Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

>That still involves the (mis)use of government power. Take that away, and you have no problem.

Take away the Supreme Court?

By the way the federal inheritance tax this year is zero. So if you are close to croaking and want to help the kids you have 3 weeks to act.

I don't know why anyone can't plan to minimize the inheritance tax. The simplest way is to give stuff to your kids while you are still alive. You don't trust your kids? Then it doesn't matter, does it?

 

Tax cuts kept in full!

Not to mention Obama's proposal to reduce Social Security tax!

Wondering how the market will jump and fall over the next few days....

 

No. Put a President in who values freedom...and he just might appoint people to the SC that also value freedom, instead of the dolts we appear to be sending now.

'fraid it does matter. We've already paid tax on our land, our income, our savings, our interest, our car, our house, and our stuff we've purchased. Why should we give the government most of our stuff when we die? You don't think that the only option is kids or Uncle Sam, do you? We get back to the basic issue of individual freedom and "who owns me."

 

Lets hope that he can get the democrats to vote for it and the bill gets passed.

 

Voting against this would be political suicide for the Dems.

Not to mention it would send the market into a tailspin.

 

No they don't what? They don't get involved in government and influence things?
You can think that if you want to. Again, both are cut from the same cloth of fallen humanity. There are no sinless saints in the system.

I'm not excusing anything the government does. I don't think anyone in this particular discussion has. You're the one who thinks one side is all good and should be excused for everything they do by blaming the government; no matter what happens.
I've been saying both sides are corrupt.

Again, nice sounding ideal, but if our point is that both are mixed up with one another, then what difference does it make who you "charge" with "overreaching"? Both are involved. One (the one everyone thinks is so safe and innocent) is using the other. So to just "curtail government", you're nominally giving more direct power to a different kind of organization (private), who already has much power, and it would probably be even easier for them to control such a small government and its laws.
All the same people will benefit (if there are less government leadership positions, then those people would probably just move to the private sector as board members or consultants if nothing else), and for the rest of us would probably still amount to the same old thing.

I have not advocated making government bigger or criticized making it smaller. I have just been pointing out that it is not all one sided, and that the power structure across the board is out of control.
So I don't know what the solution is. However, we have tried the conservative way of giving more power to the [private] powerful, and it just seemed to make things worse. Remember, they will not necessarily spend it back in this economy, when they are operating all over the world.
Of course, people claim if we try those policies long enough, then it will eventually "undo all the evil that is the other side's fault" and get itself back into order. But that just sounds too fishy, especially looking at these people realistically.

 

Figure it out for yourself.

Does having diarrhea of the pen affect your memory so much you can't remember what you wrote?

 

Umm...looking at Fannie and Freddie, the government encouragement to offer more loans to folks (regardless of their ability to pay--under the guise of "discriminatory lending practices"), the carte blanche in which these behemoths operated, and the resulting housing collapse...I would venture to say that we didn't try a conservative approach at all.

Don't confuse my free-market princples with anarchist leanings. We have laws. Make them clear, and make offenders pay when they transgress them.

My favorite example: If government still ran our phone systems...exactly how much do you think we'd be paying for phone service at the moment?

(my opinion: We'd still be using 10 lb. corded black handsets; a cross-country call would cost about a buck every four minutes; and my Blackberry would be a figment of a science fiction writer's imagination)

Translation: We can't leave it up to individuals to spend as they see fit. They might not invest their money where the government wants them to. So...let's take as much of their money as we can, so it will go where we want it to.


I come back to the basic question: Who do we trust the most to handle our affairs? Your answer is "government," and I think that's unwise. My answer is, "the individual" (or the smallest, most localized unit possible)--and no, it isn't perfect, but I implicitly trust that option more than the governmental one.

 

The point was, it "looks like the same thing", because of the whole POINT that both institutions are mingling with one another. So if you deny one, it looks like you are denying the other. But you are so busy spewing accusations (rationalzing the abuse and growth of government) and insults 9diarrhea of the pen), you don't even know what you're talking about.

Sometimes, I'm convinced you're just some crony of big corporate interests. You can even see this in that you would dispute Poncho, who is just as much into limiting government as your platform is. Just don't ever implicate private powers in any of the problems, for they can do no wrong, and you'll draw blood for them.

I wasn't talking about Fannie and Freddie; I was talking amore about the Reagan and Bush Sr. eras.

But then your side blames taxing them is what ruins the economy, because then they don't spend. But if they're not spending here anyway, then taxing them is not really the problem, and so cutting their taxes is not the solution. Hence, the conservative solutions I was referring to not solving the problem.

That is all I'm pointing out, not government is the answer. I think we're making too much of this government vs private dichotomy. We depend on both in ways, and we suffer when either (or especially both) go astray. What difference does it make whether the corrupt, ruling entity is a ".com" or a ".gov"?

And it's funny, that when some of these "rich" even claim they should forego their tax breaks, then, your side berates them for what they want to do with "their" money!

 

What is "it"?

Can you remember this time?

 

>We get back to the basic issue of individual freedom and "who owns me."

I don't know how to communicate with people who think in terms of "who owns me." I have had more useful conversations with Benny, the Dog, may he rest in peace.

 

It's not about what I remember; it's about what you choose to either ignore, or take take some little triviality in something someone says and try to run with it.

and hence, what "looks like the same thing".

Since you so defend corporate power as totally "different" from large government, then do you condone this sort of thing? :

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7260.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter89.htm

 

Not so, JG.

You seem to have memory problems. When someone responds to your comment, you pretend ignorance about what they are referring to. You have trouble remembering what your "they"s and "it"s refer to...when it's convenient for you. Being intellectually dishonest is your stock in trade.

I'm simply asking you to do what you wanted me to do. And you don't like it, so you throw out childish insults.

 

We shall see. The far left is so far gone (no pun intended), that I don't think we can assume passing is a foregone conclusion.

 

But, they will blame it on the Repugnantcans intransigence.

And, the liberal press will make much hay for the Demoncrats...

They don't really care about the unemployed or the middle class.

Political Suicide?

Not so.

Not with all those ready liberal, progressive, socialist writers to blame the conservatives and making the liberal, progressive socialist seem the angels for protecting the budget.

(Even though *they* are the ones that pretty much doubled the deficit in a mere two years!)

 

That's exactly what democrats will do. This time, I don't believe it will work.

People are getting tired of the class warfare tactic. But they will know their taxes went up and they will know democrats had a majority in both houses and can do whatever they want.

However, ther is no accounting for the gullibility of the American public. The proof: Obama was elected.

 

Good. Maybe Benny understands what you're trying to say most of the time. I don't.

 

Wellll.... let's see.....when things go wrong...

-A ".com" entity can give you sub-par customer service and poor products.

-A ".gov" entity can throw you in jail and seize your property.

You tell me what the difference is.... :saint:

 

You're just obfuscating the whole issue now. They, it, (and "that")... They (the institutions) are the same thing (when they blend together in power) "it" (being under control by either of them) is the same thing, (and "that" was what I was looking at). Why don't you quit the games already? You're the one being intellectually dishonest AND throwing out the childish insults.
Where's your proof that the rich should have more (which is the topic)? You don't support the ideology. Just bash anyone who disagrees.

And when the .gov is influencing the .gov, and seizes your property, and (in some cases, perhaps more some day if they gain even more power as people want), possibly throws you in jail...

Look again at those links, above.