Brainfade Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 This is not the quality of benevolence that we are talking about. This is math. You're a faculty of higher education' date=' you school pays you. Where do they get the money from? From the students who pay the tuition fees. And many of those tuition fees are funded via loans, sponsored by the [b']govt.. Your school can be assured of a steady income stream from its students because the students have all the conditions that is necessary to keep enabling them to attend school - Good infrastructure that helps them travel to school, safe environment that is assured by local law enforcement and a stable income - many of the students' parents are govt. employees - at home that helps them pay their tuition. Nobody, i mean NOBODY, becomes wealthy themselves. We can debate about the extent of the external help that is needed to accumulate wealth, but its a stable system - partly under-written by the local and federal govt - that helps people become wealthy. Which is why he paid $ 2 mil in tax and that is contributing to everything you said. He chose to give $ 4 mil to other causes. And he's getting ripped for it? Only in bizarro-world. As someone working in higher ed., and 2 kids in public school, I see everyday the extent of wastage of taxpayers' money. And, for that reason, I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay more to the govt.
Brainfade Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I feel exactly the same' date=' I actually watch the 5-7 Bil O Reilly, Hannity and Udhar-moo-karke baat kar Van Sustren ( actually watching her since her CNN Days )[/quote'] You just described Chris Matthews.
Desi Cartman Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 You just described Chris Matthews. Tbh they are idiots too. Maybe because I agree with Democratic Party on many issues, I find them more tolerable. Off late I'm not enjoying bill maher either. Tv hosts shouldn't be biased.
Brainfade Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 And you can only prove your point if you can show that he has done the same in the past too :dontknow: so please show me his prior tax returns Or you think he is not fit for being president going by his own statement of paying more tax than he absolutely has to or is he just stupid ? No, the burden of proof is on you. I claimed he donated 25 - 30%. His 2011 tax return shows it. You said that he will claim something next year. Let's get back when that happens.
Brainfade Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 For which part? sorry I don't understand Stressed and scared (and may I add hysterical and hyperventilating).
Desi Cartman Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 No' date=' the burden of proof is on you. I claimed he donated 25 - 30%. His 2011 tax return shows it. You said that he will claim something next year. Let's get back when that happens.[/quote'] Whatever man, I think we both understand each others point.
Brainfade Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Tbh they are idiots too. Maybe because I agree with Democratic Party on many issues' date=' I find them more tolerable. Off late I'm not enjoying bill maher either. Tv hosts shouldn't be biased.[/quote'] Well, they're just playing to their core audiences. How surprised would you be if Matthews and Hannity are a bar right now guzzling some cold ones and laughing at fools like us :-)?
Ram Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Which is why he paid $ 2 mil in tax and that is contributing to everything you said. He chose to give $ 4 mil to other causes. And he's getting ripped for it? Only in bizarro-world. As someone working in higher ed., and 2 kids in public school, I see everyday the extent of wastage of taxpayers' money. And, for that reason, I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay more to the govt. I dont think any sane person, liberal or conservative, will ever contest the claim that there's shocking profligacy when it comes to spending by the govt. And dont assume for a moment that I am very satisfied to see a big chunk of the money I work 55 hours a week to earn go into all that waste. I peeves me greatly. But the argument is more fundamental than that - Do we think the responsibility to ensure collective welfare of society is shared and mutual, or do we simply abide by the 'you're on your own' ideology? If it is the former, what is the extent of our responsibility?
Desi Cartman Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Stressed and scared (and may I add hysterical and hyperventilating). Best is when their guests start talking negative about their neta, they just thank them and end the interview or change the topic or just go to break. I see that happen on fox as well as msnbc.
Brainfade Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I dont think any sane person, liberal or conservative, will ever contest the claim that there's shocking profligacy when it comes to spending by the govt. And dont assume for a moment that I am very satisfied to see a big chunk of the money I work 55 hours a week to earn go into all that waste. I peeves me greatly. But the argument is more fundamental than that - Do we think the responsibility to ensure collective welfare of society is shared and mutual, or do we simply abide by the 'you're on your own' ideology? If it is the former, what is the extent of our responsibility? I am peeved by the assumption that advocates for smaller governments are advocating for anarchy. And the notion that asking for more accountability from government somehow equates to a lack of compassion for the underprivileged. For example, I have been called "anti-education" because I have said the Dept of Education's budget should be cut. But the premise of my opinion is that there is so much wastage in the DoE, and that tightening their purse-strings would alleviate much of it. Of course, we agree that it collective welfare is shared and mutual. However, one has to inject accountability. It was irresponsible to pass the entire Obamacare bill before ensuring that there is a way to pay for it. As I have pointed out in another thread, it is already beginning to crumble, even though only a small part has been implemented. It is irresponsible to ask taxpayers to shell out more for education when the money is wasted in administrative morass. It is irresponsible to impose more regulations and bureaucratic hoops on industry when they are already struggling to stay afloat and employ people. I see the government first as as facilitator, and second as a provider. The liberal mindset is to see the government as a provider - as the first solution to everything.
