Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

Why is any "proof" needed for any person to be able to keep what they earn or to dispose of it as they see fit?

You have a liberal's sense of entitlement. Your wealth envy and covetousness are common traits of liberalism and unbefitting a Christian.

 

Read those links and then tell me about "earn", or" "their money". This is the real point.

Your whole platform is based on the notion that someone is [wrongfully] getting your money, but you refuse to include that group, and your side often justifies this in that they will "dispose" of it back into the economy (that's why that issue comes up); when that does not seem to be what is happening at all.
Instead, you think it is all these "entitlement" demanders on the other end of the spectrum "envying" and "coveting" who are taking everything.

So you seem to think you're "entitled" to more as well. You're just pointing blame in the wrong direction.
Why can't you just accept that big private industry (and global powers) are not totally innocent, and are part of the problem? It's not all one or the other (government/private). It's both.

 

The real point is you are are envious of the wealth of others. Most liberals are, unless of course they are "wealthy" themselves.

As a Christian, you should be ashamed. Covetousness is still a sin, regardless of your politics.

 

Uh, no.
LIKE YOU (or at least those on your side), I work hard and yet feel the crunch of the economy. You blame only the government and particularly the Democrats, (and often those poorer than you who you think are gaining all your money through programs; hence the origin of this whole "envy" and "covetousness" rhetoric).
I see that both government and the private sector are gaining everything at everyone else's expense. That looks more reasonable that thinking some poor person I pass on the street or some heath care recipient has it all.

(I also find it ironic that you once said something about me, as well as occasionally Robert and preachingjesus, trying to sound "holier than thou" when we cite scripture; yet that's what you're doing with this while "covetousness is a sin", and "that's not Christian" lingo, when you almost never mention scripture otherwise, and you certainly seem discontent (a form of covetousness); but only blame it on the wrong people).

 

Uh, yes.

How much do you stand to gain personally with the government confiscation of other people's money on your behalf?

Don't you agree that covetousness is a sin?

 

This is where we get into "scary" territory.

Excluding acquisition of wealth by illegal means (theft, extortion, etc.,)...your statement above can quickly be morphed into a very disturbing defense of confiscation of property over and above what someone "needs." That is so disturbing and problematic, it's hard to narrow down the list of problems I have with it to just a few:

• It's explicitly unAmerican (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?)
• Why has America been successful all these years? One big reason is property rights. It's possible in this country for people to acquire and own stuff--stuff like the land where they live. Their home, transportation, furnishings--stuff we take for granted here and assume is universal. I mean, the fact that we can establish ownership of our home--actually have a physical address that belongs to us--and consequently build a record of credit or financial history that allows us to enter into transactions--that's rarefied air in the world. We're the envy of most of the globe for that very reason. And a socialistic attack that contends "everyone should have the same amount" strikes at the heart of this foundational economic principle.
• It punishes acheivement, and rewards sloth.
• It is morally wrong. Government has no business seizing property for which it has no moral claim. The common defense, the general welfare (careful, now...not the 2010 expanded Obamanomic definition!), securing the blessings of liberty--there are costs to those things. But your plan could quickly develop into a quasi-fascist regime in which most of the property that successful people work for is stolen--to either buy votes, enrich and empower the government, or simply to keep successful people out of power.
• It puts the government in the position for which they were never designed, are not qualified, and will inevitably abuse. Why should the government be deciding, "this is how much our citizens need...and since they don't need more than this amount, we'll simply take it." That is not and should never be their call to make!! Keep in mind, this is a step beyond welfare--where government decides, "you need this much to survive; here's your check." This is the government saying, "We don't think you need any more than this...therefore, we're seizing any and all amounts above said amount."
• Finally, the "proof" which you desire, has been clearly enumerated: Inalienable rights, endowed by God and not the Federal government--the rights of Life, Liberty, Property. The government should be ensuring said rights, not looking for an excuse to curtail them. There should be a "default" setting of freedom. When we hit a gray area, default to freedom.

I don't think freedom is a concept reflected in your question, or in the inevitable abuses of our current regime's interpretation of it.

