Money

[cossack]

COVETING THE RICH: I see this quite frequently. People do irresponsible things or they encounter some misfortune and they feel that the rich should pay for it. Why? If you were having some financial difficulty in you family would you go around to the neighbor’s hoses and demand they help you out? So why is it most of you have no problem with penalizing ambitious people by taxing them incessantly? It works out that about 10 % of the people pay 80% of the tax. Is that fair?

I have always favored a flat tax where one pays 15% or less of his income as tax and the rest is gravy for them to do as they will. I think most people would find that those who are wealthy would end up donating a lot of their money to charity.

I think the anti-business rhetoric is silly. We use capitalism as our system of economics in this country. It works! If you don’t like it move to China.

QUOTATIONS: In most case using a quotation form the Bible, a theologian, or a philosopher is useless. Usually the quote is non-specific to the debate at hand. Once someone has made a contention the respondent can only do one of two things. Either prove WITH EMPIRICAL DATA that respondent’s beliefs are true or prove WITH EMPIRICAL DATA that the original contention is false. A nebulous quote does not do either. Obviously this does not apply if the subject of the debate is about what scripture or a theologian holds on a subject.

I would much rather hear what the person making the quote thinks. If you are going to enter a debate you should use facts and evidence that can be proven.

With that in mind I will only continue this debate with those willing specifically address my contnetions with facts, data, definitions, statistics, and examples. Avoid the cliché liberal goobely-gook.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

So getting back to the point, why do you feel that only the rich fat cats control the vote?
**“which means it ISN’T … just the rich fat cats” **
If you would read my posts you would see that I do not believe that. Although I think it’s very naive of you to not acknowledge money can speak very loudly at times, that does not mean that rich people have all the say.

---

**You do appear to think that capitalism is what should be the basis of all society decisions. And I do still think that goes to the point of carelessness. **

Wow, not only are you a better Christian
**I don’t think I’m a better christian, but I don’t see anything christian about your attitude towards you aunt’s funeral expenses. Which is what you started this thread complaining about. **

---

You know for SURE that when you get older you will always be willing and ABLE (physically and mentally) to work.
That’s not the same as retirement. If someone becomes unable to work for mental or physical reasons when they are 25 - do you say they retired?? I will work until I am no longer able to do so. At that point, I fully expect my family to help me. That’s what family is SUPPOSED to do. If one of my kids or my in-laws (true sacrifice there ) were in that situation, my dh and I would open our door without a word. Heck, we’d probably go get them and bring them here!

---

I think that when you reach 70 your attitudes will have changed drastically.

One thing that has been consistant with every elderly person I’ve ever met - they have a much deeper desire to keep those family bonds and deep regrets over not doing so sooner. I’m sure much about me will change by the time I’m 70, but I hope care for others (especially family) isn’t one of them.

**I won’t post on this thread again, you want to twist my words into something they are not to justify your own lack of charity. **

---

So your elderly aunt didn’t do what you think she should have done with her money before she died. So what? It was hers to do with as she wanted. So your mother paid for her funeral. So what? It’s family and it was your mother’s money to with as she wanted.

---

So you pay taxes you don’t like to pay for things you don’t think you should have to pay for? Welcome to the club!

 

[mschoir01]

"Do you have a solution to the problem of poverty? "

I already told you, but you choose to ignore it. Poverty and crime will continue as long as those in the inner city continue to admire “gansta-rappers” and drug dealers instead of taking on Christian morality. You are expressing opinion here. What of the greater majority of the poor? There are far more people living in poverty in rural areas and their condition is more intractible than the poor who live in urban areas. This is fact. Look it up. Additionally. I have tried to steer you to facts with regard to the illegal drug trade. The author of the previously mentioned work is an award winning, summa cum laude graduate of MIT and Harvard. In economics. Please take the time to study up before making pronouncements. In fact, the illegal drug trade functions much like any other enterprise in a free market. The fact is that the rank and file make no more than your minimum wage worker. The “entrepreneur” dealer assumes the risk and then offsets it by hiring done the lower end sales.

