Every post is the same, ignore some parts of post, and insist you don’t. It happens with EVERY post.
You’re looking way too hard for problems with the heritage data. It’s amazing what people consider biased after watching too much mainstream media. I love that these days, trying to conserve the principles this country was founded on is “biased”. There are multiple years of heritage data out there; I can’t even find the quote you posted on the most recent page doing a “CTRL-F”. Plus, it’s not the only source of data out there. You just keep focusing on it. Rather than spending your time discrediting one source, look at all the data out there that points to too much government dependence. Open your mind! It’s like you keep asking me to prove that the world is round, and you insist it is flat without any data, but keep “trying” to pick apart anything that doesn’t jive with your view of the world.
Why is the number important for tax rate? Some number could be calculated to be fair. Ideally we would abolish the IRS, and institute either a flat tax rate, or a higher sales tax. The current tax system is so ridiculous.
I keep repeating this, but you are putting it back on me to prove the statements YOU keep making. My mind is open, in fact, it's so open that I have been doing your research for you! While I'm doing your research, I keep finding data that supports my point that there is not a crisis and that welfare rolls are decreasing. You again may say I'm cherry picking data and "government dependence" is more than welfare, but you still haven't defined what government dependence is, so I just work with my own (and more widely accepted) definition.
Speaking of the Heritage Foundation, look what one of their analysts, Robert Rector, said about the TANF welfare program: “(the program) reduced poverty beyond anyone’s expectations” and efforts to dilute its rigor would only harm the poor.
I'm not looking hard at all for problems with the Heritage foundation data. All I had to do was read the table and their explanation of how they came up with their "index". I keep focusing on it because it's the only data (sort of) that you've referenced. You're in the deep end, and I'm just trying loan you some arm floaties.
I even did a search with "too much government dependence". Again, more references to the flawed Heritage article, and more opinions. There were two articles that referenced actual money data, but included medicare and social security to support their point. I asked you earlier if social security and medicare were included in your definition of "government dependence", but you didn't respond.
A flat tax could be calculated to be "fair". Is %18 (or whatever number) of a single parent's salary of $18,000 have the same impact as %18 of a $200,000 salary? Maybe I should ask you to define fair, first.
Once again, I have responded to each of your points.
I keep repeating this, but you are putting it back on me to prove the statements YOU keep making. My mind is open, in fact, it's so open that I have been doing your research for you! While I'm doing your research, I keep finding data that supports my point that there is not a crisis and that welfare rolls are decreasing. You again may say I'm cherry picking data and "government dependence" is more than welfare, but you still haven't defined what government dependence is, so I just work with my own (and more widely accepted) definition.
Speaking of the Heritage Foundation, look what one of their analysts, Robert Rector, said about the TANF welfare program: “(the program) reduced poverty beyond anyone’s expectations” and efforts to dilute its rigor would only harm the poor.
I'm not looking hard at all for problems with the Heritage foundation data. All I had to do was read the table and their explanation of how they came up with their "index". I keep focusing on it because it's the only data (sort of) that you've referenced. You're in the deep end, and I'm just trying loan you some arm floaties.
I even did a search with "too much government dependence". Again, more references to the flawed Heritage article, and more opinions. There were two articles that referenced actual money data, but included medicare and social security to support their point. I asked you earlier if social security and medicare were included in your definition of "government dependence", but you didn't respond.
A flat tax could be calculated to be "fair". Is %18 (or whatever number) of a single parent's salary of $18,000 have the same impact as %18 of a $200,000 salary? Maybe I should ask you to define fair, first.
Once again, I have responded to each of your points.
I keep repeating this, and you keep ignoring this… welfare is just one piece of government dependence! Is that so hard to grasp? Do you really think that it is widely accepted that dependence on the government is equal to just welfare? You can’t be that ignorant, and you can’t invalidate the heritage data on this flawed opinion.
This country is far from fair. Is it fair for someone to work 60 hours a week, and have to pay off college loans, meanwhile getting no government assistance, when someone else takes a lot form the government and pays in very little? Do you think this country was founded so that the hard working people could be taxed to death to support parasites? Do you think they wanted to stop paying taxes to England, who didn’t deserve the money, so that they could give it to citizens who don’t deserve it? My definition of fair is different than yours. For me as a conservative, it is equal opportunity for all. For you as a liberal, it is equal outcome for all regardless of input.
Once again, you ignore many points; I’m not sure if it is just your reading comprehension, or if you just have no response.
I keep repeating this, and you keep ignoring this… welfare is just one piece of government dependence! Is that so hard to grasp? Do you really think that it is widely accepted that dependence on the government is equal to just welfare? You can’t be that ignorant, and you can’t invalidate the heritage data on this flawed opinion.
This country is far from fair. Is it fair for someone to work 60 hours a week, and have to pay off college loans, meanwhile getting no government assistance, when someone else takes a lot form the government and pays in very little? Do you think this country was founded so that the hard working people could be taxed to death to support parasites? Do you think they wanted to stop paying taxes to England, who didn’t deserve the money, so that they could give it to citizens who don’t deserve it? My definition of fair is different than yours. For me as a conservative, it is equal opportunity for all. For you as a liberal, it is equal outcome for all regardless of input.
