danivon wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:Easy. I'm not the President.
No you are not. I'm not sure how this means it's ok for you to smear him personally on things that are orthogonal to the discussion, or to continually imply he's some kind of puppet-master pulling all the strings of every government employee, but it's oh so awful to give you a taste of what it's like to be on the end of a 'derangement syndrome'.
You see, Steve, I was not simply having a pop. I was trying to get you to see what you do to others. Not nice, is it? So quit.
Oh, like using my name after we've had that discussion?
Again, nice to see you so ardent in your defense of the President. However, as the most powerful man on the Earth, he can likely defend himself.
So can I. However, a forum like this is not the venue for the sort of thing you're doing. Sadly, you know that. I don't know what that says about your state of mind and frankly I don't care.
You call Obama names. You impart on him the very worst possible motive. You take his words out of context. You decide who he is addressing to suit your own agenda. You respond angrily to anyone who contradicts you when criticising Obama. You claim he is destroying your nation.
I've read his history. Have you? I've read most of "Dreams from My Father." He wrote it (allegedly). I don't think I'm saying much that he himself has not said, even if my wording strikes you as pejorative.
If the man has had a change of heart concerning ideology, he's never expressed it. In other words, there is no repudiation of his former beliefs and values. To me, it seems as if they've evolved or been refined, but they have not fundamentally changed.
It's childish and petty. I know. So hey, have a slice back. You see, respect has to be mutual. Why should I respect you? Why should I care if you respect me? You certainly have little respect for anyone who you disagree with.
Not true. I respect Purple, RJ, bbauska, MX (back in the day), the Archduke, Mach, Sass, most who post here. You tend to play games more than anyone here. You may not like my responses, but you intentionally engage in mind games on a frequency that exceeds the rest of the forum in aggregate. What's worse: you know it.
Actually, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. I don't do that.
Don't you say it is bad to rely on the government? Don't you laud rich entrepreneurs who got there through hard work alone (suggesting you think that's what people should do)?
No, I say it is bad not to work. I say it is bad to leech off the government and not work. I am appalled at the number of people who are now on SSDI because the rate of increase is not consistent with anything other than fraud.
I do laud rich entrepreneurs. I believe they ought to be lauded. However, not everyone can or does choose that path. That doesn't make everyone else bad or inferior.
If I am a troll, then why feed me? If I am not, then why can't you answer some of my earlier questions, such as showing (not just repeating the assertion, but backing your position up with facts), that the rich got rich without the help of government or the infrastructure.
Because I never said ". . . the rich got rich without the help of government or the infrastructure."
I don't feel responsible to prove arguments I never made.
The President's point was that infrastructure entitles the government to more money from those who have been successful. I disagree. The successful have already paid for infrastructure. They pay, in aggregate, far more than the middle class or poor. I am willing to debate tax policy, but that's not really what this debate is about. It is about the President's speech and its function. I believe it was to justify raising taxes on the well-to-do for no other reason than politics. I have asked for anyone to analyze the speech and come out with a different understanding. So far, no one has done that.
You've asserted that not all people have got rich despite that, but that still doesn't show that those who did have not built upon government investment or spending in some way.
Because that's not the point. We all get the same access to the same infrastructure. There is no inherent advantage to those who succeed. They already pay more, far more, than those who do not. I have asked what percentage the successful should pay to make things "fair." So far, no one has answered that.
You've laid into the poor (again), bemoaning that they are that way due to laziness or drugs or bad luck (at least you have started to acknowledge the luck factor, you used to deny it when I mentioned it), and how they don't pay any taxes - a lie, but for some reason you can't stop conflating Federal Income Tax with all taxes, and you don't address the fact that FIT applies to less people because the of the very tax cuts that you oppose reversing.
First of all, I did not lie. I said the poor pay nothing into the infrastructure except gasoline taxes (I think I allowed there may be some other minor taxes of which I'm not aware). That is true. If you pay SSI, that money does not go into infrastructure. Period.
So, you lied about me lying.
I did not say that ALL the poor are lazy. However, for the most part, they are poor because of choices they have made, not because the game is rigged. I started life working in a warehouse (union, btw) with temperatures that reached over 130 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas. I made minimum wage. There were people who had been working there 20 to 25 years. If I'd stayed there, which would have been easy, I could be poor too.
There are people who choose to live in public housing and accept public assistance their entire lives. Why? Because it's easy. Why is there generational poverty? In many cases, because the government provides no incentive to work. That's just reality.
I included luck, because it is no one's fault if you suffer some catastrophic accident, get downsized, etc. However, this is a minority of situations. The exception does not prove the rule.
And you've kinda grudgingly accepted that roads and schools and the internet at whatnot are good things, but where would the people who are currently rich be without them?
No. And, we would not be the United States without them. We could not have won World War 2 without them.
However, the opposite is not necessarily the case (as you recently trumpeted): the rich are not rich simply because the infrastructure exists. They don't owe their success to the existence of the infrastructure alone.
Furthermore, they pay the lion's share of the upkeep.
Your hypothetical (could they be rich without infrastructure) is ridiculous. Infrastructure does not cause the poor or middle class to become wealthy. If it does, why don't all become wealthy?
If I give a child $1 and he/she miraculously invests in a penny stock that soars and brings him/her millions, how much does that child owe me? If I give $1 to 1000 kids and one becomes rich, do I go to the one and demand my fair share?
It's all silly. We have infrastructure because we are a country. That should be obvious in the age of "nation-building." What are we doing in Afghanistan? Trying to build infrastructure. Why, so people can become rich? No, because it is infrastructure that is necessary to the sense of a unified nation. Afghanistan is really more of a grouping of tribes than a nation because they lack infrastructure, for one thing--but, it's a major aspect of it.
The President believes infrastructure obligates those who worked endlessly toward success to share with those who don't work at all. He knows it won't lower the deficit. He knows it will cause the economy to contract (or at least not grow as robustly as it might), but he's pushing it anyway. Why? Because it appeals to his constituency. He's trying to motivate the vote.
In trying to motivate one bloc, he inadvertently told us what he believes about another.
18 Jul 2012, 3:34 pm 