"I would like to think that you (and here I am presuming that you are a Christian) are as troubled by the plight of the poor as the rest of us and would much rather give your brothers and sisters a hand up. "

The problem is you do not want to give the brothers and sisters a “hand up” you want to be Robin Hood and take the money from the rich and redistribute wealth using your own arbitrary criteria. Here is that ugly presumption again. Not Robin Hood. Jesus. You are free to read the New Testament and draw your own conclusions about your responsibility to your brothers and sisters. Much is required of those to whom God has given much. It is quite plain that we are to take care of more than just ourselves, but more on that later. Now, rather than continue to argue two ideas in the same paragraph, you will understand that I must start a new one.

In reference to your opinion that my idea is to redistribute wealth, it is inaccurate. I have no desire to be any more arbitrary than the Word of God which says that I will be held accountable for what I do with the gifts I have been given. And, quite frankly, calling my opinion arbitrary is also inaccurate because I have made no argument for the redistribution of wealth. I have posited that in a free society, we are no less responsible for our treatment (as a society) of the poorest. Here I am speaking for all the poor, not just those who are undeserving. But again, more on that later.

 

[mschoir01]

cossack:

COVETING THE RICH: I see this quite frequently. People do irresponsible things or they encounter some misfortune and they feel that the rich should pay for it. Why? If you were having some financial difficulty in you family would you go around to the neighbor’s hoses and demand they help you out? So why is it most of you have no problem with penalizing ambitious people by taxing them incessantly? It works out that about 10 % of the people pay 80% of the tax. Is that fair? Cossack, here is where I see your attitude problem being arbitrary. If a member of society suffers misfortune, it is quite different from irresponsibility. In any case, no one would go to a neighbor’s hose and ask for help. I have had neighbors ask for my help when they have suffered misfortune. I did what I could to help. Why? Because I was rich by comparison. I did because I could. You know, I notice that in your posts you presume that I am a have not. Not so, although God has blessed me with being a have, a have not, a have more, a have nothing and back to a have. I daresay the experience has given me some insight. I have also posted previously that I am willing to pay “my fair share” of taxes. I do think that because the rich are proportionally better able to pay that they should. The answer is yes. It is not only fair. It is the right thing to do. I will address your China remark forthwith.

I have always favored a flat tax where one pays 15% or less of his income as tax and the rest is gravy for them to do as they will. I think most people would find that those who are wealthy would end up donating a lot of their money to charity. Flat tax - that says it all, Cossack.

 

[mschoir01]

Continued:

I think the anti-business rhetoric is silly. We use capitalism as our system of economics in this country. It works! If you don’t like it move to China. No one has been anti-business here, either, Cossack. You presume once again. Some of us posting have been in business for ourselves and understand completely the desire to pay lower taxes. It just isn’t possible to run a country without a little revenue. Actually, China isn’t a good example for my side of the question anyway. Some 25 years ago, seeing the handwriting on the wall, China began moving toward a free market economy. They did NOT move towards representative democracy. The result is what I believe would be your dream country: free markets and no free speech. Rather, the concrete example that is more reflective of my view is Norway. They manage to keep a 3.5% growth rate and take care of the members of their society in a decent and humane fashion. Also, Ireland. They are even Catholic while they do it. It comes down to putting your money where your mouth is. Self reliance is a hallmark of this country and I God bless it that I am fortunate enough to live here, but we could take a lesson from other parts of the world.

QUOTATIONS: In most case using a quotation form the Bible, a theologian, or a philosopher is useless. Usually the quote is non-specific to the debate at hand. Once someone has made a contention the respondent can only do one of two things. Either prove WITH EMPIRICAL DATA that respondent’s beliefs are true or prove WITH EMPIRICAL DATA that the original contention is false. A nebulous quote does not do either. Obviously this does not apply if the subject of the debate is about what scripture or a theologian holds on a subject. Are we talking economics and politics? Sorry, if you prefer to move to the strictly secular arena, let us have at it. Please see above for my empirical data. The study of economics is fascinating, but produces no solutions for the problems of society. It is descriptive. From it we draw conclusions that differ. Same info. Now, if you are going to go all academic on me, that’s fine - I can do that too. Let us be clear however, that your writing must improve (spelling, grammar, and structure included). Also, let us determine that we are using the same definition of terms, to wit: the difference in quality of life versus standard of living. We live in a country with a very high standard of living, but the quality of life in this country is not as good as many others. This is a fact. Look it up. It should have been covered in your global economics course.

