'd rather the ultra-wealthy pay more.  It felt like years ago, but I said that there should be higher brackets for the millionaires.  More money in the lower and middle class' pockets.

And I'm all for finding ways to curb government spending as well.

How will that help the lower class?    We've determined that they pay little or nothing in tax money.    You can't go lower than nothing.   So, by making Trump pay 10%, how does that help the guy who isn't paying taxes now?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It's worked well for the majority of our country's history over the last 100 years.  Switching to a system that creates more of a tax burden on the lower class and hoping (because again, we don't know what they'd do) that the wealthy conservatives "create avenues for the less fortunate" doesn't sound wise.

So the lower class is doing just fine "as is"?

No, I'd rather the ultra-wealthy pay more.  It felt like years ago, but I said that there should be higher brackets for the millionaires.  More money in the lower and middle class' pockets.

And I'm all for finding ways to curb government spending as well.

How will that help the lower class?    We've determined that they pay little or nothing in tax money.    You can't go lower than nothing.   So, by making Trump pay 10%, how does that help the guy who isn't paying taxes now?

Sorry...readjusting the tax rates so that the ultra-upper class pays more.  Lower-middle class pays less.  If you already pay nothing, well...

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It's worked well for the majority of our country's history over the last 100 years.  Switching to a system that creates more of a tax burden on the lower class and hoping (because again, we don't know what they'd do) that the wealthy conservatives "create avenues for the less fortunate" doesn't sound wise.

So the lower class is doing just fine "as is"?

No, I'd rather the ultra-wealthy pay more.  It felt like years ago, but I said that there should be higher brackets for the millionaires.  More money in the lower and middle class' pockets.

And I'm all for finding ways to curb government spending as well.

How will that help the lower class?    We've determined that they pay little or nothing in tax money.    You can't go lower than nothing.   So, by making Trump pay 10%, how does that help the guy who isn't paying taxes now?

Sorry...readjusting the tax rates so that the ultra-upper class pays more.  Lower-middle class pays less.  If you already pay nothing, well...

If you're saying "You want Trump to pay more in taxes to help those who pay nothing in taxes...he's less likely to help them then..."

You'd probably be right.

If you pay nothing in taxes, you're making 4 figures, right?  I'm not necessarily talking about these people.  These people need the government assistance they're likely getting.  And again, they should be taking steps to improve their situation, and not simply be comfortable at that level.  I've agreed that the government shouldn't be responsible for helping them live their lives if they aren't taking steps to help themsevles.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/26/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, I think the biggest divide is between people who believe that people have to take control of their life vs. people who believe you have to hold the hand and guide people thru their life. 

Personally, I think people do better when you say "Hey, it's your life. This is how it's going to be.   Make it work." 

Obviously, others don't share that philosophy.

THIS....

this is the biggest difference between libs and conservatives.

both want to help people.... conservatives provide outlets for help (foundations, charities, shelters, donate time, etc) for someone who WANTS to help themselves. Liberals want to hold the hand of EVERY person in need all the way to the foundation, charity, shelter, etc.

my problem is that its a waste of money to try to help those that don't truly want help (only money). Like a teaching a class... if a kid does not want to learn, will they really benefit from your teaching? No, so you focus on those that want to learn.... and hope those that don't have a wake up call when they finally hit rock bottom.

The other big difference between conservatives and liberals:

Conservatives want people to take ownership of their situation, accept responsibility for where you are and how you got there, come up with a plan to better your situation, and then execute that plan.  If you're unable to do all that yourself, we''ll provide resources to help you.

Liberals like to skip the ownership, responsibility planning and execution aspects, and instead substitute "find somebody to blame" in it's place.

When you think about it, the conservative approach sounds very much like good parenting.

I disagree that liberals don't work hard to help their situation and instead "find someone to blame." Come on.

At the 10,000 foot level, that's pretty much the way it is.

"Blame the rich people for keeping the poor people down".

It's the entire basis of BL's war against the rich.

