The federal government's sense of entitlement.

[Jesda]

I just got back from my mom's. We ate, chatted about life and the news, and I was as usual amazed by how busy she and her husband always are. We talked about Obama for a bit, which got me to thinking:

My immigrant parents work their butts off to earn their living, raise their kids, send my fat face to college, and enjoy a reasonably comfortable lifestyle when they finally have free time. What they do every day results in the creation of dozens of medium to high paying jobs. Obama didn't earn their living. He didn't create those jobs. He didn't even start a business.

They don't sit on their behinds drinking Cristal while yachting in Monaco. They WORK, and other WORKING people benefit from that intelligence and determination. THEY took the risks and brought knowledge and resources together to maintain a stable and profitable enterprise. They are in no way morally obligated to give the fat, careless, wasteful federal government a SINGLE DIME MORE.

They could even scale back their operations, close a few offices, put some people in the unemployment line, and still live comfortably and have more free time if they wanted to. But they don't, because this is America and if you have the ambition, the will, and the smarts, you can have whatever you want; your efforts, if received by the free market, will be rewarded.

So, to hell with Obama's tax plan. He doesn't seem to believe he has to EARN the incomes of the wealthy or explain to them why they should be forced into 'charitable' giving. Instead, he turns to everyone else and says "Hey, I got you some cool stuff! I stole it from those people in that gated community. There's plenty more where that came from. Yeah, I put a pistol to their heads and robbed them, but its cool they can afford it."

My mother said it best, "That boy wants to steal from us. F! him!"

This is not an endorsement of McCain's plan either. Discuss.
Modified by Jesda at 9:48 PM 9/10/2008

[szh]

I am completely in agreement with your parents!! They are smart people, who clearly understand what a Tax-and-Spend Democrat government can do to hurt them and their business.

I have posted on this topic in the past ... about the inequities of our tax system for the "rich" (who really are not in that boat). Yes, I am reluctantly willing to let it continue the way it is currently (despite those inequities), but I object to more taking-without-fairness.

When my company (or my family) have revenue-expense problems, we tighten our belts, we lay people off, we cut back, make the hard choices and see what we can live without!

The Federal and state governments damn well need to do the same.

Z

[AZhitman]

Wow.

Jesda, that got me all fired up.

Too often, those who do well for themselves somehow feel "guilt" over their good fortune. Sometimes it's the result of hard work and smart choices over a long term, sometimes it's just having a better idea or being in the right place at the right time.

If I'm blessed enough to someday reach my financial goals (which I re-evaluate often and strive towards daily), I will NOT feel "guilty" about it, nor will I shy from the opportunity to pop Robin Hood square in his lip when he shows up at my door.

I contribute to charity, obey the law and pay my taxes.

Tell the folks I join them in saying "F THAT".

[bobotech]

The entitlement mentality is ruining this great country of ours.

We need to "change" that.

[szh]

The entitlement mentality is ruining this great country of ours.

We need to "change" that.

Yes!

California is worse, if you can believe that. A large portion of the state budget goes to paying for all the entitlement items that have been come into existence by all the various initiatives that have been forced "on the ballot" over the years.

Things that need lots of money ... all the time.

Z

[Jimefam]

Both parties economic plans are the same. The democrats want to tax and spend the republicans simply want to spend and increase the defecit which just means we will be taxed later once the interest has been added in to what we should have been taxed in the first place. If you want to be for lower taxes you must be for lower spending and we have no one in power interested in doing that. Republicans of 30 years ago are what this country needs.

[szh]

If you want to be for lower taxes you must be for lower spending and we have no one in power interested in doing that.

Very true. And very unfortunate!

Z

[Jesda]

We have Ron Paul in congress and...

and...

and...

Scary isn't it?

[HashiriyaS14]

Obviously, being the fiscal conservative that I am, I definitely see your point in the OP.

I don't really think that either tax plan is all that great because neither one mirrors it's efforts with serious cuts in spending. It's just a matter of who gets kicked in the junk harder while we run up the deficit.

I have become somewhat disenfranchised with the idea of "trickle down" economics over the years as I've never really seen it work on a macro level, but it's undeniable that with certain people and certain businesses, on a micro level (i.e. your parents), it appears to work just fine.

Who knows, if anyone can shove some good evidence my direction that it works, I could get behind it more enthusiastically, but right now I really can't.

[Encryptshun]

Maybe the government should give each candidate $1 million to run their entire campaign and take all the rest of the "contributions" as voluntary tax pre-payments. Then use that influx of money to fund the special programs that each side wants to use tax dollars to fund.

I bet, with only a million bucks to spend, we'd hear both these douchebags talking about issues instead of lipstick and community organizers.

Frak this system. I'm ready to turn the reigns of this country over to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm ready to turn the reigns of this country over to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

I was ok with the idea of turning it over to Bain Capital (i.e. Romney).