I would much rather hear what the person making the quote thinks. If you are going to enter a debate you should use facts and evidence that can be proven.

With that in mind I will only continue this debate with those willing specifically address my contnetions with facts, data, definitions, statistics, and examples. Avoid the cliché liberal goobely-gook. That’s “gobbledy-gook”, and I will appreciate the same from your side of the street. (Please note here, Cossack that I have been much less condescending and mean spirited than you in this whole thing. Let us also elevate the level of argument above “I’m right, you’re wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah”). In my spirit of generosity, I have appended a few references for your review.

rprconline.org/synthesis.pdf

calvert-henderson.com/index.htm

raconline.org/info_guides/ruraldef/

Have a nice day!

 

[auppie]

cossack:

Fortunatly, we received good legal advice and refused any part of her will or else the debt would have passed to us. It was a mess, and I just don’t think many Catholics address such practicalities.

I’ve worked for an estate planning/probate lawyer for many years, and I am failing to understand how the debt would have passed to your aunt’s family members. Would it not become the debt of the estate?

We have often had estates where the estate was insolvent (broke), and most creditors won’t pursue an estate like that…its like trying to get blood out of a turnip. There have been other instances where the debt gets negotiated down and the creditor accepts a % of each dollar of debt.

 

[cossack]

Rob’s Wife:

“So getting back to the point, why do you feel that only the rich fat cats control the vote? “which means it ISN’T … just the rich fat cats” If you would read my posts you would see that I do not believe that.”

The over all tone of your post does not bear it out, but if that is what you think we certainly do agree.

“You do appear to think that capitalism is what should be the basis of all society decisions. And I do still think that goes to the point of carelessness.”

All decisions? Where did I say that? You have grossly misstated my argument if you think this.

“I don’t think I’m a better christian, but I don’t see anything christian about your attitude towards you aunt’s funeral expenses. Which is what you started this thread complaining about.”

So you see nothing wrong with passing on your financial irresponsibility to your loved ones? I am glad we are not related. (I know the feeling is mutual) My point was that my aunt did not receive the funeral she wished because she did not leave enough of a provision for it. We skipped the typical expensive lying out for three days and went right to the Church. Her coffin was opened briefly at the back of the Church and then we had the Mass. It was not all of what she wanted, but was enough. The problem I had was that instead of grieving for her we had to deal with creditors calling and nursing home expenses because she had to go on Medicaid. This post is not long enough to go into all the specifics, but lets just say it was an added burden at a bad time.

“I will work until I am no longer able to do so. At that point, I fully expect my family to help me.”

Great, again I am glad we are not related. However there are those who do not have such a willing family. My original contention still stands. One is better off saving a large portion of his or her income for later years. You have avoided my original contention. I asked how we are supposed to pay for our longer golden years and your original solution was “don’t retire.” I am merely saying that this is not an option for many people.

“I won’t post on this thread again, you want to twist my words into something they are not to justify your own lack of charity.”

Again, where do you get this? I have explicitly stated that I am NOT against tithing. It is you who are either twisting my words or not choosing to comprehend them.

 

[cossack]

MSCHOIR

My original statement: I already told you, but you choose to ignore it. Poverty and crime will continue as long as those in the inner city continue to admire “gansta-rappers” and drug dealers instead of taking on Christian morality.

Mschoir’ responsce: You are expressing opinion here

That is your simplistic response to most of what I have said. How is it opinion? Are you denying that the rap/hip-hop culture is prevalent and admired in poor areas? Are you denying that inner city people identify with and emulate rap “artist?” Are you denying that such a role model is wrong? Do you think that rapping about selling and using drugs, shooting your rivals with AK-47s, and punching hoes (not the farm implement) is a good thing? Are you denying that those who follow in the footsteps of rappers/drug dealers are headed to poverty? Do you not see that the rap culture’s shunning of education, positive Christian moral values, and having a LEGAL job has a big impact on poverty? In a country that provides so much opportunity there is simply no excuse for one to be living in poverty unless there is a physical or mental disability. Why do you think Mexicans and other aliens risk their lives to come here?