Once again, you ignore many points; I’m not sure if it is just your reading comprehension, or if you just have no response.
You keep repeating that there is more to government dependence than welfare, and therefore I keep repeating for you to define what government dependence is. I do think that people don't define social security and medicare as "government dependence", you seem to accept this definition (although you still haven't defined your terms). I don't think you have read my response to the Heritage foundation data. The data is invald because of their numbers, computations, and not referencing their raw data from which they draw their conclusion. I'm not saying it's invalid because I disagree with their definition of "government dependence".
I think you are having the problem with comprehension or you're confusing other's posts with mine. Here's an example: You reference fairness, but the only time I've talked about it is when you brought it up with regard to fair taxes, and I asked you what that would be and if a flat tax rate is fair. Maybe you think you're communicating points which you aren't, and then you think I'm ignoring those points. Your question about fairness implies a victim mentality on your part. Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare? Whoever said that is full of crap. Whether something is unfair is also a subjective response. You don't know my definition of fair and I think your generalizing to liberals, but that does reflect your black and white type thinking. Each person in the situation presented has a different individual story that would need exploring to determine if it's fair. Each person has made choices along the way, and also has been effected by things that wasn't their choice. Your use of the term "taxed to death" also reveals a poor me-victim mentality.
As a conservative, I'm wondering if you think the government is getting in the way of "equal opportunity for all"?
You keep repeating that there is more to government dependence than welfare, and therefore I keep repeating for you to define what government dependence is. I do think that people don't define social security and medicare as "government dependence", you seem to accept this definition (although you still haven't defined your terms). I don't think you have read my response to the Heritage foundation data. The data is invald because of their numbers, computations, and not referencing their raw data from which they draw their conclusion. I'm not saying it's invalid because I disagree with their definition of "government dependence".
I think you are having the problem with comprehension or you're confusing other's posts with mine. Here's an example: You reference fairness, but the only time I've talked about it is when you brought it up with regard to fair taxes, and I asked you what that would be and if a flat tax rate is fair. Maybe you think you're communicating points which you aren't, and then you think I'm ignoring those points. Your question about fairness implies a victim mentality on your part. Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare? Whoever said that is full of crap. Whether something is unfair is also a subjective response. You don't know my definition of fair and I think your generalizing to liberals, but that does reflect your black and white type thinking. Each person in the situation presented has a different individual story that would need exploring to determine if it's fair. Each person has made choices along the way, and also has been effected by things that wasn't their choice. Your use of the term "taxed to death" also reveals a poor me-victim mentality.
As a conservative, I'm wondering if you think the government is getting in the way of "equal opportunity for all"?
AGAIN… why do I have to do your research for you? If you are so eager to learn, do it yourself. You obviously have more free time than me. I also keep asking if you can possibly be ignorant enough to believe that government assistance = just welfare, but you never answer.
Wow, you are really grasping at straws now. Did you really just ask why I was referencing fairness after you asked me what would be a “fair” flat tax rate? Sigh…
I should ignore this garbage, but it’s just too funny not to. What’s up with the buzz words? Victim mentality? That is meaningless psycho babble. What is that, the notion that there is never a victim, ever, for any reason? Sometimes there are victims. I guess the small business owner who gets robbed and stabbed should just stop having that “victim mentality”. Maybe when you are in the group that causes people to feel like the victim because you are bleeding them dry, you feel guilty? That sounds like something the criminal would say so he could sleep better at night. Or is it just a means to get us productive members of society to stop complaining, put our heads down and continue to work hard to support you?
So did I say, that over half my paycheck goes to welfare? Again I will point out that you are fixated on welfare and welfare alone, and also you’re asking me to do your research for you.
Of course I am generalizing liberals. Did I ever say that EVERY singe liberal without a doubt thought that way? Would you have a problem with me saying that most liberals are pro-abortion? Would you waste my time to point out that not all liberals are pro-abortion? You go off on this “black and white” tangent as a distraction. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to bring it up and waste my time.
As for government getting in the way of equal opportunity for all… of course! Can you possibly think otherwise?
You keep repeating that there is more to government dependence than welfare, and therefore I keep repeating for you to define what government dependence is. I do think that people don't define social security and medicare as "government dependence", you seem to accept this definition (although you still haven't defined your terms). I don't think you have read my response to the Heritage foundation data. The data is invald because of their numbers, computations, and not referencing their raw data from which they draw their conclusion. I'm not saying it's invalid because I disagree with their definition of "government dependence".
I think you are having the problem with comprehension or you're confusing other's posts with mine. Here's an example: You reference fairness, but the only time I've talked about it is when you brought it up with regard to fair taxes, and I asked you what that would be and if a flat tax rate is fair. Maybe you think you're communicating points which you aren't, and then you think I'm ignoring those points. Your question about fairness implies a victim mentality on your part. Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare? Whoever said that is full of crap. Whether something is unfair is also a subjective response. You don't know my definition of fair and I think your generalizing to liberals, but that does reflect your black and white type thinking. Each person in the situation presented has a different individual story that would need exploring to determine if it's fair. Each person has made choices along the way, and also has been effected by things that wasn't their choice. Your use of the term "taxed to death" also reveals a poor me-victim mentality.
