UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Catholics slam Boehner for tax cuts


5/16/11 9:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4095
The government is the reason the economy is in the tank in the first place. Phone Post
5/16/11 10:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 999
I agree. They should never have let Wall Street self-regulate. Phone Post
5/17/11 10:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18273
LoveToChoke - I agree. They should never have let Wall Street self-regulate. <img src="/images/phone/post_tag.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>



No offense LTC, but comments like that are ignorant. Wall Street wasn't "unregulated". Banks had intense pressure to lend to unqualified recipients and only after the market risk was alleviated (by a promise by the govt to pay any defaulted loans) did they go out and package sub primes and push them off to other buyers. It was govt interference that brought on sub prime just as it will be the "bail out's" that will also bring about economic collapse.

Secondarily, "Wall Street" is not monolithic. JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo (and others) were put in a room and told they had to take TARP. They said, "we don't need TARP". They were told, "you can't leave this room until you take TARP otherwise you will give a scarlet letter to those who do.". Then they took TARP and were told, "you can't pay exec's this and run your business that way when you are taking TARP."

That's not unregulated.

Now let me tell you what is truly unregulated. Let's look at govt's version of wall street or the govts version of investing.

Social Security.

Social Security is a co-erced investment. In other words, you have to pay in. Can you imagine Fidelity requiring everyone to invest with them?

Then the money was never put in an account under the "investors" names but used to pay off current recipients. This is illegal in the private market and called a PONZI SCHEME.

Then they took away the right to pass on your benefit to your children.

Then they raided the money and started using it fund other pet projects.

Again, let's look at Fidelity making you invest with them, using your investments to pay other investors redeeming, and also used the money to pay for their company and other pet projects.

Let's pretend it ran permanent deficits or was essentially bankrupt with the exception that they kept making people put their money with them.

That is Social Security. And that my friend is truly UNREGULATED.

Any private company would rightly be frog marched to jail.

You don't have your facts straight and you socialist are destroying our economy because you covet the fruits of other peoples labor.

Sadly, all socialist eventually run out of other peoples money and that is where totalitarianism comes in.

We are out of money.
5/17/11 4:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3302
made several thread that didnt post DAMN IT.

gman-I assumed your catholic?

5/17/11 5:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3303
Love to Choke is correct about the flat tax as its a richmans ploy to put the burden of taxes on the poor(see steve forbes).

and is right about the vat tax in combination with progressive taxation for those over 150g's a year topping out at no more than 49% total taxation state/loca/fed.

that way it rich and poor payin along with the underground economy being tapped and REGULATING AND TAXING MARIJUANA on that alone most healthcare could be paid for.


Atten. Rooster stop wathcing fox news aka murdock mouthpeice.

it was the unregulated derivatives market that really was the source of the meltdown. the 'smart people' of wallstreet were smarter than the regulaters and outwited them pure and simple. government officals didn't even know what they were let alone regulate them.

the gov. was smart with tarp imo so at least they could somehow get hold of the problem by last minute reg.and most if not all tarp has been paid back.

Social Security is a lifeline to the poor elderly and disabled and without it this country would not exist. all hell would have broke loose by now as the poor will only take so much before revolt(see the roman empire/soviet union). its been a huge force for good and made the economy more stable.

i agree about pet projects there should be a 'lock box'. SS is regulated through ELECTIONS. the more you people try to destroy SS the better imo. you sow to the wind guess what you get?

btw we are NOT out of money were are in debt/deficet ONE years income in the USA this is NOT out of money. we could EASY be in a good spot within 8 years time, but sadly we have uneducated greedy people in charge.

you talk about coveting others labor...lol...how dare those bed ridden stroke patients want food in there feedin tubes...how dare those disabled people want to buy cloths for there kids...how dare those people LIKE YOU(God forbid) who tomorrow will wake up one day with NOTHING. I wonder if then you'll change your mind?
5/17/11 5:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3304
Deu 15:11 because the needy one doth not cease out of the land, therefore I am commanding thee, saying, Thou dost certainly open thy hand to thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy one, in thy land.

Jam 2:6 and ye did dishonour the poor one; do not the rich oppress you and themselves draw you to judgment-seats;
5/17/11 5:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4100
 I agree with rooster on this one.  I wanted to say all that but didn't want to bother, I didn't think it would make a difference and from what I can see, it didn't. Deaf ears and all that.

