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.

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.

So what was it that wealthy conservatives would do for those hard working people below the poverty line if the tax rate was equal across the board that they don't do now?  What outlets would they be providing?  Just curious.

I'm all for helping those who want it and not helping those who don't.  There needs to be limits to unemployment, to welfare, etc.  If you're on welfare and you're clearly not taking steps to get off welfare, something needs to be done about that, I understand.

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.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):
So there's no "work hard and don't get the promotion?" Or even "work harder than those guys work and don't get the promotion?" Because I've seen those as well.  

The "hard work to salary" payscale isn't always accurate.  1000 to 1 ratios are probably too high.

There is... But then understand that is your pay and your perks. You choose then to be at that level.

Its not about hard work to salary pay scales..... Its about getting paid for your specific skill set, experiences, and production. I would assume if you are not working hard you aren't going to have a job for long. Hard work happens at every level.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:04:00 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.

So what was it that wealthy conservatives would do for those hard working people below the poverty line if the tax rate was equal across the board that they don't do now?  What outlets would they be providing?  Just curious.

I'm all for helping those who want it and not helping those who don't.  There needs to be limits to unemployment, to welfare, etc.  If you're on welfare and you're clearly not taking steps to get off welfare, something needs to be done about that, I understand.

Conservatives by in large make much larger charitable donations. Many are catholic and work with their churches. Others run large corporations that provide millions towards grants, sponsorships, and community involvement.

They do that now WITH high tax rates.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed it, or misunderstood - with a lower tax rate, what outlets would the rich conservatives be providing for Joe HardWorker who's living paycheck-to-paycheck at the poverty line? Based on what you just said, I'm thinking they're happier with a little extra money in their pockets to buy goods and services.

We don't know.   They might do a lot to help Joe Hardworker's children by providing college grants.   They might build a soup kitchen.   They might create a business that utilizes low skill workers.   They might buy a bigger yacht.    Anyone who says they know is full of ****.  

But what we're doing now clearly isn't working. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm sorry, I guess I missed it, or misunderstood - with a lower tax rate, what outlets would the rich conservatives be providing for Joe HardWorker who's living paycheck-to-paycheck at the poverty line? Based on what you just said, I'm thinking they're happier with a little extra money in their pockets to buy goods and services.

There's the prebate for a 'safety net'....

Then this from the FAQ

What will happen to charitable giving?

Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also.

For all of the money that pours into churches every Sunday and into a broad range of charities every day, only the 30 percent who itemize get any tax benefit. The other 70 percent have given and keep giving with no tax benefit whatsoever.

The FairTax allows people to make charitable contributions out of pre-tax dollars. Thus, those generally less affluent taxpayers who do not itemize see their cost of charitable giving go down under the FairTax.

Finally, the wealthy make decisions on charitable giving based on the cause. Once they have determined the cause is worthy, their contribution is structured to maximize the gift and minimize the tax. But the intention to give comes first; taxes simply determine the structure -- rarely the amount -- of the gift.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):
We don't know.   They might do a lot to help Joe Hardworker's children by providing college grants.   They might build a soup kitchen.   They might create a business that utilizes low skill workers.   They might buy a bigger yacht.    Anyone who says they know is full of ****.  

Correct, we don't know what they'd do.  So we collect taxes in this way.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):
We don't know.   They might do a lot to help Joe Hardworker's children by providing college grants.   They might build a soup kitchen.   They might create a business that utilizes low skill workers.   They might buy a bigger yacht.    Anyone who says they know is full of ****.  

Correct, we don't know what they'd do.  So we collect taxes in this way.

How's that working out?

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.

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"?

And, again, the "tax burden" comes in the form of no big "payday" in Feb/Mar via tax return.    Which, if you think about it, almost has to be used for "luxury" items.   You can't tell your landlord in September "Yeah, I'm not going to be able to pay rent until February.   We're good til then, right?"    The daily cost of living doesn't wait until tax returns come in.

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.