“There are far more people living in poverty in rural areas and their condition is more intractible than the poor who live in urban areas. This is fact”

Ok, but how does that change what I said? Youth in rural areas still identify with these same individuals. Are you saying there are no gangs and such in rural America? The remaining contentions I made like poor moral choices, substance abuse, and laziness are still present in rural America. Are you saying they are not? How has what I said changed in light of your “new fact?”

“In fact, the illegal drug trade functions much like any other enterprise in a free market. The fact is that the rank and file make no more than your minimum wage worker. The “entrepreneur” dealer assumes the risk and then offsets it by hiring done the lower end sales.”

Yes, I agree. You have just made my point that it is just one more reason we have poverty and it is NOT the fault of big business.

“You are free to read the New Testament and draw your own conclusions about your responsibility to your brothers and sisters. Much is required of those to whom God has given much”

That is why I support a financial safety net for those in TRUE need. Are you even reading my posts?

“I do think that because the rich are proportionally better able to pay that they should. The answer is yes. It is not only fair. It is the right thing to do.”

So you think it is fine to penalize someone because they had the intelligence and/or the willingness to work hard. Don’t you see that this is indeed the wealth redistribution that you erroneously claim you are against?

Flat tax - that says it all, Cossack’

The flat tax is gaining momentum and I think it is only a matter of time till we have it. I recommend The Flat Tax Revolution by Steve Forbes and The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder.

 

[cossack]

MSCHOIR

“Actually, China isn’t a good example for my side of the question anyway….Rather, the concrete example that is more reflective of my view is Norway.”

You are right I used China reflexively. Actually I should have used your model of Norway as a socialist haven where people who are anti-capitalist should move. Norway has a marginal tax rate of 55.3%. However, the socialistic Norwegians don’t stop the legal robbery of their people there. They go on to charge a Value Added Tax (VAT) of 12% to 24%. A repressive system like this stifles entrepreneurs and is nothing more than wealth redistribution. But then you say you are not a socialist and you don’t want wealth redistribution…hmmmm

I can only assume one of three things about you: a) you are lying, b) you are stupid, or c) you are simply so set in “proving” me wrong that you will say just about anything. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say the answer is c.

Norway also has legalized prostitution. I bet your are really proud of your heroes now. In fact I think I heard Rush say that a Norwegian citizen who is receiving state aid is suing the Norwegian government to pay for his “need “ for a prostitute.

The socialist from Canada flood states like Michigan because the medical care they get for “free” is inadequate and they have to wait on long list to receive attention. When I think that someone like you is out there voting I sincerely hope you really do move to Norway.

“Let us be clear however, that your writing must improve (spelling, grammar, and structure included).”

Uhhh, is that your attempt at a barb? Well, you have already admitted that your degree is useless, so I guess that is the best a sociology major from a junior college can do. I have been physically and verbally attacked by the most violent people in the world, so I am impervious to offense. Good try though.

Oh, by the way… in regards to YOUR statement: “There are far more people living in poverty in rural areas and their condition is more intractible than the poor who live in urban areas. “ the word is intractable not intractible. Get a dictionary brainiac.

“The study of economics is fascinating, but produces no solutions for the problems of society.”

Contrary to what Sen Clinton wrote it does NOT take a village, it takes a family, or better yet, it takes an individual. Economics shows how it all works and entrepreneurs take the info and run with it. Sociology is nothing more than a list of theories that purports to offer “solutions.” These solutions are often mere finger pointing at the “mean evil wealth driven white people.” Sociology is not an exact science.

So far your repudiation attempts at my contentions are nothing more than groundless accusations, and mere feelings. For example, you claimed that there were these evil “predatory marketers” out there and when I asked you for a definition you declined. Instead you went on to list the plight of poor college students who are helpless victims at the hands of the credit granter gods who force through hypnotism the mindless zombie college kids to pay them usury rates.

“Please note here, Cossack that I have been much less condescending and mean spirited than you in this whole thing.”

Oh sure, in fact I am thinking of petitioning Rome for your sainthood.

