Furthermore, the “but our lucky poor have TVs!!” crowd – I’m thinking of DGKnipfer specifically, who said “nd why does it matter what the median income is compared to Tony’s income?” – ought to read up on Adam Smith’s views on poverty to see why that argument is so hollow: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/adam-smith-on-p.html

“Wow man, you really need some anger management.”
No, I don’t. I am not angry, just upset, and even if I was, radical injustices OUGHT to make a moral person angry.

How about you quit being so ambiguous and making blanket statements towards all conservatives as if we are all from the same mold. I have stated before that I have no problems bucking my party. I doubt you can say the same.
First off, your doubts are misplaced. I have no party that represents my views and I officially belong to no party. I have serious problems with every party.

When I speak of conservatives generally, I am using the word to describe those with positions that are actually conservative, and not those many people who call themselves conservative but hold positions anathema to The Conservative Movement.

Its called personal responsibility. You should look into it. It’s a fascinating experience and quite liberating. I can’t wait to see how you are going to make that a bad thing.
Are you getting paid to be this snide and obnoxious? You should go pro, you’ve got real talent.

For that matter, please inform us all as to what must a plethora of examples of conservatives rewarding personal responsibility. I’m sure it’s conservatives who were relentless in investigating Enron execs. I’m sure it’s conservatives who call for letting Bear Stearns’ investors reap what they sowed. I’m sure it’s conservatives who wanted to try Scooter Libby for treason for releasing the name of our covert operative.

Oh, wait.

Show me one person, liberal or conservative, that isn’t intent on keeping what they have.
That is completely beside the point, and you know it. The difference is that the conservative, authoritarian view is that those in power BELONG in power, and that those without OUGHT to submit.

You can’t be seriously comparing a CEO with a maintenance worker. Let me ask you a this. If a CEO has gone to college and risen through the ranks and is in charge of and entire company, they shouldn’t make more money than say a janitor?
I’ll take “intentional misreading” for $1000, Alex!
Of course the CEO should make more money, but not because he works harder. The CEO makes more money because his/her work is more valuable.
YOU were the one who claimed that conservatives valued hard work. Which I’m sure you like to tell yourself, but I’m also sure that you don’t really believe it, because I’m sure you don’t pay for goods and services based on the effort put into them, but rather their utility to you. Which is fine – like virtually everyone else, I do that too – but you ought to be more intellectually honest about it.

Pick one. I guarantee you that the Palestinians would love if the Israelis began chasing their own tails by creating a police state. And torturing prisoners, thus losing international support. And becoming aggressors in the battle arena (yes, a “pre-emptive war” IS a war of aggression.) And an economic collapse – are you kidding me? I can’t think of a single terrorist who wouldn’t orgasm on the spot at the idea of his enemy losing his economic power, and thus losing his power to update his military, and their government losing the popular support of the citizenry because their standard of living is suffering.

All of these things serve to isolate a nation, create new enemies that are against them, weaken their power base, and encourage civil unrest. Trying to think of any * more effective * ways for a terrorist to destabilize a country is an exercise I leave to you.

“Bridges collapsing is NOT a federal issue, it’s a state issue and your implication that federal money is being diverted from such resources shows a gross misunderstanding of government spending.”

Hmm, so the levies collapsing during Katrina was just those damn Louisianans fault, for living in a state with a budget deficit?

Have you ever heard of the Army Core of Engineers, whose responsbiility it was to examine the levees? They found them to be faulty, and the possibility for a catastrophe to be frighteningly high. But both the state and federal governments refused to spend the money to repair it because it didn’t seem like an immediate concern. We had better things to buy, like more helicopters for raiding desert tent camps in the Middle East.

And since you’re putting it all on the states, who are helped by the Army, I assume you’re suggesting that states are allowed to have their own self-sufficient standing armies now. That’s very interesting.

“Hyperbole doesn’t suffice for informed or intelligent discussion. Unless of course you can back that nonsensical statement up with something substantive.”

You want substantive? How about the fact that we spend 10 times more than the world’s second largest military spender? I notice you didn’t bother responding to that fact from my previous post. Spending that much is nothing short of an attempt to be able to dominate every other army on the planet, simultaneously.

“When I say the poor do not pay federal income taxes, I mean two things. They either A) do not file, or B) can take advantage of the EITC for one, among many other breaks and incentives.”

I am fully aware of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

I happen to be poor, but not destitute – and I do not benefit from such incentives. The fact that * some * people get a break is that much of a problem for you?

In that case let’s eliminate ALL tax breaks – including W. Bush’s which have saved the rich millions of dollars.

“I don’t have the time or inclination to educate you further, but allow me to speak with a little more precision and say the poor *effectively* do not pay federal income tax.”

And the rich *effectively* do not pay any income tax either, because they have access to accountants, lawyers, offshore tax havens, loopholes, political favors, and corporate sponsorship. Can the poor claim the same? I think not.

See how *effectively* is a completely worthless adjective?

The rich and the poor pay about the same amount – proportionately. The $200 a month that a working class person pays in taxes is effectively equal to the $20,000 someone in the top 1% might (if they are honest and actually file what they earn).

It’s a matter of relative economics. The damage to the lifestyle of a working class person at taking $200 from them every month is approximately the same as the damage to the lifestyle of a wealthy person by taking $20,000.

I don’t know why I’m debating this though. I’m a libertarian. If I had my way there would be effectively little or no tax for * anyone *. But since I live in the real world and know that will never happen, I at least think we should spend taxes helping the less fortunate.

When people bitch and moan about the poor taking their money, it hits a nerve with me because I have devoted my career to being an advocate for getting the homeless back on their feet.