Steve Forbes would work for me though, methinks.

[Encryptshun]

Forbes was a hoot when he ran. His idea of a flat-tax does hold quite a bit of intrigue for me.

However, I'd like to see some data on how the tax revenue base would shift if we completely eliminated federal income tax and instead imposed a 6% federal corporate and personal sales tax on everything, (including internet-based sales) with the exception of retail uncooked food, automobiles, housing, and healthcare expenses.

[szh]

Forbes was a hoot when he ran. His idea of a flat-tax does hold quite a bit of intrigue for me.[/qupte]

It was one of the reasons that I was tempted to support him the last time he ran.

However, I'd like to see some data on how the tax revenue base would shift if we completely eliminated federal income tax and instead imposed a 6% federal corporate and personal sales tax on everything, (including internet-based sales) with the exception of retail uncooked food, automobiles, housing, and healthcare expenses.

The "Value Added Tax" VAT system in the UK is that (although they have income taxes too). It is a high tax (I forget the percentage - like 12%?) on "final purchases" of everything, so the government gets a lot of money as any given Pound traverses through the system/economy.

It is simpler, and directly related to the consumption. So, if any given person buys less, they pay less tax. Conceptually a good idea.

Z

[Encryptshun]

^

Back to the original (and brilliant) point of this thread, the biggest problem I see with our government is that it doesn't know what it is. It WANTS to run like a business, but the people we have involved are not business PEOPLE. Let me tell you that if I, in my position, accepted gifts, kickbacks, bribes, or lobbyist moneys (read earmarks, pork-barrel, special interest money, etc), I would not only be fired but my reputation would be ruined forever. I'd never find another job. Yet this is SSDD in Washington. If our government does indeed want to be a business with us a shareholders, congress as a board of directors, and the President as CEO, then they need to be held to the same accounting, P&L, and ethical standards as THEY require private and public corporations to be held. I don't see why that is so hard for Washington to fathom or so difficult for we taxpayers to enforce withour elected officials.

[WDRacing]

My wife and I have worked at various jobs from age 14 on...we've both served in the Military and she is going to retire after 20 with her Masters and most likely make pretty decent cash. I'll be doing whatever at that point...I'm currently just a Leasing Manager

Point being...

We've worked hard at something our entire lives and in the next 5-10 years we'll be in a tax bracket the effectively rapes us. Why? 35 years combined Military service wasn't enough? Tax the rich to feed the poor? Sorry...I've been in the poor category and never once did I collect anything more then WIC.

The Gov is fiscally retarded...period.

Why does a person that makes 150K+ annually deserve to be taxed more then the person only making 25K? Easy, they don't.

For years I have failed to see why these so called appointed smart people can't unteh eff bomb!!!1!!!eleven!! the budget without taxing us more. I have a wicked good idea...STOP SPENDING. Cut back ALL over the place...fully eliminate certain things. The options are there...they are just ignored.

Flat Tax is fair...

Take that amount of money and figure out how to run the country. Sorry if it doesn't allow for research on MARS...

WD

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[96Qowner]

... not to mention the government's entitlement to 12.65% of everything we earn our entire lives, so that the government can give each and every one of us an outstanding 1% compounded return on our hard-earned money.

Or the government's entitlement to another few percent of everything we ever earn so that they can promise to provide us with perfect health when we get old and worn-out. In return, they provide us with an uncaring, bureaucratic, demoralizing system that is fundamentally unable to provide us with perfect health.

Beside those two, the Iraq war pales in cost.

[wingFeather]

At one point in my life, I was so poor that I lived out of my car. I didn't take any handouts back then!

The government should stay out of handouts. That job is best left to churches/charities. IMHO they are more in touch with the needy, and what they give is FROM THE HEART.

What good is helping the poor when it's a requirement? And the entitled aren't actually poor?

[wingFeather]

Off topic, but I'll respond anyway.

the $10bil/mo sink hole 9,000 miles away

You mean the middle east?

[96Qowner]

The government should stay out of handouts. That job is best left to churches/charities. IMHO they are more in touch with the needy, and what they give is FROM THE HEART.

What good is helping the poor when it's a requirement? And the entitled aren't actually poor?

DITTO!!!

You should start a new thread on this subject. I'm a FIRM believer in looking someone in the eye when you help him. It's human. Churches and charities are good at that - the government is simply Horrible at it.

[wingFeather]

You should start a new thread on this subject. I'm a FIRM believer in looking someone in the eye when you help him. It's human. Churches and charities are good at that - the government is simply Horrible at it.

Good churches and charities know EACH "poor" person with more depth than the government ever could. It's only logical that they could weed out the phonies .

Besides, the help comes from the heart. Poor get inspired to lead better lives when they know they're loved. Entitlement has proven that it doesn't work this way.

P.S. - Feel free to split this thread from my post.