None of the respondents have been able to disprove my original thesis. FACT: We are all living longer and we will need medical assistance. FACT: This medical assistance is very costly. FACT: Dolling out 10 % or more of your income if you are middle to lower class could put you in a position where you can not afford the expensive retirement I listed above.

 

[cossack]

Auppie

“I’ve worked for an estate planning/probate lawyer for many years, and I am failing to understand how the debt would have passed to your aunt’s family members. Would it not become the debt of the estate?”

If we accepted her home from the will and sold it we were told that her debtors could take any profits from the sale. We would have fixed and sold the house with nothing to show for our efforts. It made more financial sense and cents to walk away.

 

[auppie]

cossack:

If we accepted her home from the will and sold it we were told that her debtors could take any profits from the sale. We would have fixed and sold the house with nothing to show for our efforts. It made more financial sense and cents to walk away.

This makes much more sense now. Yes, the sale proceeds would go to the estate, which then would pay your aunt’s debt. Just the way you initially stated it, it seemed odd to me.

I’m sorry for the loss of your aunt. I do understand what you are going through. I lost my parents 4 months apart, and had to handle the details of their estate, coupled with quite a bit of debt.

I will pray for you and your family in your time of grieving.

God Bless.

 

[cossack]

Auppie:

Thank you for the concern and the prayers. I will in turn ask God to bless you for your compassion.

 

[mschoir01]

“Actually, China isn’t a good example for my side of the question anyway…Rather, the concrete example that is more reflective of my view is Norway.” You are right I used China reflexively. Actually I should have used your model of Norway as a socialist haven where people who are anti-capitalist should move. I am certainly not anti-capitalistic. Capitalism is the most efficient economic system going. Your posts appear to be couched in absolute terms. This is not conducive to achieving common understanding of different viewpoints. I think you should visit one of these places and see how these societies can function. Quality of life, Cossack. It’s a good thing! Any number of Northern European countries, or even Canada would serve. When a society decides as a society to improve the lot of all, it’s very intriguing. Norway has a marginal tax rate of 55.3%. However, the socialistic Norwegians don’t stop the legal robbery of their people there. They go on to charge a Value Added Tax (VAT) of 12% to 24%. A repressive system like this stifles entrepreneurs and is nothing more than wealth redistribution. But then you say you are not a socialist and you don’t want wealth redistribution…hmmmm Now, Cossack, there you go again! I think you would be shocked to hear how conservative I really am. Like you, I believe in personal responsibility; that we should all work to take care of ourselves and our own. It appears that I just have a larger circle that I consider my own. I live in a red state to boot! As to the Norwegians and their tax rate – let’s not forget the fact that with this very tax rate their economy continues to grow at a steady 3.5%. It’s not robbery if you are not stealing. Their society has made the decision to take everyone along. They are not above tinkering with their system either. They are also a representative democracy. The socialist party is just another of their political parties. There are conservatives there as well. I daresay you and I would be Christian Democrats.

I can only assume one of three things about you: a) you are lying, b) you are stupid, or c) you are simply so set in “proving” me wrong that you will say just about anything. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say the answer is c. Again, calm response is ever so much more convincing than mean-spirited attacks. I’ll try to keep mine to a minimum. A soft answer…

Norway also has legalized prostitution. I bet your are really proud of your heroes now. Heavens! I suppose we should repudiate those counties in Nevada where the same activity is legal. In Alaska one can grow and smoke one’s own. In Oregon, physician assisted suicide is currently legal. Personally, I believe that prostitution is a social evil, just as the foregoing are social evils. Oh, dear! I also believe that abortion is evil. In order to express my views on that issue, I belong to a ministry that assists women in crisis pregnancy who have chosen life for their babies. Foolish me to think that what is cannot be changed by the use of one’s time, talent and (horrors!) treasures. Given the opportunity to support legalized prostitution, I would vote against. In fact I think I heard Rush say that a Norwegian citizen who is receiving state aid is suing the Norwegian government to pay for his "need "

for a prostitute. Really, Cossack, Rush Limbaugh? I give you an award winning, summa cum laude PhD. and you may have heard a serial monogamist, formerly drug addicted, college drop out entertainer? I have purposely tried to stay in the arena of reasonable discourse. I will not add to the venom here.

To be continued.

