Also why do people with kids deserve to pay so much less taxes? http://www.factcheck.org/article145.html Don't they use up more public money?
I was very proud of Mr. Bush when he made that statement. Let's break that statement down into it's two components: 1. We don't know what causes people to be gay. That is an honest and factual statement. We don't know. There seem to be both biological and social components. I have gay friends who seem to have been born that way, I also have gay friends who seem to have learned it. My friend Brian believes he was born gay. My sister Michelle believes that she became gay due to traumatic childhood experiences. If anyone is to help them find the truth, it is the job of science -- not government. 2. It doesn't matter. In a free society, it is not the governments job to worry about why people make the choices they do. It is the governments job to treat them as citizens and to stay the hell out of their way.
Honestly the best statement I've ever read of yours Will! I'd give you quadruple green if I could right now, I however do hope your total overall beliefs back the statement up. edit- damn I did try You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Will.Spencer again
Why do people who buy houses deserve to pay less taxes? Why do people who refuse to work deserve government handouts? Why do people who have kids and refuse to work get larger government handouts? Why did Chrysler deserve loan guarantees from the federal government? Why do people who lose their houses in Louisana deserve to be paid by the federal government, when a person who loses their house in Rhode Island gets nothing? Frederic Bastiat covered these topics before America became a nation.
I see it as an investment, our children will be the future taxpayers and will more than likely put much more back into the government than the breaks we recieve now equate to. What better investment could you get, wish I could put money into someones children and recieve interest in the form of a percent of their taxable income into the future.
I believe that my entire belief set maintains internal logical consistency. For reference, it is documented here.
Thank you for the link, you may not believe it but the info provided via the link describes my beliefs almost to a T.
Disagreeing slighty with my earlier post, it could be argued that: 1. Government should treat all citizens equally. 2. Children are citizens. 3. These benefits are to children; their parents merely act as useful intermediaries. Using this logic, tax breaks for children could be seen as reasonable. This breaks into areas of very difficult economic analysis. Well, that's a sticky discussion. If we as a nation decide to give out our money, we can hardly blame the recipients for accepting it. That would be like blaming immigrants for using social services -- when the voters and the politicians are the ones who are responsible for the system that gives out the money -- not the immigrants.
My post off of this is going to sway a little off topic but hope those reading follow it, I used your post Will as I feel it bares merit with all 3 points you raised. Would those against deductions for children support the deduction going directly into a retirement/college account for the children instead of direct to the parents? A fund being either used for college when the child is of age or if they do not wish to pursue college a retirement account. My point in this is that the parent would not get the direct funds, the funds would directly benefit the child. In return the parent would still benefit as they would automatically be investing into their childs future and thus could still invest more into it, or not have to worry about investing as it's already done for them. I also see that further down the road, granted many, many years this extra money into the system could possibly help with the current SS shortfalls. A bit to socialist for my tastes, but just a question Lastly those who would oppose credits for children, if you were under your parents care when such credits were given to your parents did your parents not and you not benefit them as well? I see alot of people complain about child credits, but many of them also benefited from them sometime within their lifespan but of course are against them when they themselves do not have children.
Its nice quote but totally the opposite of your partys standing You support the party, and the president that think the constution should be ammended to ban gay marraige Don't think thats totally hypocritcal? You support the party that thinks the government should control peoples reproductive rights You support the party that thinks this should be a "christian nation" So you quote nice phrases all you want, but your actions seem to speak differently.
I am not backing up any party and definitely not the current republican adminstration. However to claim someone backing up a certain position simply because they back a party is unfair. His link he submitted and he has stated is his beliefs which shows me he does not believe on these points with the party Will backs of his choosing. I voted Democrat for president this time around simply because I felt it was time for a change. This however does not imply I agree with all democratic beliefs, one topic in mind where I strongly disagree is gun control 'and btw I don't own a single gun ' To get any party or candidate that holds all the same beliefs would be nice, it simply is not possible for most people with the exception of puppets on both side of the isle. edit- wow I realy have to start proofing a bit better, I'll admit I typo alot, mostly by mistake while simply trying to pound out my post. But after this mix up I'm convinced I need to try harder. Originally stated 'and btw I don't own a single guy ' I even reread it a few times and didn't catch it until hours later, omfg!
