Democrats must read!
 

I heard this story that I think all democrats should hear:

There was a girl named Jane, who was very liberal and just about to graduate from college.
Her father was a rich republican, so when Jane came back from break they started talking, first about school, Jane said that she studied all the time, and rarely had time to see anybody, but was getting a 4.0... then the subject moved to politics.
Jane believed that the government should distibute the money throughout the country, by giving the rich smaller tax cuts.
Tha father then asked her how her roommate was doing.
Jane told him not too well, she parties a lot and is only getting a 2.0, she is popular but rarely goes to class.
The father then says, ah well i see, well so why dont you give her 1.0 of yours, so then you both will have 3.0.
Jane said of course not! i worked hard for my grades...she then realized that its not fair to whine about taxing the rich because they had earned it, they shouldn't be punished for their success..

Even though I agree with that and I'm in the top tax bracket.. I'd give up my tax cut if we could get that idiot out of the white house.

There are many mechanisims in place to keep the poor people poor (if not make them poorer and more dependent on the system).

Why? Here's an example:

You can have exactly $1 million dollars and become much more wealthy and gain much more power over a group of people by using your money, power, and influence to make them more poor without having gained an extra penny of actual worth yourself.

life's about balance.

if giving her friend 1.0 to save her friend's LIFE - i think she might do it.

i believe in healthcare and eductation and roads and infrastructure - not much else.

What if the bitch with the high grades got them because her daddy paid off the dean of the college, and the girl with bad grades got them because there was no math or science taught in her elementary school only home ec and shop?

My friend, the problem with repubicans is that they want to keep what they DID NOT earn and equate "having" with "entitlement to have", such that anyone who does not have, shouldn't.


j-

i honestly and TRULY believe enhertance should be outlawed.

You are saying that the money of people from a certain political standpoint is stolen and not rightfully theirs.

You are an insane idiot and you should be awarded a summary execution for your efforts.

who says they didnt earn it? and if they did why do they deserve to get it taken away? for working hard they get punished? isnt a basic fundemental in our economy that we can strive for a higher life style? how can we gain that if we get it taken away?

that's a crappy analogy. It's not as simple as that.

remember when Kerry's wife put up her tax returns?
She only paid 15%.

I don't agree with giving welfare to people who are simply lazy or whose circumstances don't merit help.

i'd like it if corporations just paid their fucking taxes.

That doesnt even prove your point? if poor people gave a damn then they wouldnt be poor. everyone has the option to be successful, its their fault if they choose not to use it..

you got a lot to learn, kid.

You missed the point. Don't you see, in your system, after a whille all you have are the heirs of the kids whose daddy's once made fortunes (on the backs of repressed labor, in many cases) living on one side of a wall -- and the people who toil to keep their floors clean on the other. You defend it by saying things like "what's wrong with keeping what i earned?" -- but you forget that people do more with money (the really wealthy and powerful) than live comfortably. they use that power to amend legislature and shape society into a distorted form that makes things easier and easier for them. here, let me give you an example -- if rich is having a million dollars in the bank, what i'm talking about is having enough money (collectively) to inflict your will on a whole country of people. what do you think asserted itself in the election 2 days ago? it was the ages-old mutually propagating coalition between wealth and separatism. what do you think republicans do but fortify the wall between a privleged, morally-unassailable class and everyone else?


j-

What about the mentally or physically disabled?

Translation: People should be punished for or rather banned from being successful because I am not smart or hardworking enough to become successful myself.

Dude -- this is NOT about affirmative action, already. The only reason liberals get behind initiatives that seem to grant unmerited favor to the under-dog is because there ARE forces at work that (when tolerated for generations) DO create divisions of opportunity that CAN ONLY be shattered by creating artificial bridges of access.

No one is talking about banning success here. Quite the opposite. What I'm talking about is preventing the successful from denying the success of others. In baby-talk: buying a nice car is okay. buying a nice house is okay. buying a law that makes you exempt from having to do something other people (who can't buy laws) have to do is NOT okay.

j-

Let me give YOU some baby talk.

No one is prevented from being successful if they have the work ethic and/or intelligence to back it up. No one can BUY laws. EVERYONE have the right to influence people monetarily or otherwise to politically campaign for them. It is NOT illegal or immoral to do something just because there are a few losers who are not able to also do it unless they put some work in.

Look, it's obvious we just don't speak the same language. For you to say "no one is prevented from being successful..." indicates we are living in very different realities. For you to say "no one can BUY laws" indicates a naivete so tragic it is better left undisturbed. Pray you never find yourself in an undesirable minority.

j-

Healthcare should be gauranteed. Financial wealth is no measure of a person's worth.

