Or name the President who came to office with 70% the top marginal rate and left with the top marginal rate half of that.

Meanwhile revenues skyrocketed because the economy skyrocket.

So the people had more money to spend (which is always a good thing) while the government also had more money to spend.

The only thing that would have made that better is if the chant at the end included Pelosi’s name.

Let”s just put all the old folks on the ice after they become non-productive and have not adquately provided for their old age.

How about this for a solution. With some of the money I saved from Bush’s tax cut, I added on a detached living space for my grandmother to live out her days. She’s close, has constant attention, has a ride to wherever she wants to go, and all without gov’t funding. Margie, gov’t isn’t the solution, people are.

Woof is not content to see a problem in society and do what he can. Instead, he insists that gov’t do what he thinks nobody else but gov’t can.

What on earth makes you think anyone would go through the red tape and frustration if they didn’t have to?

How long have you had your head in the sand.

Most people would far rather take care of themselves.

Obviously true. It’s just that there’s a sizeable number of people that are either 1. Happy to be on welfare 2. Trapped by the system and don’t know how to get off.

Chad if the government would hold spending down to the rate of inflation and population growth we’d have tax surpluses in short order. Even with the increase spending on defense that’s true.

Run the numbers from 2001-present and you’ll see that that is true, it’s always true.

The problem isn’t that we tax too little, it’s that Congress spends too much.

What’s really immoral about that Margie is that the bureaucracy sucks up over 2/3rds of the money that’s to be spent on those people.

Those same people that stole all of the money from the poor are claiming that “we need to do more.”

Do you think that’s moral Margie?

Let”s just put all the old folks on the ice after they become non-productive and have not adquately provided for their old age

Aren’t you just ashamed of the Democrats for spending the Social Security Surplus rather than setting it up in private investment accounts.

Kinda makes you want to hang your head doesn’t it?

It would be wonderful to believe that everyone would be willing to take Grandma in, HG, but I’m afraid such is not the case. Nor can voluntary charities come anywhere near solving the problem of people unable to care for themselves or ensure their own survial. We either have to say that we have a national duty to care for our own or we have to revert to a Dickensonian era. Can we collect the dead bodies from the alleys and live with that?

“but does it benefit society in general?” In a coldly material way, no. But is that all we are as Americans? Look out for yourself and Devil take the hindmost? It benefits society when we manage to hold on to our compassion, our morallity, our sense of duty to care for the weakest in our tribe, while looking for workable solutions to the problems that made them that way in this dog-eat-dog world.

but I’m afraid such is not the case.

It is far more often the case then not in America. I know many who have done so and just last week my doctor was in the process of converting his 3-car garage to do the same.

It benefits society when we manage to hold on to our compassion, our morallity, our sense of duty to care for the weakest in our tribe

When you don’t act individually and expect the state to act, you’ve lost your compassion.

When you take money from people who work hard to earn it and give it to those who won’t, is immoral.

America is not a tribe or family. We are individuals fully capable of taking care of ourselves and our families. The weakest among us don’t accept that gov’t is not the solution to their’s or other’s circumstances.

No, but you can take it that I acknowledge that taxes are a necessary evil.

Now they are an unadulterated evil when you’re on the high side of the laffer curve, which we clearly are.

The people have less money and the government has less money. The only ones happy are the socialists because they get to punish the most productive.

Of course socialists are a miserable lot who are never happy so forget I said that.

“there’s no proof they benefit anyone”

Tell that to all the people, for whatever reason, subsisting on minute social security payments with the help of housing vouchers, food stamps, medicare and medicaid. Woops, these folks don’t count because they are unable to produce and be self-reliant. Let”s just put all the old folks on the ice after they become non-productive and have not adquately provided for their old age. Lets withhold food and housing from single mothers with illigitimate kids and hope they don’t survive to become a burden on our educational system! I don’t hear any constructive solutions to these drains on public funds, no ideas on how to prevent these problems from occuring, just resentment that they do.

