Quit hogging all the "A's" ...it's not fair...time to redistribute GPA's

• WebFire

  isadore;1161996 wrote:well I am.

  Then define need for me. Need is those an disability or otherwise unable to help themselves get better. As far as I can tell, that is not the group we are discussing in this thread.
• WebFire

  isadore;1162089 wrote:it is of a compassionate society, rather than north korea.

  Is this serious?
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1162089 wrote:it is of a compassionate society, rather than north korea.

  It's not one or the other. It's not give them everything or give them nothing. The reality is we as a society see the being compassionate is giving them enough to survive and then encourgae them to find their own way in the world. That is the ultimate gift of compassion.
• isadore

  WebFire;1162118 wrote:Then define need for me. Need is those an disability or otherwise unable to help themselves get better. As far as I can tell, that is not the group we are discussing in this thread.

  1. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
  http://news.yahoo.com/report-shows-more-older-americans-living-alone-102211021.html
  http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=0e1ca1a2-e921-4349-866b-273a2216c664
  4.1 million over 65 in poverty
  16.5 million children living in poverty
  some 32 percent of disabled adults live in poverty
  12.5 million unemployed
  
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1162158 wrote:It's not one or the other. It's not give them everything or give them nothing. The reality is we as a society see the being compassionate is giving them enough to survive and then encourgae them to find their own way in the world. That is the ultimate gift of compassion.

  enough to survive, 2100 calories and your conscience is free. We need a society that truly supports these people and prepares them to be upwardly mobile.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1162452 wrote:enough to survive, 2100 calories and your conscience is free. We need a society that truly supports these people and prepares them to be upwardly mobile.

  The nation does not hold the obligation to prepare people to be upwardly mobile. We can choose to do such a thing be it is far from an obligation.
  
  The collective people decide the level of support they wish to provide. I respect that collective wish and express my opinion with regards to where I believe it should be. You see my expressed opinions as a fervent effort to undermine what the collective decides. How week the collective must be if that's truly the case. ...all of this while you disregard my support and observation for the programs we have in place. I hope you find happiness somewhere in the world.
• sleeper

  

  isadore;1162452 wrote:enough to survive, 2100 calories and your conscience is free. We need a society that truly supports these people and prepares them to be upwardly mobile.

  We already pay for k-12 education. That is enough to give them the tools to be upwardly mobile if they so desire. If they don't want to be upwardly mobile, then that is their own choice. Why be upwardly mobile when you can sit on your ass all day watching Oprah and still get paid?
• gut

  It's not even a question of what we should provide. Absolutely everything that we can. I'm not heartless, everything we can afford. I'd take a hatchet to the military budget before I start cutting any entitlements. But the reality is $1.5T deficits. The money simply isn't there, and won't ever be there, to provide a level I think just about everyone would agree is desirable. But that's light years away from the levels liberals would have in their utopian society. It's an irrational pipe dream, simultaneously putting their head in the sand and up their ass.
  
  In order to have the resources/wealth to achieve the liberal agenda, the US would have to confiscate massive amounts of wealth and resources from the rest of the world, creating even more abject poverty. And that's blatantly hypocriticial and at odds with what liberals claim to believe in. But in typical stubborn ignorant fashion, liberals show a complete disdain for any middle ground. They are willing to risk destroying anything short of their ideal - there is no "good enough".
• isadore

  Of course it does
  if we promote the General Welfare, if in each state we provide a public education including state funded college and university system. A Federal commitment to it going back to the Northwest Ordnance "schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged" Financial assistance dating from Morrill Land Grant College Act 1862.
  What I have observed is that you consistently push for minimum be given to those in need. You and gut should get together on his $3 dollar a day program.
• Con_Alma

  promoting and encouraging does not equate to fully funding.
• gut

  I wonder how liberals would feel about the following scenario:
  
  Mark Zuckerberg amasses 99.999% of GLOBAL wealth while he transforms the world. Everyone else (save Zuckerberg's assistants/colleagues and private army) endures abject poverty for 50 years during this transition. And then you have a utopian society where everyone has more than they want or need. Oh, and the planet is more beautiful and healthy than ever.
  
  I often think many liberals would sign-up for this, and their rationale would be "we'll let Zuckerberg do his thing and then confiscate his wealth to smooth the transition". Just complete pie-in-the-sky irrational impracticality.
• isadore

  gut;1162468 wrote:It's not even a question of what we should provide. Absolutely everything that we can. I'm not heartless, everything we can afford. I'd take a hatchet to the military budget before I start cutting any entitlements. But the reality is $1.5T deficits. The money simply isn't there, and won't ever be there, to provide a level I think just about everyone would agree is desirable. But that's light years away from the levels liberals would have in their utopian society. It's an irrational pipe dream, simultaneously putting their head in the sand and up their ass.
  
  In order to have the resources/wealth to achieve the liberal agenda, the US would have to confiscate massive amounts of wealth and resources from the rest of the world, creating even more abject poverty. And that's blatantly hypocriticial and at odds with what liberals claim to believe in. But in typical stubborn ignorant fashion, liberals show a complete disdain for any middle ground. They are willing to risk destroying anything short of their ideal - there is no "good enough".