I promise I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck here...but I have no idea what you're trying to say in the above quote. Sorry.

 

Democrat's Class warfare continues over the inheritance tax.

Obama compromised at 35%. That's not enough for greedy vengeful envious democrats.

 

Keep in mind that the SBC was formed because southern Baptists wanted to distance themselves from northern Baptists over the slavery issue.

see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_37/ai_94160891/?tag=content;col1

The rich people don't care how many times you say "I own myself" as long as they own the money and assets.

You southerners were so goofy over the right to own other people that you (your ancestors) couldn't see the forest for the trees. The northerners didn't want to socialize with black people any more than southerners did. If the southerners had been smart the Confederate States would have bought the slaves from the slave owners and turned them loose. As long as the slaves could not vote or own property they would have had the same status as the Dalits in India, a theoretically free class of serfs who would have had to work the plantations for slave wages and, as in the north, when there was no work they could starve in peace.

That is exactly what our rich owners have done to us. We are free serfs who vote for our tax collectors. Big deal.

 

I would apparently gain nothing, as far as I know, or no more than you.

I've never advocated confiscating other people's property, but both of you repeatedly forget the question is whether all of that is really legitimately their property to begin with when they get a lot of it from dirty dealing, including being mixed up with, and influencing the government, among other things.

I thought (rbell) we understood what the point there was, from the subject of eminent domain. That is one example of what I'm talking about. .com and .gov in it together to confiscate people's property.

Again, this is the sort of thing I'm addressing, or at least the end result of it:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7260.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter89.htm

In other words, you're willing to question whether money the government determines is "legally" taken from you, and then "legally" given to another is really theirs or still in fact yours, but you seem to grant that every other possible way people "make" money (nominally "legal") is legitimate. So you insist that someone is taking your and the rich's property and giving it all to some people who didn't deserve it, and that anyone who disagrees with your view of this is aiding them in confiscating your property. But I see both in cahoots, and both equally part of the problem.

Of course.

But all of us here are unhappy and complaining about the way things are in this economy, and this could all be accused of "covetousness", when most of us are still doing much better than others in the world; so it is a total double-standard to call someone else covetous because they are complaining about something you happen to see no problem with. Perhaps it's simply another part of the same problem you're complaining about. It's seldom all one side. All of man and his enterprises are fallen and sinful.

 

The referenced article has no validity for me. I've seen too many cases of rewritten history to take any at face value, and this hind-sight method of determining the causal factors of the SBC leaves a lot of room for interpretation and theory based on an agenda.

I also see that you feel like you are victimized by some entity. That is unfortunate.

 

Nobody was just given two more years of tax cuts. They are discussing stopping a tax hike from taking place.

Perhaps without a tax hike, there will be people who can afford to expand their businesses and hire some unempoyed people.

Wouldn't that be terrible?

 

Not so.

Complaining about general economic conditions is hardly the same thing as coveting another persons wealth and being willing to take it if possible.

 

There absolutely is such a thing a trickle down. Any time a company expands and hires more people, there are more paychecks and , hopefully, fewer people drawing redistribution of funds. That IS trickle down.

Now, as to moving companies off-shore - there is a reason for that. Companies have to make a profit to survive. In order to make a profit, it has to cost less to produce an item for sale than they can sell it for. The cost of production inludes wages, facilities, and imposed fees and taxes. When those costs go up, but the price of the items cannot be sold for the amount necessary to stay in business, the company fails.

When a government entitity passes restrictive laws (such as OSHA and the EPA), cost of doing business goes up. When unions move in to business and force wages and benefits up, the cost of business goes up. When congress raises corporate taxes and imposes requirements for employee benefits,costs go up.

If the company wants to survive, they move off-shore.

Now, with the agenda of the Democrat party in control, we are experimenting with trickle-up poverty. It seems to be working really well.

 

OK, Eric and I are in agreement on the misuse of eminent domain...and I'll agree that we are talking two entities at work in its abuses.

However, the onus does rest on government to act in such a way so as to not abuse the power to which we entrust them.

And ultimately, the onus rests on we, the people, to watch over those in power. We've failed in recent days when it comes to that important responsibility.