As a conservative, I'm wondering if you think the government is getting in the way of "equal opportunity for all"?
AGAIN… why do I have to do your research for you? If you are so eager to learn, do it yourself. You obviously have more free time than me. I also keep asking if you can possibly be ignorant enough to believe that government assistance = just welfare, but you never answer.
Wow, you are really grasping at straws now. Did you really just ask why I was referencing fairness after you asked me what would be a “fair” flat tax rate? Sigh…
I should ignore this garbage, but it’s just too funny not to. What’s up with the buzz words? Victim mentality? That is meaningless psycho babble. What is that, the notion that there is never a victim, ever, for any reason? Sometimes there are victims. I guess the small business owner who gets robbed and stabbed should just stop having that “victim mentality”. Maybe when you are in the group that causes people to feel like the victim because you are bleeding them dry, you feel guilty? That sounds like something the criminal would say so he could sleep better at night. Or is it just a means to get us productive members of society to stop complaining, put our heads down and continue to work hard to support you?
So did I say, that over half my paycheck goes to welfare? Again I will point out that you are fixated on welfare and welfare alone, and also you’re asking me to do your research for you.
Of course I am generalizing liberals. Did I ever say that EVERY singe liberal without a doubt thought that way? Would you have a problem with me saying that most liberals are pro-abortion? Would you waste my time to point out that not all liberals are pro-abortion? You go off on this “black and white” tangent as a distraction. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to bring it up and waste my time.
As for government getting in the way of equal opportunity for all… of course! Can you possibly think otherwise?
Where am I asking you to do research, I'm just asking you to define your terms, specifically what dependence on the government means. Now you're asking me if "government assistance=just welfare" for the first time, not any other time in this thread. You started way back by saying we're in a "cultural crisis" because of government dependence, so by staying within those boundaries for the arguments sake, I would say that government assistance does just equal welfare. Obviously there are other government programs, but for my own definition, assistance = welfare. Are you distancing from the use of "dependence" now?
If you look back in the thread, you were the one to bring up the word fair first. This is why I think you're not really reading what I'm writing.
I'm bringing the the term victim mentality because it's what you're putting out there. Someone who gets stabbed is a victim. Someone who lies about getting stabbed probably has what could be described as a victim mentality and goes about their day feeling like bad things are happening to them when they aren't. You're lying when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. Thus, the term victim mentality may apply to you. That you think we're in a cultural crisis also supports this.
The black and white reference isn't a distraction, because it effects how the discussion goes. I disagree with you, and therefore you assume I'm the opposite. Read your post. You imply that I'm not a productive member of society and that you work to support me (again suggests victim mentality, too). I de-bunk your Heritage info, but you think I'm only disagreeing with it because I think the Heritage Foundation is biased. These are just a couple examples of your black and white thinking affecting the discussion.
And for your last sentence, do you think if the government didn't interfere with the free-market, there wouldn't be any workplace discrimination based on gender or race?
Where am I asking you to do research, I'm just asking you to define your terms, specifically what dependence on the government means. Now you're asking me if "government assistance=just welfare" for the first time, not any other time in this thread. You started way back by saying we're in a "cultural crisis" because of government dependence, so by staying within those boundaries for the arguments sake, I would say that government assistance does just equal welfare. Obviously there are other government programs, but for my own definition, assistance = welfare. Are you distancing from the use of "dependence" now?
If you look back in the thread, you were the one to bring up the word fair first. This is why I think you're not really reading what I'm writing.
I'm bringing the the term victim mentality because it's what you're putting out there. Someone who gets stabbed is a victim. Someone who lies about getting stabbed probably has what could be described as a victim mentality and goes about their day feeling like bad things are happening to them when they aren't. You're lying when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. Thus, the term victim mentality may apply to you. That you think we're in a cultural crisis also supports this.
The black and white reference isn't a distraction, because it effects how the discussion goes. I disagree with you, and therefore you assume I'm the opposite. Read your post. You imply that I'm not a productive member of society and that you work to support me (again suggests victim mentality, too). I de-bunk your Heritage info, but you think I'm only disagreeing with it because I think the Heritage Foundation is biased. These are just a couple examples of your black and white thinking affecting the discussion.
And for your last sentence, do you think if the government didn't interfere with the free-market, there wouldn't be any workplace discrimination based on gender or race?
I’m not sure why you have so much trouble following this discussion; here is where you ask me to do research for you:
Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare?
Basically you are incapable of keeping up with the thread, or even looking back a few pages to cite a reference. Yet you want people to take you and your opinions seriously? If you spent half the time doing your own research and learning, that you have wasted on this thread talking in circles, using diversionary tactics, and posting your non fact based opinions, you would be much better off.
