Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 07-10-2006, 11:03 AM
SentToStud's Avatar
SentToStud SentToStud is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?
people who choose to live on your block should toss you a frisbee and perhaps ypu'd miss it and it would gently tap your head and knock some sense, or better yet, courage. into you.

We can always hope.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 07-10-2006, 11:55 AM
irishtrekker irishtrekker is offline
Turf Paradise
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?
You may not name-call like some posters, but you sure know how to throw a backhanded insult like the first line.

Of course I've looked at it that way. I just completely disagree. I would actually, sincerely, like to engage in a deeper discussion, but I am woefully behind on my workload, so I'll just make a few quick points.

One nitpick: Sure, people can choose wherever they want to live. WHETHER they can afford to live wherever they like is another question. I can't afford rent in a lot of cities where I'd like to live.

Second: there aren't too many places in the country that aren't prone to one sort of disaster or another, so I question whether anyone can actually be more "prudent" than another.

Third: Katrina wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill disaster. Does it somehow make our government better or more noble if it considers the plight of so many now-homeless individuals and decides not to act because they shoulda bought homeowner's insurance?

I could never share your outlook on life. Some people need help more than others, and I personally believe that it is the responsibility of those who've succeeded in society to give back by helping out those who truly struggle. I'm not talking about protecting deadbeats here, although those seem to be the only faces you see when you look at the poor. Your fixation on keeping every last almighty dollar that's rightfully yours is a bit disturbing. You can't take it with you anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 07-10-2006, 11:56 AM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.
This is true. But why did they do it? The Gates mission is thought of as one of the best at giving out CHARITY. They do their homework on how the money will be spent best. So again, you are saying Gates and Buffet just do this work to avoid giving it to the government, not to help other people besides themselves.... is this what you are typing?

You are making these gentlemen sound like all they are trying to do is keep money away from the US government... That this is their sole purpose. That is bogus.

Again you give out a fact and then dont go any further. You just stop and dont dig any deeper. Very much like your websites. It is really sad that people like you dig deep enough just to skew the real issues and satisfy your beliefs that would never change, even if the evidence changes. Its your choice. Stay handicapped. Borders on zealotry. Very sad indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 07-10-2006, 11:56 AM
irishtrekker irishtrekker is offline
Turf Paradise
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.
Yes, but your insinuation that they did it out of some sort of anti-tax logic is a little off-base.

Like I said, Gates Sr. *supports* the estate tax, and from what he's said, his son does, too...so I don't really think they were thinking, "Yippee! No estate tax!" when they committed their lives and energy to fighting global poverty. Gates is quitting his company to work on improving global health. Don't hold him up as the poster-boy for fiscal conservatism, because he's not.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:00 PM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?




And you bypassed the above.


You want to give this a try again? Or just drop it like its hot? Better drop it. A question like this, for someone like you, is terribly difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:04 PM
irishtrekker irishtrekker is offline
Turf Paradise
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Default

Kinda like all the questions about homeless kids I keep raising. No one seems interested in talking about that...

Okay, seriously, I have to go work. Six weeks, 20K words, one loooong summer left to go!
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:10 PM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
The U.S. military is in no way a welfare program. It exists to perform the very function for which the government exists ... that is ... to maintain the freedom of the citizens who form that government.

Those who enrol in the miltary must work very hard ... and meet exacting standards ... in order to remain there. All money and benefits accruing to military personnel is earned by them ... military salaries are not welfare payments.
The military has been an incredible opportunity for people who find themselves in much worse situations than you or I have, to access the enormous opportunity that this country has to offer. In my definition that is a leg up. Helping people to help themselves. The rigor and discipline required in serving ones country is an obvious advantage later in life to many.

Should a government in any way be responsible for helping people to help themselves? Or that should all come privately, or it just does not need to happen at all (people should have no reason to enter any program that will help them to be better equipped to succeed in our society)? Please do tell.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 07-10-2006, 12:14 PM
pgardn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishtrekker
Kinda like all the questions about homeless kids I keep raising. No one seems interested in talking about that...

Okay, seriously, I have to go work. Six weeks, 20K words, one loooong summer left to go!
Terribly difficult situation. And I am off for chores. Good day.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:27 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishtrekker
Some people need help more than others, and I personally believe that it is the responsibility of those who've succeeded in society to give back by helping out those who truly struggle. I'm not talking about protecting deadbeats here, although those seem to be the only faces you see when you look at the poor. Your fixation on keeping every last almighty dollar that's rightfully yours is a bit disturbing. You can't take it with you anyway.
Individual Americans should be free to use their money in any way they choose ... including donating it to others whom they deem worthy of those donations ... even if they're "deadbeats" ... but ...

... it's an outrage for the government to confiscate money from Citizen A and hand it over to Citizen B ... for any reason whatsoever.

Private voluntary donations are fine and dandy ... government confiscation and allocation isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:35 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
This is true. But why did they do it? The Gates mission is thought of as one of the best at giving out CHARITY. They do their homework on how the money will be spent best. So again, you are saying Gates and Buffet just do this work to avoid giving it to the government, not to help other people besides themselves.... is this what you are typing?

