Arizona's New Immigration Law

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 2BIG2BSKINNY

Thank you for taking the time to listen to the track!

I understand that this is a issue that is not very easy to fix!
There are several issues that you may not agree with...

as minorities we need (hispanics) to draw from the experience and get unity from the African Americans... if for nothing else then it helps our numbers so that we get a voice.

It is not going to be a quick fix to this immigration problem as action on either side of this debate leads to more potential problems.

I just don't like the way it is being handled now!

Agree with you on that for sure.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Actually Sammy spread the wealth is the chief function of all economic systems including capitalism. Don't let Rush bully you. If all wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few then we cease to be a democracy we wind up being a kingdom. Let's say one an individual accumulates a trillion dollars then something is truly wrong, he will essentially own everything. The system fails at that point. He will then have to euthanized.

You are wrong....about...a....great...many....things.....y oung jedi.

1) "Spreading the wealth" or wealth redistribution is not a function of any economic system. The only entitiy that would redistribute wealth is one with the ability to do so (guns, jails, etc.)....the gov't. The function of federal gov't should be providing for national defense, certain nationwide infrastructure projects, courts, limited regulation of businesses, and not much more (that's why we have states). What is not a function of gov't is to take personal property from one group simply because of how much money they make and give it to others in the form of govt' payments in one form or another. There should be a uniform percentage of tax on all, with the very poor exempt. Those who make more money will pay more into that system because x % of $ 150K is more than x % of $ 50K.

Do you think it's fair that 47% of households in the U.S. pay no federal taxes? Is it fair that the top 10% paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government? Is it fair that the bottom 40%, on average, make a profit from federal income taxes?

2) I'm not a regular Rush listener and haven't listened in months.....I'm working in the middle of the day. But, you may want to stay off Air America.....ooops you can't listen to Air America, they went bankrupt and shut down.

3) So by your logic we should be getting the shots ready for saden's boys Billy G, Warren B, etc. because they've been too successful :frusty:

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

agree.... but the out-of-control defense spending needs to be in that discussion.

Absolutely! I have gone on "good" rants about that. Just as I don't believe that anyone should be taxed over 50% of their assets by their government, there is also no way one government's "defense" spending should be even close to the rest of the world's combined, let alone more than all but the next closest one or two countries.

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Absolutely! I have gone on "good" rants about that. Just as I don't believe that anyone should be taxed over 50% of their assets by their government, there is also no way one government's "defense" spending should be even close to the rest of the world's combined, let alone more than all but the next closest one or two countries.

and yet discussion about reducing it is off limits. sadly, it's political dynamite cuz the Dems are so scared of being painted as "soft on defense" and they're too spineless to respond to that criticism. they'd rather just run around going rah rah rah about it cuz they think being centrists and acting like republicans is good for winning elections cuz they take their liberal-left base for granted cuz, well, sadly they can.

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Is it fair that the top 10% paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government?

i think so.
but i'm a socialist.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You are wrong....about...a....great...many....things.....y oung jedi.

1) "Spreading the wealth" or wealth redistribution is not a function of any economic system. The only entitiy that would redistribute wealth is one with the ability to do so (guns, jails, etc.)....the gov't. The function of federal gov't should be providing for national defense, certain nationwide infrastructure projects, courts, limited regulation of businesses, and not much more (that's why we have states). What is not a function of gov't is to take personal property from one group simply because of how much money they make and give it to others in the form of govt' payments in one form or another. There should be a uniform percentage of tax on all, with the very poor exempt. Those who make more money will pay more into that system because x % of $ 150K is more than x % of $ 50K.

Do you think it's fair that 47% of households in the U.S. pay no federal taxes? Is it fair that the top 10% paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government? Is it fair that the bottom 40%, on average, make a profit from federal income taxes?

2) I'm not a regular Rush listener and haven't listened in months.....I'm working in the middle of the day. But, you may want to stay off Air America.....ooops you can't listen to Air America, they went bankrupt and shut down.