Why would you think I think I am distancing myself from the word dependence, just because I used the word assistance? I’m so damn busy all day, every day, in a level you can’t even imagine, excuse me if don’t use the exact same word every time. So why would you think that, and more importantly, why does it matter? It’s like your goal is to cut down a forest but you are just picking at random trees with a butter knife. If you take government assistance, you are dependant on the government. How can you believe that the only form of government dependence is welfare? As a quick example, haven’t you ever seen a “safe link wireless” commercial? A free government supported cell phone? That is exactly what we need, a government supported luxury!
Just because I used the word “fair” first, doesn’t mean I started a discussion on it. You did that. I responded to you, because you really brought it up, and I don’t think you are reading what I post or are having trouble with the comprehension. You still fail to respond to most of the stuff I post. Or even worse yet, maybe you think you actually do?
Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else. Rather than just let the most qualified applicants succeed regardless of race/gender. But you liberals love class politics. It’s better to tell someone that they are in a class of people that is discriminated against and hope that buys their vote so they can “fix” it.
So someone who gets stabbed is a victim, but someone who gets robbed is not? That is exactly what you are saying. I am a victim of theft. Way too much of what I work very hard to earn is being taken from me every month. You are apparently OK with that, which means you are probably not successful, and therefore not getting robbed monthly, and are happy to receive my stolen property.
Where am I asking you to do research, I'm just asking you to define your terms, specifically what dependence on the government means. Now you're asking me if "government assistance=just welfare" for the first time, not any other time in this thread. You started way back by saying we're in a "cultural crisis" because of government dependence, so by staying within those boundaries for the arguments sake, I would say that government assistance does just equal welfare. Obviously there are other government programs, but for my own definition, assistance = welfare. Are you distancing from the use of "dependence" now?
If you look back in the thread, you were the one to bring up the word fair first. This is why I think you're not really reading what I'm writing.
I'm bringing the the term victim mentality because it's what you're putting out there. Someone who gets stabbed is a victim. Someone who lies about getting stabbed probably has what could be described as a victim mentality and goes about their day feeling like bad things are happening to them when they aren't. You're lying when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. Thus, the term victim mentality may apply to you. That you think we're in a cultural crisis also supports this.
The black and white reference isn't a distraction, because it effects how the discussion goes. I disagree with you, and therefore you assume I'm the opposite. Read your post. You imply that I'm not a productive member of society and that you work to support me (again suggests victim mentality, too). I de-bunk your Heritage info, but you think I'm only disagreeing with it because I think the Heritage Foundation is biased. These are just a couple examples of your black and white thinking affecting the discussion.
And for your last sentence, do you think if the government didn't interfere with the free-market, there wouldn't be any workplace discrimination based on gender or race?
I’m not sure why you have so much trouble following this discussion; here is where you ask me to do research for you:
Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare?
Basically you are incapable of keeping up with the thread, or even looking back a few pages to cite a reference. Yet you want people to take you and your opinions seriously? If you spent half the time doing your own research and learning, that you have wasted on this thread talking in circles, using diversionary tactics, and posting your non fact based opinions, you would be much better off.
Why would you think I think I am distancing myself from the word dependence, just because I used the word assistance? I’m so damn busy all day, every day, in a level you can’t even imagine, excuse me if don’t use the exact same word every time. So why would you think that, and more importantly, why does it matter? It’s like your goal is to cut down a forest but you are just picking at random trees with a butter knife. If you take government assistance, you are dependant on the government. How can you believe that the only form of government dependence is welfare? As a quick example, haven’t you ever seen a “safe link wireless” commercial? A free government supported cell phone? That is exactly what we need, a government supported luxury!
Just because I used the word “fair” first, doesn’t mean I started a discussion on it. You did that. I responded to you, because you really brought it up, and I don’t think you are reading what I post or are having trouble with the comprehension. You still fail to respond to most of the stuff I post. Or even worse yet, maybe you think you actually do?
Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else. Rather than just let the most qualified applicants succeed regardless of race/gender. But you liberals love class politics. It’s better to tell someone that they are in a class of people that is discriminated against and hope that buys their vote so they can “fix” it.
So someone who gets stabbed is a victim, but someone who gets robbed is not? That is exactly what you are saying. I am a victim of theft. Way too much of what I work very hard to earn is being taken from me every month. You are apparently OK with that, which means you are probably not successful, and therefore not getting robbed monthly, and are happy to receive my stolen property.
"doing your research" consists of me asking you to recall something you may have said? I don't think that qualifies as research.
My opinions are fact based, and this whole thing started by you giving your non-fact based opinion that the country is in "crisis" because of government dependence. The circles began when I asked you to define "government dependence", which, for the 20th time, you haven't. You used your mattress analogy, but didn't clarify. You cited invalid and irrelevant links, thus creating more circles. The cell phone idea fits into the definition of welfare. There's no accounting tricks behind it.
You brought up the notion of a fair tax, I asked you to clarify what a fair tax would be and how much revenue that would bring in. You again, did not respond directly.