I am not Catholic.
5/17/11 5:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3306
guess i assumed wrong...sorry.
5/17/11 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4101
 No worries  toelock. I posted the link and asked the question to spark discussion on how much influence religion, or religious people / associations, should be able to bring to bear on politics / politicians.
5/17/11 6:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/17/11 6:25 PM
Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 601
I'm a recovering Reagan Republican who is now a moderate independent. I don't necessarily want a completely socialistic government, but I don't want a totally hands off libertarian government either. For those who oppose social security, what would you suppose to do with the disabled and elderly who don't have family to take care of them or access to private charities?
5/17/11 9:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4109
inlikeflynn - I'm a recovering Reagan Republican who is now a moderate independent. I don't necessarily want a completely socialistic government, but I don't want a totally hands off libertarian government either. For those who oppose social security, what would you suppose to do with the disabled and elderly who don't have family to take care of them or access to private charities?
It wouldn't be too bad if only the truly disabled and elderly with no means of support were the only ones drawing Social Security. Maybe a 2% zakat tax to care for these people and only these people. However, the elderly people didn't start out that way; somewhere down the line they should have started saving for retirement and be able to contribue something to their own upkeep. Is it fair for one person to squander all of their money for years and years then grow old and expect someone else to take care of them? 

But how do they get access to government programs if they do not have access to private charities? 
 
5/17/11 9:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1000
Australia has both and old age pension, and compulsory superannuation. Which means employers are required to put 9% of your income into a super fund of your choosing. This is a great model, as it ensures people have access to savings at retirement and creates large pools of money which can be used for investment. I don't know why the U.S doesn't follow this model. Phone Post
5/17/11 9:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1001
If there was effective regulation then the GFC would not have happened. Other countries that had prudential regulation like Australia came out relatively unscathed. Governments will always intervene to appease one group or another, so complaining against that is like complaining against human nature. Phone Post
5/18/11 12:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18274
toelocku: Love to Choke is correct about the flat tax as its a richmans ploy to put the burden of taxes on the poor(see steve forbes).

me: 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the rich. The top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay 39%.

The poor pay very little to no income taxes and have many tax credits. Through the use of social entitlements and tax credits, they are essentially making a paycheck without working. That's stealing. It's immoral.

you:...and is right about the vat tax in combination with progressive taxation for those over 150g's a year topping out at no more than 49% total taxation state/loca/fed.

me: the constitution doesn't divide us into asset classes. The constitution gives us equal protection under the law. Your income is your property. It's an asset earned and confiscating peoples assets because it's "to much" is again, IMMORAL.

you: that way it rich and poor payin along with the underground economy being tapped and REGULATING AND TAXING MARIJUANA on that alone most healthcare could be paid for.

me: again, we have don't have a revenue problem. We are today taking in 2.5 trillion. Do you know how much a trillion is?!!?!
you: Atten. Rooster stop wathcing fox news aka murdock mouthpeice.

me: Attn: toelocku, I will watch what I want. Is censorship next?

you: it was the unregulated derivatives market that really was the source of the meltdown. the 'smart people' of wallstreet were smarter than the regulaters and outwited them pure and simple. government officals didn't even know what they were let alone regulate them.

me: baloney. I'm calling B.S. on you. Do you know what a derivative is? I work in this market. I've spent 20 plus years in this market. It was toxic debt buddy. Where did the toxic debt come from???

And I can tell you, our compliance department didn't disappear. Our paperwork didn't disappear. The SEC, NASD, State regulators etc ad nauseum didn't disappear. Our audit's didn't stop.

You don't know what you are talking about.

you: the gov. was smart with tarp imo so at least they could somehow get hold of the problem by last minute reg.and most if not all tarp has been paid back.

me: Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The "govt was smart" is an oxymoron (know pun intended). Again, making a company like Wells Fargo take money from taxpayers when they didn't need it isn't smart. It's stealing.

Tell me, what did a wooden toy company need tarp money for?

Why does our smart govt pass national healthcare and then give 3,000 plus waivers? 1/2 to unions?

Is this equal protection under the law?

you: Social Security is a lifeline to the poor elderly and disabled and without it this country would not exist.

me: are you serious? You are clearly joking. Social Security didn't exist until FDR and it was a minimal payment and only began to grow into this behemoth decades later. Our country "survived" before it was instituted. The poor survived, the orphans survived, the sick survived. There wasn't massive catastrophic death across the US and it dangled to survive. In fact, FDR purposely set it to start paying AFTER LIFE EXPECTANCY so you wouldn't GET IT!

Let me say this again. SOCIAL SECURITY IS ILLEGAL IN THE PRIVATE MARKET. IT'S A PONZI SCHEME, UNFUNDED AND PUTS OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY IN JEOPARDY.