 

[mschoir01]

The socialist from Canada flood states like Michigan because the medical care they get for “free” is inadequate and they have to wait on long list to receive attention. Flood is rather too strong a term. Those foreigners would be the wealthy who can afford their heart transplants and other expensive procedures, etc. Hey – that adds to our economy – let’s bring them all on! What this does not address is the fact that health care is rationed everywhere – in this country; those with insurance or adequate wealth receive health care. In Canada, a decent level of basic health care is available to all citizens. Every one of these countries outdoes the United States in infant mortality and childhood illnesses. No system is perfect. Ours is not better because those fortunate enough to have coverage can receive care. Do we ration according to who has the money or do we place a higher value on the lives of our fellows? Fact: We can’t have it both ways and our way is no more successful in good patient outcomes in the main. I think the more telling clue is that there are still people wealthy enough to purchase healthcare in the open market in these societies. One can still make a killing as it were and the poorest don’t have to suffer. When I think that someone like you is out there voting I sincerely hope you really do move to Norway. I have already lived there, Cossack, and thankfully, I have returned to this country the richer for it. It is a beautiful country with a long and interesting history. The land of Nobel, Ibsen, Amundsen, Grieg, Munsch, and the guy who did the whole Kon Tiki thing has much to offer. I also recommend travel to countries that do not have either the quality of life or high standard of living that the West has. It is quite educational. No, it’s the good old US of A for me – and I will work to improve it.

“Let us be clear however, that your writing must improve (spelling, grammar, and structure included).”

Uhhh, is that your attempt at a barb? Not at all. You put forth your requirements for continuing the discussion, so I say let’s get a little higher on the food chain of communication. You may well want to review your previous posts to discern my meaning. Well, you have already admitted that your degree is useless, so I guess that is the best a sociology major from a junior college can do. Sorry. Not me. You must have me confused with the post-er who actually wrote that. I believe that no college education is wasted that is appreciated. Mine has taught me to think and write. Also, my degrees are not in Sociology. Methinks my education may be a bit broader, however, than some who post here. I have been physically and verbally attacked by the most violent people in the world, so I am impervious to offense. Good try though. And you are henceforth added to my prayer list.

To be continued

 

[mschoir01]

Oh, by the way… in regards to YOUR statement: "There are far more people living in poverty in rural areas and their condition is more intractible than the poor who live in urban areas. " the word is intractable not intractible. Get a dictionary brainiac. Now, if I were looking for a place to put a barb, here would be a great place to insert a really cheap, funny one. I suggest you read up on the subject of rural poverty and poverty in general. I have more references; if you like, just let me know. BTW, while Merriam Webster has the ‘able’ as the correct spelling, Microsoft’s spellchecker has the ‘ible’ as the correct spelling. I have the same dilemma with the word cancelled. Darned if that extra L is deemed extraneous, I will likely use it anyway, but I digress.

“The study of economics is fascinating, but produces no solutions for the problems of society.”

Contrary to what Sen Clinton wrote it does NOT take a village, it takes a family, or better yet, it takes an individual. And now for something completely different. Economics shows how it all works and entrepreneurs take the info and run with it. Indeed. That is my point. You have not taken the train all the way to the station, as it were. The consequences of free markets were where we started on our little adventure. Now let us turn to that other pesky social science, history. France, Russia, and China have all had revolutions that had at their root the stagnation of the economy that the concentration of wealth into too few hands will cause. In the United States, thank heavens; the leadership of the time (ca. Teddy Roosevelt) began “trust busting”, or outlawing most monopolies. That, the rise of the organized labor movement, and some other pesky legislation passed during the Great Depression has kept our economy from descending that far. All economies have their trade-offs to a greater or lesser degree. Sociology is nothing more than a list of theories that purports to offer “solutions.” These solutions are often mere finger pointing at the “mean evil wealth driven white people.” Sociology is not an exact science. Again, something out of nowhere. Sociology, a social science like economics, studies and reports the facts. No social science claims to have the answers. Like economists, they can make predictions. I did mention that I am not a sociologist, didn’t I? Additionally, are we to assume the worst of that second to last sentence? I