This is non-fact based opinion: "Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else"
So if it's company policy to not hire/promote jews, women, or African-Americans etc., the government should just shrug and say "well if they were qualified, they would get promoted".
Again, you're not really following what I'm saying about being a victim or not. You are LYING when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. People who lie about things that aren't happening to them are not really victims. You're not a victim of theft because you think you pay too much in taxes. I'm okay with paying taxes overall because I know where my money goes. I do take issue with certain things taxes are going towards, but that doesn't make me a victim.
This notion that liberals most likely are receiving public assistance has been popular with conservatives the last couple of years. In fact, the lower the income, the more likely the person is to vote republican. The same with education level, but I don't want to smugly imply anything there.
I need to go back on vacation. But then again, who would be paying for your cell phone?
Big surprise, you just pick and choose what you try to address, talk in circles, and claim your opinions are facts. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Your mind is not open to other points of view, yet you pretend to want to hear it. I guess that makes you "feel" open minded, but it wastes my valuable time. I'm not sure if you just don't understand the discussion, or if anything that doesn't jive with your twisted view of reality is instantly invalidated. You don't know where I live or how much I make, yet you KNOW that I don't pay over half of my salary in taxes... You must be clairvoyant! I can't have a discussion with someone who continually makes up their own reality. Good Day.
Where am I asking you to do research, I'm just asking you to define your terms, specifically what dependence on the government means. Now you're asking me if "government assistance=just welfare" for the first time, not any other time in this thread. You started way back by saying we're in a "cultural crisis" because of government dependence, so by staying within those boundaries for the arguments sake, I would say that government assistance does just equal welfare. Obviously there are other government programs, but for my own definition, assistance = welfare. Are you distancing from the use of "dependence" now?
If you look back in the thread, you were the one to bring up the word fair first. This is why I think you're not really reading what I'm writing.
I'm bringing the the term victim mentality because it's what you're putting out there. Someone who gets stabbed is a victim. Someone who lies about getting stabbed probably has what could be described as a victim mentality and goes about their day feeling like bad things are happening to them when they aren't. You're lying when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. Thus, the term victim mentality may apply to you. That you think we're in a cultural crisis also supports this.
The black and white reference isn't a distraction, because it effects how the discussion goes. I disagree with you, and therefore you assume I'm the opposite. Read your post. You imply that I'm not a productive member of society and that you work to support me (again suggests victim mentality, too). I de-bunk your Heritage info, but you think I'm only disagreeing with it because I think the Heritage Foundation is biased. These are just a couple examples of your black and white thinking affecting the discussion.
And for your last sentence, do you think if the government didn't interfere with the free-market, there wouldn't be any workplace discrimination based on gender or race?
I’m not sure why you have so much trouble following this discussion; here is where you ask me to do research for you:
Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare?
Basically you are incapable of keeping up with the thread, or even looking back a few pages to cite a reference. Yet you want people to take you and your opinions seriously? If you spent half the time doing your own research and learning, that you have wasted on this thread talking in circles, using diversionary tactics, and posting your non fact based opinions, you would be much better off.
Why would you think I think I am distancing myself from the word dependence, just because I used the word assistance? I’m so damn busy all day, every day, in a level you can’t even imagine, excuse me if don’t use the exact same word every time. So why would you think that, and more importantly, why does it matter? It’s like your goal is to cut down a forest but you are just picking at random trees with a butter knife. If you take government assistance, you are dependant on the government. How can you believe that the only form of government dependence is welfare? As a quick example, haven’t you ever seen a “safe link wireless” commercial? A free government supported cell phone? That is exactly what we need, a government supported luxury!
Just because I used the word “fair” first, doesn’t mean I started a discussion on it. You did that. I responded to you, because you really brought it up, and I don’t think you are reading what I post or are having trouble with the comprehension. You still fail to respond to most of the stuff I post. Or even worse yet, maybe you think you actually do?
Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else. Rather than just let the most qualified applicants succeed regardless of race/gender. But you liberals love class politics. It’s better to tell someone that they are in a class of people that is discriminated against and hope that buys their vote so they can “fix” it.
So someone who gets stabbed is a victim, but someone who gets robbed is not? That is exactly what you are saying. I am a victim of theft. Way too much of what I work very hard to earn is being taken from me every month. You are apparently OK with that, which means you are probably not successful, and therefore not getting robbed monthly, and are happy to receive my stolen property.
"doing your research" consists of me asking you to recall something you may have said? I don't think that qualifies as research.
My opinions are fact based, and this whole thing started by you giving your non-fact based opinion that the country is in "crisis" because of government dependence. The circles began when I asked you to define "government dependence", which, for the 20th time, you haven't. You used your mattress analogy, but didn't clarify. You cited invalid and irrelevant links, thus creating more circles. The cell phone idea fits into the definition of welfare. There's no accounting tricks behind it.
You brought up the notion of a fair tax, I asked you to clarify what a fair tax would be and how much revenue that would bring in. You again, did not respond directly.