you see I don't really see it that way, I would never support a party that thinks we should break down the seperation of church and state no matter how much of a tax cut they gave me. I wouldn't every support a party that thinks government should tell a woman what to do to her own body or a party who endorses changing the contitution to deny anyone rights..... Its called integerity , or maybe principals These were core issues around election time remember .... personal freedom, privacy etc are pretty important to me
That is because those might be some of your key issues which are great, however there me be some issues that are more important to Will than are to you. One of my trigger issues is gun control, again i do not own a gun but I feel gun control goes directly against my personal reading of the constitution. I may be incorrect as I'm sure those for gun control will argue, however I am against anything I feel goes against the constitution be it liberal or conservative. This however doesn't make it so I will not vote for a democrat simply because of this, especially if the democrat running is not running or has not proven to have extreme views on more gun control. If the democrat had such views and the only other alternative was a republican this may sway me to the republican candidate even further in my determination whom to vote for. If both had extreme views that differed with my personal views on standard economy, political and social issues and both had extreme views on the constitution I may simply not vote, or do a write in And an example for a conservative issue I would take offence with would be an ammendment against gay marriage. I am not pro gay, however I am also not anti gay especially not to the point to change our beloved constitution. I vote on the candidate myself, not by the party Lastly thank you for your candor in sharing your beliefs.
Nor would I, but I however determine this by the candidates beliefs or as how I feel they are portrayed and proven to be rather than the party the candidate belongs to. Even the candidates themselves may not believe in much of their party's core beliefs. A democrat could easily be for a gay marriage ban, or the break down the seperation of church and state even though it goes against what the democrat party tells us is their beliefs. To be taken seriously in most cases a candidate must side with either one of the 2 devils that are called political parties in this great land of ours.
Everything I mentioned is pretty much directly from GW. I don't really care that much about gun control, but I don't see what the problem is with handgun waiting peried etc. You can pretty much walk into any gun store in american and walk out with shot gun with a pistol grip, with no waiting, I'm not sure why anyone would need more firepower then that.
Waiting period is one thing, still not sure if I agree with it though. How is a shotgun with pistol grip going to be effective at all for a well regulated militia? My own states constitution also goes on to state, I myself will never use the hunting excuse, this is where I feel those saying such items as 'what other purpose could a fully automatic have but to kill people, it is not for hunting' and those who counter with 'my 50 caliber allows me to shoot a deer 50% further than any gun' I don't buy either argument and truthfully don't think the pro 2nd ammendment folks should even lower themselves to make the argument as it's not needed. Might work for my own states constitution but not for the US version. I don't believe the 2nd ammendment to be put in place to defend hunting rights, a militia kills people hence guns that are designed to kill people should be allowed in my opinion.
You seem to be the bigot here - you are not tolerant of any one's belief but yours. Then of course once things get heated words are thrown out like - racist, bigot, intolerant, ignorant, etc... It seems that college doesn't teach any other words now. So the president doesn't know if people choose to be gay or not and you say that is being a bigot??? come on. You choose to be the bigot by not allowing him the freedom to believe different than you. YOUR Choice and I will let you choose your way, but thought you might want to think before name calling next time.
Rereading the past few pages, wow I'm backing WILL? Do I need to get my head examined? When I first joined this forum I read many posts by Will I thought were totally off base on the subject matter. Personally didn't believe I'd ever agree with anything he had to say, guess it goes to the old saying don't judge a book by it's cover Either that or get the shock treatment ready.
You have provided no sources, choosing instead to offer your own personal opinion with math in a bottle of snake oil. On the other hand, I have provided numerous references to comparisons by economists who lay out the good, as well as the not-so-good comparisons. Your site is not a reference and your numbers are fabricated. What you should be doing (far be it from me to give you direction here) is trying to find an article from CNN, NYT, FOX, LAT, WP, BG or other semi-credible source that says "see, they use my snake oil too." It is what is being reported, as are the previous months numbers. They don't suit you, so you claim fraud. Once again, skimming right over the facts of inheriting a recessive economy, a dot com bust, corporate scandal, etc. Give a man an economy in recession, and tell him it's his fault. And choosing to skip right over 9/11, which isn't suprising. Snake oil, personal opinion, nothing of substance to back it up. I can't imagine why So was Kerry's new and improved Misery Index. Of course, he made it up to try and paint a grimmer picture than what existed as well. Seems to be a common trend, eh? Viva la Christmas in Cambodia!