The Presidency Is Not An Entry-Level Position

[AE14]

No, I would not be willing to part with "more" as far as taxes are concerned. Plain and simple I think the Government does a crappy job managing the money I am required to send it in the first place. I think I can do a much better job myself in supporting charitable causes that benefit those in need. I do believe there is a need to generally fund help to those truely in need through taxation, but I think the whole thing is mismanaged from top to bottom. I have some good experience in dealing with these government programs as I work in medical billing for a hospital and see many cases. There is little incentive in these programs to get people up and running on their own two feet.

Despite being opposed to "more" taxation to fund such goverment programs, I do strongly believe in investing personally in charitable organizations and community groups that benefit the less fortunate. In fact I do so now despite not being "rich" because I believe in their causes. I've donated to a Children's Hospital charity fund raiser, to cancer research, to my church and its humanitarian initiatives, to personal trajedy funds, to fire fighter fund raisers, the Salvation Army, ect, ect.

I strongly encourage and believe in the benefit giving to such causes brings directly to those receiving them as well as the community as a whole, because as we raise others up we bring ourselves up as well. I believe MLK said we are only as free as our most enslaved brother (I know, I just butchered that quote).

My problem is as was just mentioned by bpmartyr. I don't believe in the "redistribution of wealth". Giving "more" should be a personal choice, not a government mandate.

One note too on the whole redistribution of wealth and class warfair being waged by the liberal movement: Keeping the "rich" from becoming "richer" just gives further disincentive for them to invest more in charitable causes and lift up those in need. Take a look at Bill Gates and his Foundation and what it is doing to help lift people up as a quick example. Could they be doing as much now if they had personal income, business income, capital gains and dividends taxes ect increased even more than what they were?

Something to ponder upon.

I dont disagree, and I am not trying to insinuate that the government should decide, however when the upper echelon doesnt help, and many are old money who have done nothing to deserve it, it hurts the rest.

I agree, I dont make a great deal of money, hell I am a teacher, but I still give what I can for others. Also, I agree that some people are just too lazy and dont deserve anything, but that is not the majority imo.

 

[EasyEJL]

however when the upper echelon doesnt help, and many are old money who have done nothing to deserve it, it hurts the rest.

no, the problem is when people who don't have skills that can't be replicated easily by a machine expect new cars, 24" rims, cellphones, big screen tvs, 250 channels on cable and jewelery. Or expect to have 5 kids while knowing they cant afford to feed and clothe them. We're not talking about people who are down on their luck because of a hurricane, we're talking about people who make dumb decisions, and have unrealistic expectations. Not too many people get jobs where they get handed a ferrari, live in a mansion with a butler and get a black friend with a helicopter.

 

[AE14]

no, the problem is when people who don't have skills that can't be replicated easily by a machine expect new cars, 24" rims, cellphones, big screen tvs, 250 channels on cable and jewelery. Or expect to have 5 kids while knowing they cant afford to feed and clothe them. We're not talking about people who are down on their luck because of a hurricane, we're talking about people who make dumb decisions, and have unrealistic expectations. Not too many people get jobs where they get handed a ferrari, live in a mansion with a butler and get a black friend with a helicopter.

however, the amount of "old money" runs rampant. Hell I work in a school district where it is very old money, and have worked in another on in the past. There is a nice mix of old and new money out there. However, nit he case of old money, these are just fortunate people who's grand daddys or whomever did well for themselves.

Are there people like you described, of course, but they are not the majority.

As a side note, who got a black friend and a helicopter? :lol:

 

[EasyEJL]

tom selleck in magnum pi

The thing is if you take away from old money, you loose part of the incentive for people to become wealthy new money wise. The only real reason the government is helping those lower echelon isn't becuase of altruism, its because they are a sizeable voting block.

Its all about entitlement in the end. I dont believe anyone is entitled to a home, food, or clothing (or all the things that come along with having those like electricity, phone etc) just because they happened to be born.

 

[AE14]

tom selleck in magnum pi

The thing is if you take away from old money, you loose part of the incentive for people to become wealthy new money wise. The only real reason the government is helping those lower echelon isn't becuase of altruism, its because they are a sizeable voting block.

