>>> On 10/7/2012 9:07 AM, Frank Howell wrote:
>>>> nothermark wrote:

>>>>>>>> That's the way I see it, but even more disturbing is that when
>>>>>>>> Obama talks about "fair share,"  which of course is a completely
>>>>>>>> subjective concept, and why isn't there more commentary about the
>>>>>>>> 47% who pay no federal tax and how that constitutes "fair share?"

>>>>>>>> I concede the fact, if those who don't pay, pay even a token amount
>>>>>>>> of $100, it would have no effect on federal deficit spending just
>>>>>>>> as those in the upper income brackets were to pay more, would have
>>>>>>>> some impact with regards to greater federal income, but not enough
>>>>>>>> to materially change our fiscal deficit, but at least symbolically
>>>>>>>> everyone will contribute something.

>>>>>>>> But, as you know,  in the scheme of life, it's all a smoke screen
>>>>>>>> for the bigger problem, in that we as a nation are borrowing 100
>>>>>>>> billion a month more then we earn and have interest only payments
>>>>>>>> on the principle of 16 trillion with no real serious plan to pay it
>>>>>>>> down.  It makes all those "liar loans" and crummy underwriting of
>>>>>>>> the real estate loans look almost proper by comparison. Someone
>>>>>>>> will pay, and it's probably going to be that the next generation
>>>>>>>> that will pay for our indulgences at their expense.

>>>>>>> What a lot of us see is that the reason so many people do not pay
>>>>>>> federal income tax can be laid at the feet of the Conservaive party
>>>>>>> who seem to want to see most of the private sector work force in
>>>>>>> poverty.

>>>>>>> The $100 minimum token idea is lost on most folks.

>>>>>> Show me the evidence that conservatives want the private work force
>>>>>> in poverty. Who would be the consumers of private sector produced
>>>>>> goods and services? You think that  the conservatives only want the
>>>>>> public work force to have enough money to purchase goods and
>>>>>> services?
>>>>>> Any idea why anyone, conservative or liberal, would ever hold such a
>>>>>> philosophy?

>>>>> As long as folks oppose minimum wage, oppose any  kind of job
>>>>> protection and favor bringing in cheap goods from anywhere in the
>>>>> world to undercut workers here they do not support a thriving private
>>>>> sector.

>>>> The minimum wage is a job killer, the results are higher unemployment and
>>>> more poverty. If you really thought that the minimum wage was a real
>>>> panacea, why not propose one at $20 an hour? I mean how do you determine
>>>> what minimum is and why do you support the State overriding the individuals
>>>> ability to negotiate their own deal?

>>>> Anyone who opposes free trade wants our citizens to buy goods at the highest
>>>> price instead of the lowest, therefor reducing the wealth of everyone with
>>>> artificially high prices. In otherwords you don't want competition, you want
>>>> a Soviet style economy where the State determines prices of goods and
>>>> services regardless of true market conditions.

>>>>> As long as edubusiness fails to educate folks for all the jobs
>>>>> available instead of concentrating on being a Liberal Arts prep
>>>>> program we are in trouble.

>>>> Once again you want the State to override the individuals right to self
>>>> determination. If the State did not provide guaranteed loans, those lending
>>>> institutions would then lend strictly on the preceived abiltiy of the
>>>> students future income based on getting educated in fields with real jobs.

>>>> Maybe many of the Liberal Arts majors choose that field because they
>>>> wouldn't be able to succeed otherwise. Your saying that, it is colleges that
>>>> must choose the curriculum for the student regardless of the students
>>>> ability and if industry needs engineers or scientists that's what they'll be
>>>> regardless of their wishes or ability as all majors are exactly
>>>> interchangeable with regards to difficulty.

>>>>> As long as we let folks sue busienss's for not maximizing profits for
>>>>> the shareholders we are in trouble.

>>>> You can't really mean that! You must have meant to say "as long as we let
>>>> conservatives sue businesses for not maximizing profits........."

>>>>> As long as we fail to provide for a healthy and educated work force we
>>>>> are in trouble.

>>>> Then what's the point of people working if they don't use some of those
>>>> earned proceeds to provide for their own health and education. Why would you
>>>> want to intercede on their behalf, gots lots of money?

>>>>> As long as we run an unbalanced budget and heavy debt load we are in
>>>>> trouble.

>>>> So what does this red-herring have to do with conservatives only?

>>>>> I could go on.  I have been down that road before.   Multiple times in
>>>>> many cases.  What we give lip service to we do a very poor job of.
>>>>> Mostly because the folks running thngs are more concerned about
>>>>> bringing home the bacon than getting the economy working.   If you
>>>>> want to pick on an item and have a question I will answer as I am too
>>>>> stupid not to try again.  It's a two way street.

>>>> Once again you miss the Mark :-) mark. None of this points to  a conclusion
>>>> that conservatives want a work force with poverty. On the contrary the more
>>>> money the private sector work force has, then according to your beliefs, the
>>>> more money the conservatives can loot from them.

>>> Freedom, self determination, and personal responsibility scare the hell
>>> out of mark.  He would use any amount of government force necessary to
>>> ensure that they can't exist.

>> Bull shit

>You might say bullshit, but every time the topic turns to freedom, self
>determination, or personal responsibility, you argue against those
>things and for more government regulation and control.