So far your repudiation attempts at my contentions are nothing more than groundless accusations, and mere feelings. Nope. Not groundless. If you desire further study, I will be happy to attach more links. Wishing something to be so does not make it thus. The writer in this post expressing feelings projects anger. For example, you claimed that there were these evil “predatory marketers” out there and when I asked you for a definition you declined. Oh, sorry about that. A predatory marketer is a marketer that uses the ignorance and inexperience of a population to reap profits at their expense. Instead you went on to list the plight of poor college students who are helpless victims at the hands of the credit granter gods who force through hypnotism the mindless zombie college kids to pay them usury rates. What the heck, Cossack, lets add the poor schlumps who open their junk mail and end up with 10 or 11 cards, all maxed out. As I stated previously, the consumer will be the one to pay in this instance and, regrettably, we agree that we would both prefer not to. I believe that credit is precious and should be doled out, dare I say it, no more generously than your banker would do. I think if the credit card companies had to be responsible for their marketing practices, there would be far fewer instances of poor Aunts being lulled into an untenable credit situation.

To be continued.

 

[mschoir01]

“Please note here, Cossack that I have been much less condescending and mean spirited than you in this whole thing.”

Oh sure, in fact I am thinking of petitioning Rome for your sainthood. Many thanks! I appreciate the gesture, but I am afraid I won’t qualify. I will continue to pray for you.

None of the respondents have been able to disprove my original thesis. FACT:

We are all living longer and we will need medical assistance. Some of us are living longer. The jury is still out on the obese generation. FACT: This medical assistance is very costly. Agreed! FACT: Dolling out 10 % or more of your income if you are middle to lower class could put you in a position where you can not afford the expensive retirement I listed above. But here is where your original thesis falls down. You have no facts to prove that those who choose to donate 10% cannot provide for themselves on that remaining 90%. Of all the people who tithe that I have ever met, not one has had difficulty in budgeting for their own future. Surely you can relate to the concept of delayed gratification? Why, I’ll bet you even practice it! This enviable group includes people who plan very well for their lives. I would hazard the guess that the vast majority of those generous individuals who only keep 90% of what God has given to them are able to take care of life’s vicissitudes with grace and dignity.

 

[cossack]

"As to the Norwegians and their tax rate – let’s not forget the fact that with this very tax rate their economy continues to grow at a steady 3.5%. It’s not robbery if you are not stealing. Their society has made the decision to take everyone along. They are not above tinkering with their system either. They are also a representative democracy. The socialist party is just another of their political parties. There are conservatives there as well. I daresay you and I would be Christian Democrats. "

The Norwegians get the government they deserve. When you mention their growth rate are you referring to their GDP, GNP? Regardless, any growth rate they have is artificial because if they had to fund the kind of military any truly independent country needs that would all disappear. This is a fact most liberals simply ignore. The truth is that most of Europe brags about how great they treat their people instead of “wasting” their money on bombs while they know full well that it is the United States that would do the dirty work if any of our “allies” were attacked. It is easy for them to talk tough when they know big brother is standing behind them. Therefore, the mere 3.5% growth rate you are so impressed with means nothing.

My main concern is that you still maintain that you are not a socialist and you do not favor wealth redistribution but yet your “model” country does exactly that. Are you saying that you would like to see this set up in the United States? They have an income tax of over 50%, they have what amounts to a sales tax of 24%, and further inquiry revealed they still use property taxes, and social security tax. It is entirely conceivable that some individuals in Norway could have 75% of their income consumed by tax. Are you maintaining that this is not wealth redistribution? Would 80% tax be wealth redistribution? 90%? 100%? Give me your number.

The fact that Norway has decided to “take everyone along” is just a euphemism for welfare state. They take the philosophy “from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs.” I guess you subscribe to that as well. When a country does this the hard working wealthy people simply get fed up with everyone riding on their ambitious coat tails so they or their children simply leave the country. Norway and their other tax repressive Scandinavian brothers will eventually kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

CONTINUED

 

[cossack]

“I can only assume one of three things about you: a) you are lying, b) you are stupid, or c) you are simply so set in “proving” me wrong that you will say just about anything. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say the answer is c. Again, calm response is ever so much more convincing than mean-spirited attacks. I’ll try to keep mine to a minimum. A soft answer…”

I did not mean this in a “mean-spirited” way. It is a common trait among liberals to represent themselves as having conservative or main stream beliefs but when the layers are peeled back they represent something else entirely. I have shown you clear evidence that your heroes in Norway are nothing more than socialist who redistribute the wealth of their hard working wealthy people and then hide behind the protective might of the US military, but you will deny all of it. I know that you would love to see their repressive system adopted here as well. Therefore, I maintain that you are lying to yourself and me.

