CPAPtalk.com

.

RE: the dem statement, you may soon realize as a recovering apneac that about 40 years have past you by and Nixon is no longer ... well uhhh, no longer ..................i guess you could draw some conclusions there...Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson didn't like Tricky Dick either ......and lest we forget about the big rock candy mountain, where we'll all get free bubble up

deerslayer wrote:RE: the dem statement, you may soon realize as a recovering apneac that about 40 years have past you by and Nixon is no longer ... well uhhh, no longer ..................i guess you could draw some conclusions there...Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson didn't like Tricky Dick either ......and lest we forget about the big rock candy mountain, where we'll all get free bubble up

We are for sale cheap!

Cheap is a relative term. One person's cheap is another's fortune (or meal).

For one person, owning 11 houses is a normal while for another, owning one small home is a life dream ... for one person, earning less than $5 million is defined as average while for another earning more than $250K is defined as wealthy.

I'm cheap from the perspective of some and wealthy from the viewpoint of others ... in a purely Darwinian (I mean free-market) economy, the cheap get eaten by the wealthy. Spreading the wealth means some have to go on a diet

.

DreamStalker wrote:........
... in a purely Darwinian (I mean free-market) economy, the cheap get eaten by the wealthy. Spreading the wealth means some have to go on a diet

That's an old, tired view of economies. It is the analogy that an economy is like a pie. If some get larger pieces, then others must get smaller pieces of the pie.
But permit me to update the analogy to Obamian terms, "The economy is like a jar of peanut butter (100% organic supplemented with arugula extract). Some are getting small spreads because others get large spreads. I will spread the economy evenly."

But we know this just doesn't work and advocate that a free people will grow the jar of peanut butter allowing the chance for larger spreads for everyone willing to work. That has been the history of our country and I would hope that our society wants to continue the great progress.

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:........
... in a purely Darwinian (I mean free-market) economy, the cheap get eaten by the wealthy. Spreading the wealth means some have to go on a diet

That's an old, tired view of economies. It is the analogy that an economy is like a pie. If some get larger pieces, then others must get smaller pieces of the pie.
But permit me to update the analogy to Obamian terms, "The economy is like a jar of peanut butter (100% organic supplemented with arugula extract). Some are getting small spreads because others get large spreads. I will spread the economy evenly."

But we know this just doesn't work and advocate that a free people will grow the jar of peanut butter allowing the chance for larger spreads for everyone willing to work. That has been the history of our country and I would hope that our society wants to continue the great progress.

Well do let me know when they figure out how to grow the planet and its resources (you know -- kind'a like "sustainable growth") then I may be willing to join you in advocating for a bigger jar of peanut butter

Also, my understanding of American history was that our country ate the native American Indians (ie. taking rather than sharing land and resources) you know like during Thanksgiving

mth712 wrote: Blah blah blah - whatever..... Spreading the wealth is communist... Believe me right now I could sure use some of the wealth. But I refuse to turn into a me,me,me person because I am hurting right now. I will not betray my beliefs. If you earned the money some way than you do not deserve to be taxed more and forced to give it to lessor achievers. Just the same as I feel about taxing tobacco so high-a sin tax-shouldn't be allowed!

It is way too late for that ... you already have the "me mentality".

You are basically saying ...
build roads and other infrastructure for ME
maintain military defense for ME
educate me children for ME
provide police and fire protection for ME
force other countries into democracies for ME
subsidize energy and agriculture for ME
bail out Wall Street investors and financial companies for ME
oh yes, ... and send the bill to me children and grandchildren for ME


Restructuring the tax code so that those who benefit more from the society pay more to contribute back to the society they benefit from is NOT communisim.

In communism, society doesn't pay taxes and everyone earns the same money except for a privileged few who control the one-party government ... your no-tax beliefs are closer to communism IMO.

DreamStalker wrote: ..........Restructuring the tax code so that those who benefit more from the society pay more to contribute back to the society they benefit from .........

A flat tax accomplishes this quite well.