This is non-fact based opinion: "Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else"
So if it's company policy to not hire/promote jews, women, or African-Americans etc., the government should just shrug and say "well if they were qualified, they would get promoted".
Again, you're not really following what I'm saying about being a victim or not. You are LYING when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. People who lie about things that aren't happening to them are not really victims. You're not a victim of theft because you think you pay too much in taxes. I'm okay with paying taxes overall because I know where my money goes. I do take issue with certain things taxes are going towards, but that doesn't make me a victim.
This notion that liberals most likely are receiving public assistance has been popular with conservatives the last couple of years. In fact, the lower the income, the more likely the person is to vote republican. The same with education level, but I don't want to smugly imply anything there.
Nowhere have I claimed opinion as fact, and I think I've responded to each of your points. You're not backing up anything you're saying and I keep asking you to clarify. What you just wrote is an example of you not following along. You said you paid over half your salary towards people dependent on the government, and we were discussing federal expenditures. Maybe you do pay over half you salary in total taxes. Say you live in New Jersey and bought a giant house beyond your means and now pay big in property taxes. Maybe that's why you have to work so much just to keep your head above water. The highest federal tax bracket is 35%, and that person's tax rate is going to be lower than that. But here I go again, making up things!
You can bow out if you want, but I know you recall earlier that you said liberals flee from discussion when challenged with you point of view combined with factual evidence. You have given your point of view, touching on things here and there, but you haven't presented many facts.
I need to go back on vacation. But then again, who would be paying for your cell phone?
Big surprise, you just pick and choose what you try to address, talk in circles, and claim your opinions are facts. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Your mind is not open to other points of view, yet you pretend to want to hear it. I guess that makes you "feel" open minded, but it wastes my valuable time. I'm not sure if you just don't understand the discussion, or if anything that doesn't jive with your twisted view of reality is instantly invalidated. You don't know where I live or how much I make, yet you KNOW that I don't pay over half of my salary in taxes... You must be clairvoyant! I can't have a discussion with someone who continually makes up their own reality. Good Day.
I’m not sure why you have so much trouble following this discussion; here is where you ask me to do research for you:
Basically you are incapable of keeping up with the thread, or even looking back a few pages to cite a reference. Yet you want people to take you and your opinions seriously? If you spent half the time doing your own research and learning, that you have wasted on this thread talking in circles, using diversionary tactics, and posting your non fact based opinions, you would be much better off.
Why would you think I think I am distancing myself from the word dependence, just because I used the word assistance? I’m so damn busy all day, every day, in a level you can’t even imagine, excuse me if don’t use the exact same word every time. So why would you think that, and more importantly, why does it matter? It’s like your goal is to cut down a forest but you are just picking at random trees with a butter knife. If you take government assistance, you are dependant on the government. How can you believe that the only form of government dependence is welfare? As a quick example, haven’t you ever seen a “safe link wireless” commercial? A free government supported cell phone? That is exactly what we need, a government supported luxury!
Just because I used the word “fair” first, doesn’t mean I started a discussion on it. You did that. I responded to you, because you really brought it up, and I don’t think you are reading what I post or are having trouble with the comprehension. You still fail to respond to most of the stuff I post. Or even worse yet, maybe you think you actually do?
Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else. Rather than just let the most qualified applicants succeed regardless of race/gender. But you liberals love class politics. It’s better to tell someone that they are in a class of people that is discriminated against and hope that buys their vote so they can “fix” it.
So someone who gets stabbed is a victim, but someone who gets robbed is not? That is exactly what you are saying. I am a victim of theft. Way too much of what I work very hard to earn is being taken from me every month. You are apparently OK with that, which means you are probably not successful, and therefore not getting robbed monthly, and are happy to receive my stolen property.
"doing your research" consists of me asking you to recall something you may have said? I don't think that qualifies as research.
My opinions are fact based, and this whole thing started by you giving your non-fact based opinion that the country is in "crisis" because of government dependence. The circles began when I asked you to define "government dependence", which, for the 20th time, you haven't. You used your mattress analogy, but didn't clarify. You cited invalid and irrelevant links, thus creating more circles. The cell phone idea fits into the definition of welfare. There's no accounting tricks behind it.
You brought up the notion of a fair tax, I asked you to clarify what a fair tax would be and how much revenue that would bring in. You again, did not respond directly.
This is non-fact based opinion: "Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else"
So if it's company policy to not hire/promote jews, women, or African-Americans etc., the government should just shrug and say "well if they were qualified, they would get promoted".
Again, you're not really following what I'm saying about being a victim or not. You are LYING when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. People who lie about things that aren't happening to them are not really victims. You're not a victim of theft because you think you pay too much in taxes. I'm okay with paying taxes overall because I know where my money goes. I do take issue with certain things taxes are going towards, but that doesn't make me a victim.
This notion that liberals most likely are receiving public assistance has been popular with conservatives the last couple of years. In fact, the lower the income, the more likely the person is to vote republican. The same with education level, but I don't want to smugly imply anything there.
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
Just throwing a name into a discussion contributes nothing. Those posts have been removed.
No spamming. Discuss or pass the thread by please.