You are making these gentlemen sound like all they are trying to do is keep money away from the US government... That this is their sole purpose. That is bogus.

Again you give out a fact and then dont go any further. You just stop and dont dig any deeper. Very much like your websites. It is really sad that people like you dig deep enough just to skew the real issues and satisfy your beliefs that would never change, even if the evidence changes. Its your choice. Stay handicapped. Borders on zealotry. Very sad indeed.
I made it quite clear that I don't know what motivates Gates and Buffet ... nor does it matter.

The only point I made is that they've taken actions which prevent the government from confiscating their wealth.

I applaud those actions ... but I'd prefer that death taxes be eliminated ... because ...

...if death taxes didn't exist AND Gates and Buffert did the same things with their money ... then we'd know for sure what their motivations were. But the existence of the death tax puts a cloud over all foundations ... and that's a darn shame.
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:37 PM
irishtrekker irishtrekker is offline
Turf Paradise
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Default

Augh! If you really think the move casts doubt on the Gates' position, WHY would the Gateses publically support the estate tax and lobby against our state initiative to repeal it? Make the statement pretty clear to me, unless you're just determined not to see what's going on.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:40 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishtrekker
Yes, but your insinuation that they did it out of some sort of anti-tax logic is a little off-base.

Like I said, Gates Sr. *supports* the estate tax, and from what he's said, his son does, too...so I don't really think they were thinking, "Yippee! No estate tax!" when they committed their lives and energy to fighting global poverty. Gates is quitting his company to work on improving global health. Don't hold him up as the poster-boy for fiscal conservatism, because he's not.
As I wrote in my previous post ... death taxes DO exist ... and Gates and Buffet have taken actions which avoid them.

It would be much better if death taxes DIDN'T exist ... then talented people like Gates and Bufffet wouldn't have to twist themselves into knots ... and take actions which put their motives into question ... in order to maintain control of their own wealth.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:46 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishtrekker
Augh! If you really think the move casts doubt on the Gates' position, WHY would the Gateses publically support the estate tax and lobby against our state initiative to repeal it? Make the statement pretty clear to me, unless you're just determined not to see what's going on.
It doesn't matter what they say ... it matters what they do.

They can say they "support" death taxes until the cows come home ... but the fact is ... they've taken actions which completely avoid them.

It's like Hillary Clinton voicing her ardent support for public education ... then sending her daughter to the toniest private school.

Don't fall for the dekes and the shake-n'-bake ... let the actions provide the proof ... not the hot air.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 07-10-2006, 02:57 PM
Bold Brooklynite
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishtrekker
Kinda like all the questions about homeless kids I keep raising. No one seems interested in talking about that...
Pose the questions ... and we'll try to answer them.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 07-10-2006, 03:00 PM
SentToStud's Avatar
SentToStud SentToStud is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Pose the questions ... and we'll try to answer them.
My question....

when is the last time you bought a Racing Form?
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 07-10-2006, 03:46 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SentToStud
My question....

when is the last time you bought a Racing Form?
and "What do all of those little numbers mean?"
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 07-10-2006, 03:49 PM
irishtrekker irishtrekker is offline
Turf Paradise
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
It doesn't matter what they say ... it matters what they do.

They can say they "support" death taxes until the cows come home ... but the fact is ... they've taken actions which completely avoid them.

It's like Hillary Clinton voicing her ardent support for public education ... then sending her daughter to the toniest private school.

Don't fall for the dekes and the shake-n'-bake ... let the actions provide the proof ... not the hot air.
Gates has been ACTIVELY supporting this for the last five years. See below. Note how many Americans the estate tax actually affects.

Regarding my questions, they're already posted. If they are too complex to figure out, I apologize.

Published on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 in the New York Times
Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
by David Kay Johnston

SEATTLE, Feb. 13 — Some 120 wealthy Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and the father of William H. Gates, are urging Congress not to repeal taxes on estates and gifts.

President Bush has proposed phasing out those taxes by 2009. But a petition drive being organized here by Mr. Gates's father, William H. Gates Sr., argues that "repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet."

The billions of dollars in government revenue lost "will inevitably be made up either by increasing taxes on those less able to pay or by cutting Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection and many other government programs so important to our nation's continued well-being," the petition says.

In addition to the loss of government revenue, the petition says, repeal would harm charities, to which many of the affluent make contributions as a way of reducing the size of their estates.

"The estate tax," it says, "exerts a powerful and positive effect on charitable giving. Repeal would have a devastating impact on public charities."

Mr. Buffett, the Omaha investor who ranks fourth on the Forbes magazine list of the richest Americans, said in an interview that he had not signed the petition itself because he thought it did not go far enough in defending "the critical role" that he said the estate tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance.

Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."

"We would regard that as absolute folly in terms of athletic competition," he said.

"We have come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world," he said. "You have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."

The petition is to appear in an advertisement on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times this Sunday and later in other newspapers.