“Our “poor” enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is a fact. You’re trying to bolster your position by confusing “poor” with ‘destitute’.”

The poor are one step away from being destitute. Selfish people wanting to preserve an ultrarich, exceptionally extravagant lifestyle instead of paying a few dollars to keep their countrymen from becoming homeless are what turn poor into destitute into homeless.

You’re right, our country has the highest standard of living in the world. It is unacceptable that there are millions of people who are unable to participate in that standard of living because the others do not wish to help them.

Again, more nonsense. Almost EVERYONE has had credit for the past 10-15 years. Poor included. Your facts are a bit fuzzy. When I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE has lived beyond their means. Did I say that whiny babies getting their just rewards was the sole reason for the economic troubles in this country? Good basic strawman argument. But that was you who said that, not me.

However the writing has been on the wall for a long time about not enough Americans saving money. They’ve been doing the opposite – borrowing more and more. Why? Because the vast majority aren’t starving or homeless. Our “poor” enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is a fact. You’re trying to bolster your position by confusing “poor” with ‘destitute’.

***”To charge those people income tax would be utterly and completely ridiculous. You’re talking about creating new homeless here.”***

Another strawman argument. I never said, suggested, or implied this. Again, that is all you and makes discussion with you difficult. I’m also not referring to the under $8k bracket either.

When I say the poor do not pay federal income taxes, I mean two things. They either A) do not file, or B) can take advantage of the EITC for one, among many other breaks and incentives. I don’t have the time or inclination to educate you further, but allow me to speak with a little more precision and say the poor *effectively* do not pay federal income tax.

Hyperbole doesn’t suffice for informed or intelligent discussion. Unless of course you can back that nonsensical statement up with something substantive.

**”And yes, the military steals all of the money that could go to education, and saving the economy, and museums, libraries, infrastructure (collapsing bridges anyone?), etc.”**

Hogwash. Utter hogwash. The military doesn’t “steal” anything and is vastly smaller than it was in the 1990s. It’s not even where most of your tax dollars are spent…by far. Bridges collapsing is NOT a federal issue, it’s a state issue and your implication that federal money is being diverted from such resources shows a gross misunderstanding of government spending. So much so that you are probably ill-equipped to have this discussion. I don’t mean that insultingly, I’m just pointing out a glaring display of ignorance on your part.

***”The goal of the terrorist is not to terrify, but to create exactly the attitude you are espousing. To turn a free and prosperous nation against itself so that it no longer takes care of the less fortunate, no longer maintains its buildings or builds new things, becomes paranoid and begins spying on its own citizens, and gains the hatred of the entire world by torturing prisoners.”***

This is not the goal of a terrorist, this is you hijacking (if you’ll pardon the pun) the terminology to suit your own agenda. I challenge you to support with factual evidence any international terrorist organization whose aims are the ones you outline above.

However I would point out that suggesting that the whole recession is just giving the whiny babies who overextended their credit their just desserts, is a little narrowsighted. This recession will hurt the poor most of all. Those people who lived beyond their reach all those years will mostly just lose their homes and have to move to apartments or less luxurious homes, and start surviving on the money they actually make instead of the money they can con a financial institution out of.

The poor do not have that luxury – they’ve never had credit and they never will. When the cost of living skyrockets and wages and employment availability plummets, it hurts – as in, causes starvation, homelessness, and heath problems.

In order to be exempt from federal taxes, you have to be almost starving to death to begin with.

The only time it is legal to pay no federal taxes is if you earn less than $8,000 per year.

That’s (fun coincidence here on the division) call it $667.66 just to satisfy the superstitious, per month.

In most areas of the country that’s not enough to pay rent, let alone pay utility bills and buy food on top of rent.

Another way to think about it – $20 per day.

I know quite a few people who spend that much on a daily basis just on luxury items and eating out. For anyone making less than $8,000 a year, the only possible way to survive is to use all of the money you make to pay rent and utilities, live in the most run down and crime ridden neighborhood in a small, crumbling apartment, and get your food from a charity’s food bank. There is no additional money for anything else. You survive. You live to work and hope to survive another day.

To charge those people income tax would be utterly and completely ridiculous. You’re talking about creating new homeless here.

**”What happens if one lives withing one’s means, but then the economy turns sucky and suddenly things are beyond those same means? The issue as clear as you make is seem, I’m sorry to say. And the poor don’t pay taxes? Sorry, but in most states, if you own property or buy anything, you pay taxes. Last I checked, there wasn’t a magical exemption from sales taxes for people below a certain income level.”**

The economy turns sucky from the majority living beyond their means and financial institutions allowing it. But it begins with the individual’s greed.

You mention state tax and sales tax. They are both levied by the state and if you’ll reread what I wrote, I mentioned the federal level taxes which is what the discussion was about.

“The ONLY credible threat to the U.S. is not invasion or subjugation, but terrorist attacks”

Actually, while Terrorism™ is indeed a constant threat, unless it is a nuclear attack, an individual terrorist act is probably less of a long-term threat than many of the economic “weapons” we face. Witness the power Russia has over Europe because of its huge oil and natural gas reserves. Ditto the Middle East’s hold on the U.S.

Now think of how far along we could be on the path toward a radical retooling of our own infrastructure to accommodate non-petroleum based fuels if we hadn’t gone and spent a trillion or so bucks blowing up Iraq. I’d much rather employ all those soldiers and the people who support them in a project that actually strengthens the core of this country, rather than wasting the resources in a massive folly that has only harmed our standing in the world and seriously exposed the fragility of our economy.

But that’s the elitist in me talking (to get back on topic).