  It isinteresting that before the Bush Tax cuts we had no deficit for 3 years in arow under a liberal Democratic President. Gosh and no need to confiscate massive amounts of wealth and resourcesfrom the rest of the world. Now as wehave left Iraq and are leaving Afghanistan, there are natural reductions inmilitary spending. And gee whiz if therich would just return to paying their fair share of taxes we could cut thatdeficit and still move toward a more compassionate society.
  
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1162497 wrote:It isinteresting that before the Bush Tax cuts we had no deficit for 3 years in arow under a liberal Democratic President. Gosh and no need to confiscate massive amounts of wealth and resourcesfrom the rest of the world. Now as wehave left Iraq and are leaving Afghanistan, there are natural reductions inmilitary spending. And gee whiz if therich would just return to paying their fair share of taxes we could cut thatdeficit and still move toward a more compassionate society.

  It may be interesting but the resulting increasing deficit is because we continue to spend more than we take in. We need to stop it.
• isadore

  those cuts and miltiary emergency produced the deficits. You eliminate the ceiling on income payment to social security. you let the Bush taxcuts on upper incomes lap. natural decrease in military spending. and
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1162507 wrote:those cuts and miltiary emergency produced the deficits. You eliminate the ceiling on income payment to social security. you let the Bush taxcuts on upper incomes lap. natural decrease in military spending. and

  ..thought that's what I said. We continued to spend more than we take in. We need to stop it.
• gut

  isadore;1162479 wrote:Of course it does
  if we promote the General Welfare, if in each state we provide a public education including state funded college and university system.

  So let's say we have the education. So we've given people every opportunity to stand on their own. Then there's no need for handouts, correct? And marriages should be by lottery, right? Because why should fat and ugly people not have a chance to marry a supermodel? Not only are they not born on third base, they'll never even have a shot to step to the plate. Why should socialism begin and end only with money?
  
  And I don't advocate $3 a day entitlements. But are you so cold and heartless that you don't agree that 3 BILLION people in the world living on $3/day is a bigger problem than the "hardships" America's poor suffer?
• gut

  isadore;1162507 wrote:those cuts and miltiary emergency produced the deficits. You eliminate the ceiling on income payment to social security. you let the Bush taxcuts on upper incomes lap. natural decrease in military spending. and

  You have absolutely no grasp of the magnitude of a $1.5T deficit, do you?
• gut

  isadore;1162497 wrote:It isinteresting that before the Bush Tax cuts we had no deficit for 3 years in arow under a liberal Democratic President.

  Take a look at the spending side of the equation. This is what you don't understand. And the "balanced budgets" Clinton left was propped up with an internet bubble, they bursting of which led to the creaton of the housing bubble that propped-up some of the Bush years.
  
  Spending continued to increase faster, and then when you remove the inflated revenues from a juiced economy the true budget shortfall emerges, to the tune of $1.5T deficits.
• HitsRus

  

  You eliminate the ceiling on income payment to social security.

  
  
  Then what do you do about benefit payments to those people? Surely they have to get something for their Social Security Insurance payment. Or are you good with slapping an additional de facto 10% tax on small business owners making over $100K?
  
  Yes...of course you are.
• isadore

  gut;1162523 wrote:So let's say we have the education. So we've given people every opportunity to stand on their own. Then there's no need for handouts, correct? And marriages should be by lottery, right? Because why should fat and ugly people not have a chance to marry a supermodel? Not only are they not born on third base, they'll never even have a shot to step to the plate. Why should socialism begin and end only with money?
  
  And I don't advocate $3 a day entitlements. But are you so cold and heartless that you don't agree that 3 BILLION people in the world living on $3/day is a bigger problem than the "hardships" America's poor suffer?

  “hardships”what a dismissive attitude toward the situation of the poor in America. Nowonder you are so ready to cut their funding. Each night millions of American children go to bed hungry. But that is not enough of a hardship foryou. Let them suffer like they do inDarfur, it will motivate them.
  
• isadore

  HitsRus;1162560 wrote:Then what do you do about benefit payments to those people? Surely they have to get something for their Social Security Insurance payment. Or are you good with slapping an additional de facto 10% tax on small business owners making over $100K?
  
  Yes...of course you are.

  yep
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1162565 wrote:“hardships”what a dismissive attitude toward the situation of the poor in America. Nowonder you are so ready to cut their funding. Each night millions of American children go to bed hungry. But that is not enough of a hardship foryou. Let them suffer like they do inDarfur, it will motivate them.

  Without a reduction of our current subsidies we wont have enough revenue to cover them with a full 100% tax on the highest income earners. Those who are in need will then have no safety nets whatsoever. It's awful that you are willing to let that happen.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1162512 wrote:..thought that's what I said. We continued to spend more than we take in. We need to stop it.

  then take in more.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1162572 wrote:Without a reduction of our current subsidies we wont have enough revenue to cover them with a full 100% tax on the highest income earners. Those who are in need will then have no safety nets whatsoever. It's awful that you are willing to let that happen.

  of course we will with the rise in payroll tax on incomes above 110 thousand we will reenforce that most important part of the safety net. Social Security and Medicare. And with the natural decline in military spending and the rise in income tax on upper incomes we will cut the deficit.
• sleeper

  

  isadore;1162575 wrote:then take in more.

  How much will you contribute isadore?