To be fair, it is BL's argument but I'm sure plenty of libs work hard to help themselves without pointing a finger at someone else when they aren't rich the next day.

How about the whole "Occupy" movement a couple of years ago.  The 1% versus the 99%?

Or the way the liberal media portrayed and treated Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign?

Sure, you can find probably hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of examples of individuals with a liberal mindset who work hard and take responsibility for their lives.  But in the big picture, there's a very large "blame the rich" mentality in play among liberals in the US today.

There was a chart of tax rates and the amount of people who fell into each rate, based on their income, right?  Anyone remember what page that was on?

These "seeking a cause to get behind", like BL, aren't the majority, IMO.   FWIW, I know enough poor conservatives who are more than willing to blame someone else to fill a gym.   I don't think they're the majority either.  

To me, the bigger difference is the well-off conservative/liberals.   The cons are more likely to say "Help yourself" while the libs are more likely to say "They're keeping you down.  I'm here to help you."

The majority of people with a liberal mindset weren't involved in the occupy movement.  They aren't part of the media.  They're hard working people like anyone else.  I don't think the average conservative necessarily works harder than the average liberal.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It's worked well for the majority of our country's history over the last 100 years.  Switching to a system that creates more of a tax burden on the lower class and hoping (because again, we don't know what they'd do) that the wealthy conservatives "create avenues for the less fortunate" doesn't sound wise.

So the lower class is doing just fine "as is"?

No, I'd rather the ultra-wealthy pay more.  It felt like years ago, but I said that there should be higher brackets for the millionaires.  More money in the lower and middle class' pockets.

And I'm all for finding ways to curb government spending as well.

How will that help the lower class?    We've determined that they pay little or nothing in tax money.    You can't go lower than nothing.   So, by making Trump pay 10%, how does that help the guy who isn't paying taxes now?

Sorry...readjusting the tax rates so that the ultra-upper class pays more.  Lower-middle class pays less.  If you already pay nothing, well...

I guess it depends on your definition of "lower-middle class".    If you're talking about the guy who lives week to week making a house payment, utilities, food, clothing, car payment, etc, etc, I'm almost certain there's something he can do to help himself.    If you're talking about the guy who lives week to week making a rent payment, taking the bus to work, eating noodles/chicken and reading used books for entertainment, he's bare-bonesing it and could probably use a break.    But how many people are we talking about?  How many people really can't do anything different in their lives to free up a few dollars? 

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It's worked well for the majority of our country's history over the last 100 years.  Switching to a system that creates more of a tax burden on the lower class and hoping (because again, we don't know what they'd do) that the wealthy conservatives "create avenues for the less fortunate" doesn't sound wise.

So the lower class is doing just fine "as is"?

No, I'd rather the ultra-wealthy pay more.  It felt like years ago, but I said that there should be higher brackets for the millionaires.  More money in the lower and middle class' pockets.

And I'm all for finding ways to curb government spending as well.

How will that help the lower class?    We've determined that they pay little or nothing in tax money.    You can't go lower than nothing.   So, by making Trump pay 10%, how does that help the guy who isn't paying taxes now?

Sorry...readjusting the tax rates so that the ultra-upper class pays more.  Lower-middle class pays less.  If you already pay nothing, well...

I guess it depends on your definition of "lower-middle class".    If you're talking about the guy who lives week to week making a house payment, utilities, food, clothing, car payment, etc, etc, I'm almost certain there's something he can do to help himself.    If you're talking about the guy who lives week to week making a rent payment, taking the bus to work, eating noodles/chicken and reading used books for entertainment, he's bare-bonesing it and could probably use a break.    But how many people are we talking about?  How many people really can't do anything different in their lives to free up a few dollars? 

Well 28% of those in poverty smoke so that's almost a third of them that can make changes to improve their situation.

17% of those above the poverty line smoke.... So there's more.

I think virtually everyone can make changes to free up a few bucks a week. 

damn are you still here?