Also, illness strikes at random. If there are two people working the same job - for the same pay, both equally hardworking, and contributing to society - and then one of them is struck down by a force beyond their control - then that person (and his/her dependents) should be helped; because anyone could just as easily end up in the same position.

People need to take care of eachother. That's the first rule of civilization. If that fails, then it creates a ripple effect throughout society and everything gets fucked up.

I don't like most people at all. But I'm pragmatic. I know that if peoples needs aren't being met (even if it's a result of their own 'stupidity' or 'laziness') then we all have a problem.

These people can't just be writen off in some darwinisitic equation. They are not just going to magically disappear to affirm capitalistic ideals of how we wish the world worked. Social welfare is basically a bribe. Either society provides a basic safety net of the bare necessities, or the disenfranchised will kill and rob you for they need. That's the awful reality.

Welfare is not only the right thing to do for those truely unfortunate, but the wise thing to do to sedate those who would rather cause harm than contribute. If you look around the world, as a rule, you will see that the societies who provide the most gaurantees against desperation are those with the lowest crime rates.

Some feel it is better to be driven out of the city centers to cower within gated communities, rather than pay a higher tax rate, but I don't think that's an effective longterm solution. This country needs to invest much more in education (college should be available to everyone who wants it) and do everything possible to make sure even the poorest among us do not feel dangerously desperate.

It's cheaper to provide enough for an apartment and microwave dinners and cable TV ... than it is to provide all of the above + police and lawyers and guards.

*I* am naive one? That's rich. Explain to me how you can deliver money to someone or something and have your desired law passed based on that? Exactly. It isn't possible. Thus you can't buy laws. What you can buy, or rather rent, is manpower. You can hire drivers, consultants, servants, and of course lobbyists. Do you want to outlaw this?

You are a brainwashed, presumptious little loser and you are envious of people who have more in them than you do. I bet you threw fits during gym in school because you knew that in the shower after class you would be reminded of the fact that some people have bigger dicks than you.

And where have I ever said that I am not in a minority? I very much am. You just proved yourself prejudiced against people who are not welfare moochers.

THE END OF THE DEBATE

For the sake of the sane and the reasonable, I have engaged this "Repetitive Monkey" in a debate that now seems ended. It was never my intention to produce an effect of epiphany in this individual, but merely to make use of him (and his dogged willingness to argue) that others might see the folly of the viewpoints he espoused here and amend their own thoughts accordingly. To them I say, "Behold how beautifully his argument disintegrated, and became -- at last, in truth -- a vulgar, senseless rant".


Good night.

j-

You haven't done anything by making a false claim which you are unable to back up upon inquiry. And now you are pussying out because I made the error of your claim so blatant.

The "THE END OF THE DEBATE" is really priceless. :1orglaugh

Perhaps we should all start to use that phrase when we have made a mistake and don't want to be exposed further for it.

You see, baby talker, no single party to a debate can end a debate by simply saying end of debate. If there is a disagreement then the debate is a fact. They can however say that they are too scared to proceed and must take their leave.

The low that never quite got there.

:1orglaugh

People born into a house where one or more of the parents are teachers are far more likely to get honors for their grades.

Also, 88% of inidivuals in America worth over 10 million dollars are first generation wealthy.

That's a form of theft. If I cannot give my children my money when I die so that they can build a better life for themselves, then what's the point of owning anything. In the end the government's just going to take it anyway under your system.

Corporations don't pay taxes, individuals do.

88% of all individuals in America worth over 10 million dollars are first generation wealthy. Inheriting wealthy and building on it is rare these days. Most of that is either gifted else where or it is squandered by the children that inherit it.

Everyone has equal opportunity, not equal ability. Otherwise we would all be professional athletes.

Here's another story for you:

Once upon a time, an idiot didn't know the difference between democrats and communists. The end.

Disability insurance and life insurance. Buy them or be completely irresponsible. Each can be bought for only a few dollars. I am covered with $500,000 of life insurance for about $10/month. There's no excuse to not be covered.

There are many in the democratic leadership that are socialists and communists, and are trying to bring in the idea of wealthy redistribution. Case in point, minority leader Nancy Pelosi, senator Hillary Clinton, senator Teddy Kennedy, just to name a few.

S/he was making a point. Of course Democrats don't want to literally "punish" someone for being financially successful, but certainly they want to treat them negatively in way that others are not (higher tax percentages).

Even though I'm not at all for outlawing inheritance, your argument makes no sense. Without enheritance existing there's still a pretty good reason for owning things: actually using them.
In a society of true equal opportunity your children should be able to build a good life for themselves, depending on their own efforts.

The only reason why inheritance can not and should not be outlawed is that it's a fundamental part of property, and thereby self-ownership. The only person with the right to distribute your property is you.

There is no such thing as equal opportunity.

It is an illusion.