Comments
I keep repeating this, but you are putting it back on me to prove the statements YOU keep making. My mind is open, in fact, it's so open that I have been doing your research for you! While I'm doing your research, I keep finding data that supports my point that there is not a crisis and that welfare rolls are decreasing. You again may say I'm cherry picking data and "government dependence" is more than welfare, but you still haven't defined what government dependence is, so I just work with my own (and more widely accepted) definition.
Speaking of the Heritage Foundation, look what one of their analysts, Robert Rector, said about the TANF welfare program: “(the program) reduced poverty beyond anyone’s expectations” and efforts to dilute its rigor would only harm the poor.
I'm not looking hard at all for problems with the Heritage foundation data. All I had to do was read the table and their explanation of how they came up with their "index". I keep focusing on it because it's the only data (sort of) that you've referenced. You're in the deep end, and I'm just trying loan you some arm floaties.
I even did a search with "too much government dependence". Again, more references to the flawed Heritage article, and more opinions. There were two articles that referenced actual money data, but included medicare and social security to support their point. I asked you earlier if social security and medicare were included in your definition of "government dependence", but you didn't respond.
A flat tax could be calculated to be "fair". Is %18 (or whatever number) of a single parent's salary of $18,000 have the same impact as %18 of a $200,000 salary? Maybe I should ask you to define fair, first.
Once again, I have responded to each of your points.
This country is far from fair. Is it fair for someone to work 60 hours a week, and have to pay off college loans, meanwhile getting no government assistance, when someone else takes a lot form the government and pays in very little? Do you think this country was founded so that the hard working people could be taxed to death to support parasites? Do you think they wanted to stop paying taxes to England, who didn’t deserve the money, so that they could give it to citizens who don’t deserve it? My definition of fair is different than yours. For me as a conservative, it is equal opportunity for all. For you as a liberal, it is equal outcome for all regardless of input.
Once again, you ignore many points; I’m not sure if it is just your reading comprehension, or if you just have no response.
You keep repeating that there is more to government dependence than welfare, and therefore I keep repeating for you to define what government dependence is. I do think that people don't define social security and medicare as "government dependence", you seem to accept this definition (although you still haven't defined your terms). I don't think you have read my response to the Heritage foundation data. The data is invald because of their numbers, computations, and not referencing their raw data from which they draw their conclusion. I'm not saying it's invalid because I disagree with their definition of "government dependence".
I think you are having the problem with comprehension or you're confusing other's posts with mine. Here's an example: You reference fairness, but the only time I've talked about it is when you brought it up with regard to fair taxes, and I asked you what that would be and if a flat tax rate is fair. Maybe you think you're communicating points which you aren't, and then you think I'm ignoring those points. Your question about fairness implies a victim mentality on your part. Was it you who said they pay over half of their paycheck to go to people on welfare? Whoever said that is full of crap. Whether something is unfair is also a subjective response. You don't know my definition of fair and I think your generalizing to liberals, but that does reflect your black and white type thinking. Each person in the situation presented has a different individual story that would need exploring to determine if it's fair. Each person has made choices along the way, and also has been effected by things that wasn't their choice. Your use of the term "taxed to death" also reveals a poor me-victim mentality.
As a conservative, I'm wondering if you think the government is getting in the way of "equal opportunity for all"?
AGAIN… why do I have to do your research for you? If you are so eager to learn, do it yourself. You obviously have more free time than me. I also keep asking if you can possibly be ignorant enough to believe that government assistance = just welfare, but you never answer.
Wow, you are really grasping at straws now. Did you really just ask why I was referencing fairness after you asked me what would be a “fair” flat tax rate? Sigh…
I should ignore this garbage, but it’s just too funny not to. What’s up with the buzz words? Victim mentality? That is meaningless psycho babble. What is that, the notion that there is never a victim, ever, for any reason? Sometimes there are victims. I guess the small business owner who gets robbed and stabbed should just stop having that “victim mentality”. Maybe when you are in the group that causes people to feel like the victim because you are bleeding them dry, you feel guilty? That sounds like something the criminal would say so he could sleep better at night. Or is it just a means to get us productive members of society to stop complaining, put our heads down and continue to work hard to support you?
So did I say, that over half my paycheck goes to welfare? Again I will point out that you are fixated on welfare and welfare alone, and also you’re asking me to do your research for you.
”That is a terrible thing to do because most of my paycheck goes to your beloved government handouts.”
Of course I am generalizing liberals. Did I ever say that EVERY singe liberal without a doubt thought that way? Would you have a problem with me saying that most liberals are pro-abortion? Would you waste my time to point out that not all liberals are pro-abortion? You go off on this “black and white” tangent as a distraction. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to bring it up and waste my time.
As for government getting in the way of equal opportunity for all… of course! Can you possibly think otherwise?
Where am I asking you to do research, I'm just asking you to define your terms, specifically what dependence on the government means. Now you're asking me if "government assistance=just welfare" for the first time, not any other time in this thread. You started way back by saying we're in a "cultural crisis" because of government dependence, so by staying within those boundaries for the arguments sake, I would say that government assistance does just equal welfare. Obviously there are other government programs, but for my own definition, assistance = welfare. Are you distancing from the use of "dependence" now?