YOU: all hell would have broke loose by now as the poor will only take so much before revolt(see the roman empire/soviet union). its been a huge force for good and made the economy more stable.

me: you are clueless economically.

you: i agree about pet projects there should be a 'lock box'. SS is regulated through ELECTIONS. the more you people try to destroy SS the better imo. you sow to the wind guess what you get?

me: I can't even decipher what this means.

you: btw we are NOT out of money were are in debt/deficet ONE years income in the USA this is NOT out of money.

me: what does this mean? "one years income". You make now sense. The US govt is running a deadly deficit and is printing fiat money which is inflationary. Do you see the price of food? Do you see the price of gas? Inflation is coming.

youP: we could EASY be in a good spot within 8 years time, but sadly we have uneducated greedy people in charge.

me: We are one catastrophe away from going the way of the British Sterling or the German economy during the Wiemer Republic.

you: you talk about coveting others labor...lol...how dare those bed ridden stroke patients want food in there feedin tubes...how dare those disabled people want to buy cloths for there kids...

me: What do you mean "how dare they"? We all have needs. We have needs when we are sick, hungry, lack shelter, etc. However, I cannot demand or steal others money, property, assets because of those needs. It's stealing.

you: how dare those people LIKE YOU(God forbid) who tomorrow will wake up one day with NOTHING. I wonder if then you'll change your mind?

me: No I won't. My earthly needs and desires to not give me the right to demand that others pay for my needs and desires. I "trust in the Lord with all my heart" and "cast my cares on Him.". If He deems me to die peniless and hungry because of my own lack of planning, because I won't work, how dare I steal?

You are clueless dude.
5/18/11 12:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18275
toelocku - Deu 15:11 because the needy one doth not cease out of the land, therefore I am commanding thee, saying, Thou dost certainly open thy hand to thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy one, in thy land.

Jam 2:6 and ye did dishonour the poor one; do not the rich oppress you and themselves draw you to judgment-seats;


This is smug self righteousness. Why don't you guess how much I gave both in taxes and charitable contributions in last 3 months buddy. You have no clue. Probably more then you made last year. Don't lecture me.

The rich is your own govt, jet setting in tax payer funded airplanes, hob knobbing with lobbyist paying them to leave their companies alone, or to give them unfair advantages, eating steak and cavier, etc.

Obama's income was reported at 12mm. This guy has NEVER HAD A JOB. Give me a break.

I believe in helping the poor. I actually do it with my own money and time instead of demanding that the govt steal it from others.
5/18/11 12:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18276
inlikeflynn - I'm a recovering Reagan Republican who is now a moderate independent. I don't necessarily want a completely socialistic government, but I don't want a totally hands off libertarian government either. For those who oppose social security, what would you suppose to do with the disabled and elderly who don't have family to take care of them or access to private charities?


"I don't want a completely socialistic govt.."!?!?!

Don't you know that our constitution makes marxism ILLEGAL!?!? Unbelievable.

"for those who oppose social security" you mean, "for those who oppose stealing from those who aren't born yet to fund a ponzi scheme where the money has already been taken out and used for other govt whims...".

What do I propose? Christian charity. The secular state has become the church, the medium of salvation from cradle to grave. It's a grave mistake. Our laws do not exude from man but from God and the federal govt exists only to safeguard those rights, not make them up, take them, change them, distort them, etc.
5/18/11 12:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18277
How is it that people are destitute and have nothing or no one. No family, no friends, no church, no private charity, nothing. What happened in their lives that brought them to a place that they have no options?

What choices did they make?

I have a cousin who is in perfect health who refuses to work and gets public housing, public welfare, foodstamps, public transporation, etc. Her full time job is figuring out how to get more handouts.

She doesn't want to be a producer. She wants to be a leech. Why does society owe her anything if one day the rug is pulled out from her?

She made choices along the way about the lifestyle she would pursue, the career she would pursue.

I'm stunned and amazed at some of the comments here. It's literally staggering.
5/18/11 1:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/18/11 1:10 AM
Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4111
 rooster, toelock has already admitted he is a fan of the National Socialist party of post-WW I Germany.  If he means what he says that means he is actually in favor of censorship, among other things. (You and I might end up in the gulag, rooster!)
 
And yes, staggering is the word. I would also add 'mouth agape' and 'dumbfounded.'
5/18/11 1:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
LoveToChoke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/1/06
Posts: 1007
The issue of welfare and taxation is not so black and white. Obviously there are some people who misuse welfare, but you don't throw out the bath with the bathwater. And just as some people may pay too much and bitch about it, why aren't they bitching about oil companies receiving subsidies, or G.E receiving subsidies, paying no tax and making billions in profit? Phone Post
5/18/11 1:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18279
Grak, agreed!

LTC, I'M NOT AGAINST WELFARE. I'm against the federal govt forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another who didn't earn it and aren't thankful for it.

I gave plenty of welfare WILLINGLY.