Ram Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 I am peeved by the assumption that advocates for smaller governments are advocating for anarchy. And the notion that asking for more accountability from government somehow equates to a lack of compassion for the underprivileged. For example, I have been called "anti-education" because I have said the Dept of Education's budget should be cut. But the premise of my opinion is that there is so much wastage in the DoE, and that tightening their purse-strings would alleviate much of it. Of course, we agree that it collective welfare is shared and mutual. However, one has to inject accountability. It was irresponsible to pass the entire Obamacare bill before ensuring that there is a way to pay for it. As I have pointed out in another thread, it is already beginning to crumble, even though only a small part has been implemented. It is irresponsible to ask taxpayers to shell out more for education when the money is wasted in administrative morass. It is irresponsible to impose more regulations and bureaucratic hoops on industry when they are already struggling to stay afloat and employ people. I see the government first as as facilitator, and second as a provider. The liberal mindset is to see the government as a provider - as the first solution to everything. Even though I disagree with some of the specifics of what you just said, I completely agree with the essence of the message you are trying to convey, even though I have to point out that I dont detect nearly the amount of outrage at govt. excesses when it comes to your responses to unpaid wars that cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. Govt. spending is not just the ridiculous GSA convention that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, its also the 1.2 trillion dolllars and counting that went into Iraq and the billions that keep getting pumped into the defense industry. And the republicans want to keep extending this blank cheque to DoD, even though even the DoD does not want it. But you also need to recognize that transition from the 'Now' - A state riddled with excesses and largess- to the 'Then' - a lean state that takes in only as much as it requires - takes time and effort. The solution is not to simply cut the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest and simply assume that will fix everything. There could be 2nd, 3rd and nth order consequences, that could be devastating.
punjabi_khota Posted September 25, 2012 Author Posted September 25, 2012 He flip-flopped on emergency rooms, AGAIN :wall:
seedhi Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Mitt 'Bernoulli Random Variable' Romney ..
Lurker Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Think it is fair to say this game is lost for Republicans. 2012 winner Obama :)
cowboysfan Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 This is not over by any means.you look at the polls and you come away thinking that Obama will get a lion share of electoral votes but the Republicans are doing everything they can to disenfranchise millions of democrats from voting.If they flip a few key states like Ohio and florida then they are in business.
Brainfade Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 Even though I disagree with some of the specifics of what you just said, I completely agree with the essence of the message you are trying to convey, even though I have to point out that I dont detect nearly the amount of outrage at govt. excesses when it comes to your responses to unpaid wars that cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. Govt. spending is not just the ridiculous GSA convention that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, its also the 1.2 trillion dolllars and counting that went into Iraq and the billions that keep getting pumped into the defense industry. And the republicans want to keep extending this blank cheque to DoD, even though even the DoD does not want it. But you also need to recognize that transition from the 'Now' - A state riddled with excesses and largess- to the 'Then' - a lean state that takes in only as much as it requires - takes time and effort. The solution is not to simply cut the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest and simply assume that will fix everything. There could be 2nd, 3rd and nth order consequences, that could be devastating. This post deserves a thoughtful response. I will try to come up with one. But, I am amused that you would bring up the war-spending issue again. We have agreed on this in the past. I have been critical of the Iraq war from the very beginning and have acknowledged many times that it bled the nation financially. It is not an issue any more. Bush came up with the Dec 2011 date, and Obama kept it. We have other spending-problems today, and need to look ahead.
Clarke Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 But you also need to recognize that transition from the 'Now' - A state riddled with excesses and largess- to the 'Then' - a lean state that takes in only as much as it requires - takes time and effort. The solution is not to simply cut the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest and simply assume that will fix everything. There could be 2nd' date=' 3rd and nth order consequences, that could be devastating.[/quote'] But but the job creators already bear the burden of the world. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=286597 I really feel for these conzzzzvatives like CA, they've been bearing the burden of us hippies living on the dole. It must hurt their shoulders, their knees buckling, arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of their strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bears down upon their shoulders.
Desi Cartman Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 But but the job creators already bear the burden of the world. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=286597 I really feel for these conzzzzvatives like CA, they've been bearing the burden of us hippies living on the dole. It must hurt their shoulders, their knees buckling, arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of their strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bears down upon their shoulders. yea I heard that Mitt doesnt like people who think they deserve food :icflove:
Recommended Posts