If you look back in the thread, you were the one to bring up the word fair first. This is why I think you're not really reading what I'm writing.
I'm bringing the the term victim mentality because it's what you're putting out there. Someone who gets stabbed is a victim. Someone who lies about getting stabbed probably has what could be described as a victim mentality and goes about their day feeling like bad things are happening to them when they aren't. You're lying when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. Thus, the term victim mentality may apply to you. That you think we're in a cultural crisis also supports this.
The black and white reference isn't a distraction, because it effects how the discussion goes. I disagree with you, and therefore you assume I'm the opposite. Read your post. You imply that I'm not a productive member of society and that you work to support me (again suggests victim mentality, too). I de-bunk your Heritage info, but you think I'm only disagreeing with it because I think the Heritage Foundation is biased. These are just a couple examples of your black and white thinking affecting the discussion.
And for your last sentence, do you think if the government didn't interfere with the free-market, there wouldn't be any workplace discrimination based on gender or race?
I’m not sure why you have so much trouble following this discussion; here is where you ask me to do research for you: Basically you are incapable of keeping up with the thread, or even looking back a few pages to cite a reference. Yet you want people to take you and your opinions seriously? If you spent half the time doing your own research and learning, that you have wasted on this thread talking in circles, using diversionary tactics, and posting your non fact based opinions, you would be much better off.
Why would you think I think I am distancing myself from the word dependence, just because I used the word assistance? I’m so damn busy all day, every day, in a level you can’t even imagine, excuse me if don’t use the exact same word every time. So why would you think that, and more importantly, why does it matter? It’s like your goal is to cut down a forest but you are just picking at random trees with a butter knife. If you take government assistance, you are dependant on the government. How can you believe that the only form of government dependence is welfare? As a quick example, haven’t you ever seen a “safe link wireless” commercial? A free government supported cell phone? That is exactly what we need, a government supported luxury!
Just because I used the word “fair” first, doesn’t mean I started a discussion on it. You did that. I responded to you, because you really brought it up, and I don’t think you are reading what I post or are having trouble with the comprehension. You still fail to respond to most of the stuff I post. Or even worse yet, maybe you think you actually do?
Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else. Rather than just let the most qualified applicants succeed regardless of race/gender. But you liberals love class politics. It’s better to tell someone that they are in a class of people that is discriminated against and hope that buys their vote so they can “fix” it.
So someone who gets stabbed is a victim, but someone who gets robbed is not? That is exactly what you are saying. I am a victim of theft. Way too much of what I work very hard to earn is being taken from me every month. You are apparently OK with that, which means you are probably not successful, and therefore not getting robbed monthly, and are happy to receive my stolen property.
"doing your research" consists of me asking you to recall something you may have said? I don't think that qualifies as research.
My opinions are fact based, and this whole thing started by you giving your non-fact based opinion that the country is in "crisis" because of government dependence. The circles began when I asked you to define "government dependence", which, for the 20th time, you haven't. You used your mattress analogy, but didn't clarify. You cited invalid and irrelevant links, thus creating more circles. The cell phone idea fits into the definition of welfare. There's no accounting tricks behind it.
You brought up the notion of a fair tax, I asked you to clarify what a fair tax would be and how much revenue that would bring in. You again, did not respond directly.
This is non-fact based opinion: "Government interfering in the work place to stop race/gender discrimination only breeds race/gender discrimination against someone else"
So if it's company policy to not hire/promote jews, women, or African-Americans etc., the government should just shrug and say "well if they were qualified, they would get promoted".
Again, you're not really following what I'm saying about being a victim or not. You are LYING when you say that over half your paycheck goes to government handouts. People who lie about things that aren't happening to them are not really victims. You're not a victim of theft because you think you pay too much in taxes. I'm okay with paying taxes overall because I know where my money goes. I do take issue with certain things taxes are going towards, but that doesn't make me a victim.
This notion that liberals most likely are receiving public assistance has been popular with conservatives the last couple of years. In fact, the lower the income, the more likely the person is to vote republican. The same with education level, but I don't want to smugly imply anything there.
Big surprise, you just pick and choose what you try to address, talk in circles, and claim your opinions are facts. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. Your mind is not open to other points of view, yet you pretend to want to hear it. I guess that makes you "feel" open minded, but it wastes my valuable time. I'm not sure if you just don't understand the discussion, or if anything that doesn't jive with your twisted view of reality is instantly invalidated. You don't know where I live or how much I make, yet you KNOW that I don't pay over half of my salary in taxes... You must be clairvoyant! I can't have a discussion with someone who continually makes up their own reality. Good Day.
You can bow out if you want, but I know you recall earlier that you said liberals flee from discussion when challenged with you point of view combined with factual evidence. You have given your point of view, touching on things here and there, but you haven't presented many facts.
No spamming. Discuss or pass the thread by please.