“Norway also has legalized prostitution. I bet your are really proud of your heroes now. Heavens! I suppose we should repudiate those counties in Nevada where the same activity is legal. In Alaska one can grow and smoke one’s own.”

What you are failing to grasp is that this is the logical step in the pervasive attitude created by a welfare state like Norway. In Holland prostitution, and open drug use is legal. They have people shooting up in their once beautiful parks. When you allow the government to “take everyone along”, as you put it, you create a monster where ambition is destroyed and the citizenry look to the government to provide for all their needs. The government holds all the people’s wealth due to its repressive tax policies so it becomes the father who has to placate the needs of the citizens who whine for the right to access to prostitutes, drugs, etc.

“Really, Cossack, Rush Limbaugh? I give you an award winning, summa cum laude PhD. and you may have heard a serial monogamist, formerly drug addicted, college drop out entertainer? I have purposely tried to stay in the arena of reasonable discourse. I will not add to the venom here.”

You really are a smarmy twit! Rush had painful surgery and got hooked on painkillers prescribed by the doctor. His ratings alone are higher than your friends at Air America combined. Besides, I was not directly using Rush as a reference, but rather repeating a news item mentioned by Rush on his show. Rush probably got the item off a newswire and it is easily verifiable.

CONTINUED

 

[cossack]

“Flood is rather too strong a term. Those foreigners would be the wealthy who can afford their heart transplants and other expensive procedures, etc. Hey – that adds to our economy – let’s bring them all on!”

You are totally ignoring the fact that the reason these people come to the United States for care is that the quality and availability of socialized health care is poor. This is because the doctors in the process are not paid the market rate so the better docs seek greener pastures here in the states. Since socialism eliminates competition there is no incentive to eliminate inefficiencies like long waiting lists, bureaucratic red tape, etc.

“In Canada, a decent level of basic health care is available to all citizens.”

You are simply regurgitating socialist government propaganda. I live in a border state so I have heard the real story from Canadians who have been through their system.

“Ours is not better because those fortunate enough to have coverage can receive care. Do we ration according to who has the money or do we place a higher value on the lives of our fellows?”

You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. You are so high in the ivory tower that your view of the real world is obscured by the clouds. Hospitals in California and Arizona have had to shut down because of all the illegal aliens they are treating. There are designated hospitals throughout cities that can not refuse to treat anyone. Emergency care is available to those who need it 24/7.

Health care is not a right granted by the constitution. If you want our government to be handing out free heart transplants and the like than be prepared for a bureaucratic nightmare. This country simply can not afford to pay to have an extensive military presence that protects both our shores and the free world while catering to the health needs of its citizens and every illegal alien that scoots over a fence. That is simply not the role of government.

You claim to be for self-responsibility and yet you favor the government giving cradle to grave care. This goes back to the original cause of poverty. In this country where basic education is free and there is fairly easy access to higher education through scholarships and loans it is incumbent upon each person to secure employment that provides for his or her family. This includes health care. Show me where the constitution says that the government must provide for such things. You can’t because our wise forefathers knew that this was something the individual needed to address. I know you are still stuck on the “from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs” philosophy.

Rather than just throwing money at the problem it would make more sense to encourage and enable people through better education. Then when they hit the job market they would be employed in careers that offer health insurance from private companies. It is the whole teach a man to fish rather than giving him a fish for a day thing. For some reason you liberals always slant your programs so that individuals are as dependent on the government as possible. Yet this is the same government that just wasted 100s of millions of dollars on cruise ships to “help” the hurricane refugees in New Orleans. I guess their heart was in the right place but it was a typical bumbling inefficient move that a private company would never have done.

CONTINUED

 

[Peter_Wright]

Due to lack of charity and humility, this thread is now closed. Thank you for all who participated.