A local philanthrophist willingly gave 750mm in Welafare directly to those who are sick, not making a b-line through the federal govt to be spent on agency needs first and then on faceless recipients.

What is this notion that welfare is only authentic when it comes through the state.

A lady at church made me a sweet potato pie for EASTER. I know she is low income. So next time I saw her I shook her hands and voluntarily gave her welfare and smiled and said, "thanks for the great pie". That's welfare man.

And I have griped about corporations getting free money. It's called Tarp.

What do you mean by "subsidies". If you mean they get to keep more of what they earned, that's not a subsidy. That's less getting confiscated.

You know who gets free money? subsidies? Our bureacrats! Why are they getting subsidies? They are welfare recipients. Why am I paying for NPR when I don't listen to it? Why am I paying for people to draw pictures that insult my beliefs? Why don't they put their painting in the market and see what they will get? Why am I paying for farmers to not grow crops? Or for scientist to study cow farts? etc. ad nausem?!!?
5/18/11 1:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 604
the rooster - 
inlikeflynn - I'm a recovering Reagan Republican who is now a moderate independent. I don't necessarily want a completely socialistic government, but I don't want a totally hands off libertarian government either. For those who oppose social security, what would you suppose to do with the disabled and elderly who don't have family to take care of them or access to private charities?


"I don't want a completely socialistic govt.."!?!?!

Don't you know that our constitution makes marxism ILLEGAL!?!? Unbelievable.

"for those who oppose social security" you mean, "for those who oppose stealing from those who aren't born yet to fund a ponzi scheme where the money has already been taken out and used for other govt whims...".

What do I propose? Christian charity. The secular state has become the church, the medium of salvation from cradle to grave. It's a grave mistake. Our laws do not exude from man but from God and the federal govt exists only to safeguard those rights, not make them up, take them, change them, distort them, etc.


I see you read the constitution the same way you read Scripture, i.e. your interpretation is the correct one and anyone who disagrees is incorrect. Well, I've got news for you, a lot of people, who were actually trained in the law and were constitutionally put in the positions to decide these matters disagreed and continue to disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's how America works (constitutionally).
5/18/11 1:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 605
Now that that's out of the way, I will agree with you that the way SS has been structured is flawed. The rules should have protected the fund from being raided for general expenses. That, in my opinion, is the biggest issue, not the concept.
5/18/11 1:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 606
the rooster - Grak, agreed!

LTC, I'M NOT AGAINST WELFARE. I'm against the federal govt forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another who didn't earn it and aren't thankful for it.


This is really quite presumptuous. Just because you know a few deadbeats you paint everyone who has benefited from the system as ungrateful losers? There will always be people who abuse the system. Guess what, people get over on private charities too.
5/18/11 1:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 607
Grakman - 
inlikeflynn - I'm a recovering Reagan Republican who is now a moderate independent. I don't necessarily want a completely socialistic government, but I don't want a totally hands off libertarian government either. For those who oppose social security, what would you suppose to do with the disabled and elderly who don't have family to take care of them or access to private charities?
It wouldn't be too bad if only the truly disabled and elderly with no means of support were the only ones drawing Social Security. Maybe a 2% zakat tax to care for these people and only these people. However, the elderly people didn't start out that way; somewhere down the line they should have started saving for retirement and be able to contribue something to their own upkeep. Is it fair for one person to squander all of their money for years and years then grow old and expect someone else to take care of them? 


They do contribute to their own upkeep, haven't you noticed the +7% that comes out of your check for SS and Medicare? Unless they never worked in their life, they contributed.

Look, as I get older I've become more and more of a pragmatist and less of an idealist. In a perfect world, everyone would be responsible and save for retirement, etc. We don't live in that world. So, rather than having to deal with the problem of all these destitute seniors (unless we just decide to let them die in the streets), I feel it is actually beneficial to society to have a program like this.

Now, I will agree with you guys that THE WAY the program has been administered has sucked. Maybe something like the Australian system would be better. Who knows, maybe I should be more pragmatic about the governments ability to run the program properly.


But how do they get access to government programs if they do not have access to private charities?


Well, that's the point. People who fall through the cracks, i.e. don't have family that can help, don't belong to a church, etc. can get help from the government.
5/18/11 1:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/18/11 1:40 PM
Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 4117
flynn, how do you feel about a person having the freedom to opt ouf of paying into Social Security if they don't want to participate?  

re: the 7% taken out of a paycheck, my comment was about a world in which there is no social security. Everyone is responsible for themselves, and reliant on family and charity to help them over rough times. The question was asked 'what about the elderly and disabled?; in a situation without SS. My response was in reply to that question, not the current system.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.