“there’s no proof they benefit anyone”

Since I don’t know you, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just didn’t understand what I wrote. When you pay for something, you expect at least equal value in return, or you don’t make the purchase. In the case of taxes, we have no choice in what we pay, and have no power over the transaction, in terms of getting any benefit from what is taken from us. Redistributing the money from the productive to the unproductive(welfare) seems to benefit the unproductive, but does it benefit society in general? Do we get anything in return for what is confiscated from us? If we do, is it equivalent in value to what we paid? If only because of the cost of administration, we don’t get adequate return, and the budget increases of social programs every year is a sign that the system isn’t yielding equivalent value. Understand?

Ya’ll seem to be confusing immorality with incompentence. In this area, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. No one has suggested that much of the money allocated to social programs has not been wasted, probably stolen, certainly given to underserving people. The emphasis should be on cleaning up this mess by putting compentent people, honest people with fresh ideas on how to get the job done without waste and unnecessary taxation. It should not be a defeatist,”oh, the heck with it!” Would you disband congress because they certainly aren’t earning their pay, the military because they waste a lot of money? There a times when I would certainly be willing to dispense with the executive office. If your car gets a dead battery, don’t throw it away and buy a horse.

What is the Robinhood Complex, Alex ? (that is my Jeopardy impersonation.)

Margie said, The emphasis should be on cleaning up this mess by putting compentent people, honest people with fresh ideas on how to get the job done without waste and unnecessary taxation.

You’re talking about government, right?

Either you’re blissfully ignorant or blissfully naive.

R108,

Thamk you. My thoughts exactly.

I don’t get it. Are liberals as naive socially and economically as they seem? Or, are they just so full of envy that prosperity is offensive, and seen as an injustice?

Good night, all, this old lady is off to bed. Thank you very much for an interesting conversation.

I know of many individuals and families who care for their elderly family members and they are all conservative republicans. Libs, how does that fit into your imaginary world where only dems care for the weakest among us? I wonder how many of you libs at SAB are taking care of the weakest among you? (Not just with your tax dollars either.)

Quiz time! Name the President responsible for the highest tax hike in history. Wait for it… Regan!

Yes, please, do play up the tax angle.

Wars have to be funded, true, but it dismays us to see so much wasted and mismanaged, so much corruption and croynism in awards contracts and appointments for unqualified people.

This is far more true of social programs; at least with defense spending, we get something for our money. With social programs, there is no proof that they benefit anyone but the politicians who use them to buy votes; the taxpayers generally get nothing, and in return, they get more money confiscated every year to sink into those wasteful programs. Let’s cut the social programs first, and spend what it takes to defend our country.

HG: I have never figured out why lefties believe that being elected or appointed to govt makes someone automatically all wise and all knowing, so that they always know what is best for all of us. It’s probably just a lust for power and control. After all, Marxism requires dictatorship to work, and even then, it has never worked for long.

I wonder which party controls congress right now…

In order for that to work you’d have to convince me that the Democrats would be fiscally responsible. Or just spend less than the Republicans.

Good luck with that.

You have a good point there about SS, but can you hear the yells when the wealthy or the wise who don’t need social security are denied benefits after paying into the system for years?

That’s no excuse to perpetuate a wrong.

Some sort of a gradual phase-out would allow for those who have paid in to get their benefits while gradually freeing up people like me from having to pay at all.

I agree that the first step in solving any problem is not just throwing money at it, but trying to fix the dysfunctional things that brought about the problem.

We absolutely have to address causation first.

The problem with most social programs is that they tend to exacerbate problems, not solve them. Look at the Indian reservations. We throw billions at them every year, but has it solved a single problem? No. All it’s done is create a sense of entitlement among Indians that prevents them from improving themselves so that they can earn their own way in the world.

robert sees no value in Grandma getting her SS check or supporting widows and orphans.
robert’s dream is to run a workhouse in 18th century England
and refuse the urchins more porridge.

A shopping cart of aluminium cans is wealth
to robert, wheel it under a bridge and make a bed for tonight. robert believes it is good for your character.

The problem is, govt social programs are really intended to buy votes for politicians, the ones who keep the bloated govt bureaucracy going. In fact, the truly needy have a hard time getting into govt programs. If we only took care of the truly needy, used means testing to ensure that, and had a performance evaluation for both govt workers and social programs, it would be a lot fairer, and would cost a lot less.

I agree 100%.

Promoting individualism through starvation, interesting concept.
It will make sense when a hungry guy cracks you on the head and takes your wallet.