Its all about entitlement in the end. I dont believe anyone is entitled to a home, food, or clothing (or all the things that come along with having those like electricity, phone etc) just because they happened to be born.

ahh good old TC, I used to love that show:thumbsup:

I dont disagree with you, but I think there needs to be a happy medium somewhere. There are many hardworking folks who just couldnt get the opportunity, whether it was lack of education, training etc... For some people, even in this country the opportunities are just not there

 

[EasyEJL]

I dunno if that is true. I grew up to an illiterate father, mother with just a high school diploma, neither of them managing to keep jobs for too long, free school lunches because of our income, salvation army clothes shopping and i make 6 figures, live in a house with travertine floors, buy a new car every 3-4 years for me + the wife, etc. I applied myself and spent the time learning rather than cheering for steroid using sports figures at a bar

 

[bpmartyr]

I dunno if that is true. I grew up to an illiterate father, mother with just a high school diploma, neither of them managing to keep jobs for too long, free school lunches because of our income, salvation army clothes shopping and i make 6 figures, live in a house with travertine floors, buy a new car every 3-4 years for me + the wife, etc. I applied myself and spent the time learning rather than cheering for steroid using sports figures at a bar

And I dropped out of high school, spent time in "juvy" and used drugs as an adolescent; with no help from the government, old money or anything else, I worked hard and now am sole provider for my wife and 3 kids. We are not "rich" by US standards but are quite comfortable. Granted I started a small business on the side to supplement my full time job but if my dumb azz can do it just about anyone can.

I am tired of hearing about some people not getting opportunities. Opportunities can be made if one just applies themselves to something. The world owes you nothing.

 

[LilPsychotic]

I just don't understand this argument. It never makes sense. So, because the middle class struggles we should tax the upper class more? Please tell me how taking more money from those who pay the majority of the tax burden in the first place raises up the middle class's standard of living? Thats the same as saying because the middle class can't have everything the upper class has, we must take more from the upper class so things are "fair". What a bunch of socialistic/communistic Bull Sh1t.

Life isn't supposed to be fair. If we had everything we ever wanted there would be no incentive to improve ourselves and thereby our status and living conditions. There would be little purpose in life other than existing. Capitalism gives incentive to better ourselves and help others do the same. Those who choose not to do so do not deserve the blessings attained by those who do. Taking even more from those who deserve wealth through their hard work to supposedly make things "fair" is just wrong on so many levels.

And for the record I'm just barely in the middle class making well under the 30k/year mark. But I have incentive to get even more education and work hard to get promoted and am in the process of doing so because I believe in the capitalist system and more importantly myself.

Sorry, rant off. I just hate seeing this argument made on why we should tax the upperclass even more when the top 10% pay something like 50% of the tax burden.

The problem isn't that the government needs more income, it's that they need to stop spending our money on crap projects and initiatives and start running itself in an efficient manner.

Try 90%. The top 10% pay 90% of the tax burdon. The top 1% pay about 65%. Just wait until the liberal or the bulshevik gets into office, then it will be even worse. I think we should all move to Montana and seperate from the Union.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Try 90%. The top 10% pay 90% of the tax burdon. The top 1% pay about 65%. Just wait until the liberal or the bulshevik gets into office, then it will be even worse. I think we should all move to Montana and seperate from the Union.

Amen. Did you know Exxon pays more in taxes that 50% of the US population does? And to think Obama wants to tax them even more....

 

[saludable24]

however when the upper echelon doesnt help, and many are old money who have done nothing to deserve it, it hurts the rest.

That statement is just complete untruth. They DO help with the enormous amount of taxes they already pay as has been discussed already. Again, this is just the SICK, DERANGED attitude towards the wealthy and their money that the liberal movement pushes by saying it's the wealthy's fault some are poor and not better off, therefore we must take even more money from them. Pure, communistic BULLSH1T.

It is not the fault of the wealthy that the poor exist or are in such conditions as they are. They already help through the enormous tax burden placed upon them.

This attitude speaks as if the poor are denied opportunities soley because we don't dump more money on the problem. Money is NOT the issue. The poor not preparing to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves is the problem. We can't force someone to take an opportunity, but more importantly we can't MAKE someone create opportunies for themselves by taking advantage of small ones that prepare them to take advantage of bigger ones. We can't make them get better education through grants ect., or take the initiative to improve the God given talents each of us has that will always open doors to greater thing s for us. We can't keep them from drowning their sorrows in alcohol or drugs which rob them of opportunities or from having a ton of kids they can't support. You can't save people from the consequences of the choices they make in life.

The problem isn't money, it's getting all people, not just the poor and middle class to start where ever they are in life and do everything in their power to lift themselves up and make oprtunities for themselves. And yeah, the guy making minimum wage isn't going to start making six figures within a years time of putting effort into moving forward, but no one says he can't get their eventually. That's reality; that's fairness.

It is not right to say in order to lift up the poor, we must bring down the rich. The needy do not have more of a right to the wealthy's money than those who earned it themselves or those to whom they left it as an inheritance. That is what this argument by liberals is all about. The sad thing is that they use this argument and the needy themselves as a ploy to gain power for themselves, their friends, and their interests.

A wise man once said in reference to the helping the needy change their lives that "we are not here to take the people out of the slums, but the slums out of the people".