Among those signing it are Mr. Soros, the billionaire financier; the philanthropist David Rockefeller Jr., former chairman of Rockefeller & Company; Steven C. Rockefeller, chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation; Agnes Gund, a philanthropist whose family owns stakes in many companies, and Ben Cohen, a founder of Ben & Jerry's.

Mr. Buffett and the younger Mr. Gates have both said they will give away most of their fortunes in bequests at death. Many of the signers have longtime affiliations with causes that depend heavily on charitable gifts, including bequests, and they are concerned that outright repeal of the estate and gift taxes would lead to a sharp drop in charitable giving.

A number of the signers are Democrats, and some have contributed heavily to the Democratic Party. But the elder Mr. Gates said in an interview that the idea for the drive was his own and that the support he had received was nonpartisan. Mr. Gates, like his son, has consistently declined to align himself with either of the political parties, and he said he had never given a moment's thought to the party affiliations of those being enlisted.

The petition says that "repeal of the estate tax would be bad for our democracy, our economy and our society," although its backers add that adjustments may be needed to help families passing down farms and small businesses. "Let's fix the estate tax," the petition says, "not repeal it."

Estate taxes are assessed on the net worth of an individual at death. There is no tax on the first $675,000, and under current law that exemption is to rise to $1 million by 2006. (Farms and family businesses already enjoy the $1 million exemption.)

But amounts above that threshold are taxed at rates that begin at 37 percent and rise to 55 percent, the rate that applies to anything greater than $3 million. The estates of fewer than 48,000 Americans a year — 2 percent of annual deaths — pay the tax. Nearly half the total is paid by the estates of the 4,000 people who die each year leaving $5 million or more.

President Bush has made repeal of what he calls the death tax a part of his plan to cut taxes by $1.6 trillion over the next decade. His plan would also repeal the gift tax, which applies to gifts of more than $10,000 a year per recipient, and would permanently exempt from taxation all capital gains held at death.

Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans who support the plan say that estate and gift taxes discourage savings and investment. Repeal, they assert, would increase economic growth by rewarding those who build great fortunes and creating incentives for them to invest more.

Mr. Bush says his plan would save those now subject to gift and estate taxes $236 billion over the next decade. Critics of the plan say this estimate of the cost to the Treasury is very low, because it does not take into account what tax experts have described as the new ways that repeal would give the wealthy to avoid income taxes.

The elder Mr. Gates, who gained affluence as a prominent Seattle lawyer, said he had not asked his son, the chairman of the Microsoft Corporation, to sign the petition.

"My son is sympathetic," he said, "but he wants to stay focused on three things: his family, Microsoft and world health," which is the main interest of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The elder Mr. Gates said the money that Mr. Bush wanted to devote to repeal of the estate and gift taxes could be put to better use "to reduce other taxes, which affect the other end of the economic spectrum."

"Ever since I heard that somebody was trying to repeal the estate tax, I have been angry," Mr. Gates said, adding that if it were not for his full-time job, he would organize a group called Millionaires for the Estate Tax. Mr. Gates is president of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment of $20 billion.

Mr. Gates is working on the drive with United for a Fair Economy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in Boston that wants to narrow the gap between rich and poor. The petition on the estate tax is being circulated among Americans with enough money that they are affected by it, and a spokesman for the Boston group, Chuck Collins, said that of more than 120 such people asked to sign, only four had declined. He would not identify them.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 07-10-2006, 04:00 PM
SentToStud's Avatar
SentToStud SentToStud is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,065
Default

Here is Bold Brooklyn's problem with Gates and Buffet....

He just cannot stand the fact that two of the world's greatest capitalists are not card carrying members of the most extreme right wing.

He purports to deign what they are thinking and cannot take at face value their charitable endeavors. He must twist their actions in order to do one of two things... 1. Explain how they are tax avoiders which in turn he twists into an off-tangent discussion of the estate tax, or, 2. He finds justification for himself admring these men.

Nothing else. At least until he finds the next snappy quote from Sowell or Bill Bennett.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 07-10-2006, 04:31 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

Irish,
Just between you and me...but don't be surprised if he responds... it's very frustrating when clearly spoken words are twisted to fit a right wing agenda.
At points on this thread, he's given himself credit for outstanding debating skills... yeah! right.
His racism has shown up numeorous times (see "sports bar") and earlier questions by S2S regarding Palistinians.
You might wish to continue to diologue with him, but I don't think any amount of wisdom will disspell ingrained ulrta-conservative delusions.
Very frustrating if you try.
Have at it if you think you can get intelligent thoughts into a cabbage.

"Hey doc, my head hurts when I keep bashing it into this concrete wall".

Doc: "So stop bashing your head into a concrete wall."

---Henny Youngman
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 07-10-2006, 05:10 PM
irishtrekker irishtrekker is offline
Turf Paradise
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 248
Default

But I *do* like bashing my head into concrete walls (or kicking them)...

Point well taken. The thread has probably stopped being productive for all involved anyway, so time to move on.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.