3) So by your logic we should be getting the shots ready for saden's boys Billy G, Warren B, etc. because they've been too successful :frusty:

I was being over dramatic. From your let the markets decide philosphy is ther a danger that a democracy turn into an oligarchy like in Russia. You must understand no system is perfect and must be regulated. Money is just a way to distribute welath itself. Not saying that's the governmnt's job, but in a good system design mooney does not collect in one spot. If it deos then it fails the society. You wind up with dictators. The free market will not regulate itself that would be a dangerous experiment and step back in time.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Taxes are a reality. Even Jesus said give Ceasar what's Ceasar's. I think it is cynical to boost up gullible people with the intoxicating idea of no taxes. There is a finite sum of money and it must be spread to the benefit of society, or we learn lesson of history (i.e. Mari antoinette etc etc). Having said that we are taxed too much though.

I and most people don't have any problems with paying any fair tax its the FUCKING WAIST and evrything else that goes on that we have a problem with. Don't ask me to send more money if your waisting what I have already sent. When they clean waist, ear marks, etc.. then talk to me about paying more in taxes. Thats not asking for much. Would you keep donating to a charity if you knew they waist 30 to 40 % of what you donated?

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its not that hard. I and most people don't have any problems with paying any fair tax its the FUCKING WAIST and evrything else that goes on that we have a problem. Don't ask me to send more money if your waisting what I have already sent. When they clean waist, ear marks, etc.. then talk to me about paying more in taxes. Thats not asking for much. Would you keep donating to a charity if you knew they waist 30 to 40 % of what you donated?

i think we can all agree on this.

the gray areas is that some "ear mark" might be something great for a local community and might give someone a new job. (that said, there's plenty of bridges to nowhere and golden toilet seats that are just waste)



cut the defense budget way back.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

i think so.
but i'm a socialist.

Sorry to hear that. Here's a great analogy for you:

A Teachers Excellent Analogy on Socialism!

also a good vid if you care to watch:

YouTube - The American Form of Government

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

i think we can all agree on this.

the gray areas is that some "ear mark" might be something great for a local community and might give someone a new job. (that said, there's plenty of bridges to nowhere and golden toilet seats that are just waste)



cut the defense budget way back.

I don't have a problem with cutting deffense but as long as its done smart and does not jeopardize our safty. Having a strong military is what has gievn you the freedom to walk this land and I personally want to keep that freedom. With that said there is a ton of waist in defense spending and that could be a great place to start.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I don't have a problem with cutting deffense but as long as its done smart and does not jeopardize our safty. Having a strong military is what has gievn you the freedom to walk this land and I personally want to keep that freedom. With that said there is a ton of waist in defense spending and that could be a great place to start.

Really you should become an author, your way with words just beautiful.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

cut the defense budget way back.

There's a lot more to the defense budget than Procurement (primarily weapons systems) and Research & Dev. These two areas are only 32% of the defense budget. The remainder is operations, maintenance, personnel, construction and family housing. Don't forget the military provides jobs for a great many people.

I agree defense spending needs to be looked at, just like any other gov't program, to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. But unless we get SS/Medicare figured out (approx 40% of fed budget) and reduce the national debt (interest is over 5% of fed budget) we aren't going to get our financial house in good order.

[CRedskinsRule]

I know FD's spelling gives everyone 's but I gotta say the use of waist in place of waste makes me crack up laughing everytime I see it.
Fucking waist (nice visualization - think Winnie Cooper thread)
ton of waist (not so nice visualization - think summo wrestler)
clean waist, ear marks(mom's instruction to young kid)

every single time!

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I know FD's spelling gives everyone 's but I gotta say the use of waist in place of waste makes me crack up laughing everytime I see it.
Fucking waist (nice visualization - think Winnie Cooper thread)
ton of waist (not so nice visualization - think summo wrestler)
clean waist, ear marks(mom's instruction to young kid)

every single time!

Wait there is a Winnie Copper thread????? Where?????

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There's a lot more to the defense budget than Procurement (primarily weapons systems) and Research & Dev. These two areas are only 32% of the defense budget. The remainder is operations, maintenance, personnel, construction and family housing. Don't forget the military provides jobs for a great many people.

I agree defense spending needs to be looked at, just like any other gov't program, to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. But unless we get SS/Medicare figured out (approx 40% of fed budget) and reduce the national debt (interest is over 5% of fed budget) we aren't going to get our financial house in good order.

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework