Election day.

cfrizz

I'd say you 2 fellas are pretty much preaching to the choir! The fact remains that we ALL have to pay taxes like it or not.

So bitching about how much you hate doing so, & over generalizing who should & should not get handouts or what YOU consider to be a handout is useless & just causing acrimony!

shack

cfrizz wrote:

So bitching about how much you hate doing so, & over generalizing who should & should not get handouts or what YOU consider to be a handout is useless & just causing acrimony!

Actually, bitching about what we believe to be the right thing to do is exactly what needs to take place. We should be going to the polls and voting for those who we feel are doing the right things and then **** to them when they don't. Last time I checked this is a democracy and those are partly my tax dollars being spent so my voice and opinion is as valid as yours or anyone elses when it comes to who should get and what is a handout.

Unfortunately many politicians believe just as you have stated: I should gladly hand them my money, and keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself. They know what is best.:rolleyes:

tommyboy

shack wrote:

Tommyboy - I resent your comment about my "nice, expensive stereo system", . You have no idea what I paid for my gear or how much it is even worth.

Your overall tone of the post makes it sound like I somehow was more fortunate than you and other poor people. What makes you think I was anything but poor when I started out? My parents came from hardworking farmers and laborers. I started working when I was 15. Went to college (A STATE university). Started at the bottom when I got out and I have worked my **** off for almost 30 years. NOTHING has ever been given to me. I took risks, did without, invested wisely, give generously and have been very successful. I MADE my own breaks. How about you?

Shack, I wasn't questioning your work ethic, and now that I read my first statment it sounds like I come off that way but I didn't mean it to. You were complaining about the taxes, so thats why I pulled that on you.

the biggest reason I feel this way(if you care, read my statement before) is solely because of my mother. My father died when I was 2 and my mother was forced to raise both me and my sister(7) on her own. She had to work full time to keep food on the table and thankfully we had social security giving us monthly payments to help her out. She worked her **** off to raise us and now my sister is finishing her masters and I'm going for engineering degree(hopefully:D ) So sorry about that statement, I'm just saying thanks to your(not just yours, shack) taxes, it helped my mother through the hard times and give us a chance to be successful in life...

mrbigbluelight

DarqueKnight wrote:

Here are a couple of very important things I have that I was not given:

1. Good work ethic.
2. Good character.

My parents set great examples and gave me a good start in life, but ultimately, what I did with the opportunities offered to me was largely dependent on #1 and #2 above. I can think of lots of people who were given every parental and material advantage in life, but because of a lack of #1 and #2, turned out to be miserable failures in life.

That's my point, DarqueKnight.

If everyone thinks about it, everything you have was, in one fashion or another, given to you.
A gift of sorts.

Be it caring parents, who instilled a good work ethic and character, or ..... ?

As Tommyboy related, his mother used the "gift" of money from the state to provide for the welfare of her family. She also gave her family the gift of character and work ethic. As a result, his sister is finishing her master's degree, and Tommyboy has plans for an engineering degree.

If his mother had not used her "gift" wisely, perhaps she would have bought some new clothes for herself, or a new vehicle, or gone "clubbing". But she didn't.
I'd imagine that somewhere along the way, she had been given the gift of good character and work ethic, too.

Others in life have never received that gift, and it is a shame.

But, as I mentioned before, what do you have in life that you were not given ?

krabby5

shack wrote:

I said I was through....:(

You are proving my point about no civil discussion of the issues. There are many that feel that internet gambling is stupid and wrong...their point of view has equal standing to those that feel different.(really)

Therein lies the problem, Shack...Because some religious zealots feel that poker is morally wrong, they attached the bill as a rider to a bill that dealt with port security. Or should I say, "snuck" it through? No discussions..Frist knew it would be political suicide to oppose this bill...no one in their right mind would vote against the port security bill..

So congrats Frist and the other moral policemen...you won ...democracy lost.

Their point of view does NOT have equal standing to those that feel different..you don't like internet gambling? THEN DON'T DO IT..whatever happened to that notion in this country?

ND13

krabby,

Conservatives and liberals, both, attach their agendas to bills that the opposing party NEED to pass, not just the conservatives. I'm sure that with a little research, one could find just as many or more riders have been attached to meaningful bills by bleeding heart liberals. The difference is, that when the libs do it, it USUALLY means I've got less money in my wallet.;)

cfrizz

Like everything else in life there is good & bad Shack, and sometimes it's hard to weed out the good from the bad. You would just stop it all together which would be just as bad!

You now know of 3 people who through no fault of their own, have/are receiving those handouts as you call them.

Would you deny my brother, Tommyboy's mother & HearingImpaired (Joe) the money that they need to help them survive?

Someday YOU may need that assistance yourself (because life is funny like that) & if it is stopped the way you would like you would have no one to blame but yourself.

So by all means, go **** to your state politicians just know that it's not going to do a bit of good & you will most likely always be outvoted as this last election proved!

There is a middle ground somewhere, & when all the extremist pull their heads out of their butts & come back to the middle with the rest of us we might actually get there!

shack wrote:

Actually, bitching about what we believe to be the right thing to do is exactly what needs to take place. We should be going to the polls and voting for those who we feel are doing the right things and then **** to them when they don't. Last time I checked this is a democracy and those are partly my tax dollars being spent so my voice and opinion is as valid as yours or anyone elses when it comes to who should get and what is a handout.

Unfortunately many politicians believe just as you have stated: I should gladly hand them my money, and keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself. They know what is best.:rolleyes:

shack

krabby5 wrote:

Therein lies the problem, Shack...Because some religious zealots feel that poker is morally wrong, they attached the bill as a rider to a bill that dealt with port security. Or should I say, "snuck" it through? No discussions..Frist knew it would be political suicide to oppose this bill...no one in their right mind would vote against the port security bill..

So congrats Frist and the other moral policemen...you won ...democracy lost.

Their point of view does NOT have equal standing to those that feel different..you don't like internet gambling? THEN DON'T DO IT..whatever happened to that notion in this country?

There are many who are not religious zealots who oppose internet gambling for a variety of reasons. Gambing has become a huge social issue and is getting worse. It can pose significant costs to society and internet gambling is difficult to regulate.

Everyone's POV should have equal standing in this country...just because you don't like it doesn't make it valid.

We have never been a society where anyone can do what they want, when they want and everyone else is required to just ignore those actions/activities. We are a society of law and regulations and everyone has rights based on those factors. I'm pretty sure internet gambling is not one of the inalienable rights Thomas Jefferson was referring to.

shack

First of all I have never used the term handout, I was responding to another post. I do have issues with many of the programs dealing with the social redistributing of wealth (the legal term is transfer payments). I have never had a problem with government assistance for those truely in need. The role of the government should be a safety net...not a lifestyle enhancer as it has become today.

You make a hell of a lot of assumtions about things I've never said. You have no idea of how much I give to charatable organizations and what I do to help those in need. I don't like the way my government spends my tax dollars. If I knew the transfer payments were only going to the truly needy then I would have little issues with the way it is handled. It's not. You know it, I know it.

Its obvious we are not going to agree. You feel you are middle of the road. Some may feel you are well to one side. As I said, you make a lot of assumtions about things I haven't said and things about me you know nothing about. All I have done in this thread is state my opinon and believe it or not, there are many that feel the same way. And finally, this election was not about economics (in fact many of the democrats elected are considered fiscally conservative - ie:low taxes). This election was about the war. Start hitting the Americans with higher taxes and see what happens next election. It WILL be about economics.

tonyb

Right on Shack,the next election will be about economics.We seemed to have lost track of what entitlements are for.First and foremost....our kids,our handicapped,our elderly.These three area's should come first in line for our tax dollars.And I believe most americans will agree.But sadly enough,they are last on the list.I would gladly open my wallet for any of those area's and say take what you need.Even more sad is the so called dumbing down of america.We have become...stupid,lazy,uninformed,uneducated.Willing to believe any crock of **** that our so called leaders feed us.Whats the answer? Wish I had one.Power needs to go back to the peoples vote,but trying to wrestle that power away from washington,once it's given,is feeble at best.You all bring up good points,But where is the candidates to try to cary them out? Zero.....

cfrizz

Look Shack, for the most part I agree with a lot of what you have said. But some of your's & others peoples statements came across as too broad which is what bent me out of shape!

There is NO way to ensure that our money goes to only those that are truly in need! The goverment does the best that it can, but naturally some are going to slip through the cracks!

It has gotten better with weeding out the lazy leeches that don't want to work, who now stand on every street corner with a cup in their hand. My answer to them is GET A JOB!

I never said this election was about economics, it was most definately about the war. It is about having been dragged too far off from the middle. It has been shown that the country can survive without being taxed to death both at the federal & the state level.

There are some ways of raising money IE taxes that would garner the country quite a bit of money but I know a good many of you would pitch a fit if ever enacted. Here is what I would do.

If you (including me) want to drink alcoholic beverages we pay a 30% tax for the priviledge. Smokers pay 50% Gamblers pay 50% whether through the internet or a brick & mortar casino! Whether owned by Indians or not!
Purchase a gun 50% tax for the right to do so.

It will be your choice as to whether or not you want to continue to do any of those things, it will all be legal, you just have to decide if it is worth the money it will cost you!

krabby5

shack wrote:

There are many who are not religious zealots who oppose internet gambling for a variety of reasons. Gambing has become a huge social issue and is getting worse. It can pose significant costs to society and internet gambling is difficult to regulate.

Everyone's POV should have equal standing in this country...just because you don't like it doesn't make it valid.

We have never been a society where anyone can do what they want, when they want and everyone else is required to just ignore those actions/activities. We are a society of law and regulations and everyone has rights based on those factors. I'm pretty sure internet gambling is not one of the inalienable rights Thomas Jefferson was referring to.

so we ban it...just like that?

that's not how America works

There will always be people who abuse alcohol, cigs, gambling, driving, eating, internet ****..

you really don't have a problem with this? I suppose you are one of those people who wants to ban violent video games, too?

wow...if this is the norm, this country is in real trouble

shack

krabby5 wrote:

There will always be people who abuse alcohol, cigs, gambling, driving, eating, internet ****..

And I'm tired of paying the price for thier bad choices. We've had these discussions several times in the past. In many cases, society ends up picking up the tab for the bad things that happen when there is abuse of stuff. Higher welfare costs, higher medical costs, higher insurance, higher financial costs, etc...etc...etc... But we keep getting the "it's their right to choose" argument all the while society gets to pick up the pieces.

cfrizz wrote:

The goverment does the best that it can..

No...the government does the best that it wants to...

cfrizz wrote:

I never said this election was about economics

We were discussing federal fiscal policy and this was your reply:

"So by all means, go **** to your state politicians just know that it's not going to do a bit of good & you will most likely always be outvoted as this last election proved!"

I took that to mean my stand of taxes, entitlement programs, spending, etc. was outvoted. I've never stated my position on the war so it could not have been that part of my philosophy that was outvoted. Just a natural assumtion on my part.

cfrizz wrote:

There are some ways of raising money IE taxes that would garner the country quite a bit of money but I know a good many of you would pitch a fit if ever enacted.

That is the fundimental difference between you and I. You are looking for ways to get more money into the federal government. I think they should make do with less.

cfrizz wrote:

If you (including me) want to drink alcoholic beverages we pay a 30% tax for the priviledge. Smokers pay 50% Gamblers pay 50% whether through the internet or a brick & mortar casino! Whether owned by Indians or not! Purchase a gun 50% tax for the right to do so.

Aha...Sin taxes. I could live with this...if the funds go to the needs of those who are somehow affected by the abuse of these activities. Then the burden of their support and care would be lifted from the rest of us. Of course that will never happen.

krabby5 might have issues with messing with the gambling.

I think I've stated my POV regarding the role of the Federal Government and fiscal policy. I am a conservative, white, middle aged, southern, religious, educated, sucessful male with a wife and 2 kids. I am the antithesis of everything most liberals thinks one should be. (Cathy, I rarely use a broad brush or generalize..but this one is valid) Be advised....there are a lot of us out there.

I always enjoy a good discussion of issues. Chances are...I have changed no one's mind...nor have they changed mine.

No matter, I'm out of any and all political threads for a while. Time to go **** to the politicos. See you in 2 years.

cfrizz

LOL! Ok Shack! For the record I am a middle aged black conservative liberal who has more in common with you than not. We both fall closer to the middle which is where the best place usually is.

This has been a very good discussion & we both made good points!

Good luck with the politicos! You will need it!

jdhdiggs

Shack and HI,

Thanks for stating things more elequantly than I.

I want to try and clarify some things for the others:

I have no issues helping to support those with no way to support themselves and I do think that the governments role is as a safety net only. Something that I would like to see is a law that limits who can vote. Felons can't vote, why can't we include something like "If you were on welfare for more than six weeks in any one year, you can't vote that year. If more than 6 months in any 5 year rolling period, you can't vote until you roll out of the 6 months on wlefare". It wouldn't be popular, but think in the logic of it, these people are a drain on society and its resources, why should they choose its direction?

In the end, I would rather see the role of government in this area provide a short term safety net and empowerment to better your position rather than providing you with everything you need so that you become dependant upon it.

hearingimpared

krabby5 wrote:

Therein lies the problem, Shack...Because some religious zealots feel that poker is morally wrong, they attached the bill as a rider to a bill that dealt with port security. Or should I say, "snuck" it through? No discussions..Frist knew it would be political suicide to oppose this bill...no one in their right mind would vote against the port security bill..

So congrats Frist and the other moral policemen...you won ...democracy lost.

Their point of view does NOT have equal standing to those that feel different..you don't like internet gambling? THEN DON'T DO IT..whatever happened to that notion in this country?

Gambling addiction like alcoholism and drug addiction is listed in the medical books as a disease. I know many who's lives have been completely destroyed by a gambling addiction. Do I think gambling should be banned? A resounding NO. Just like alcohol I think it should be controlled not banned. Just because 8 to 15% of the population become alcoholics doesn't mean that the 85 to 92% should have to do without. There needs to be controls on internet gambling. How that should be done, I don't have a clue, that is why I am not a politician.

Why do you think the "religious zealots" are the minority here? Why do a lot of people make religious people out to be evil. They believe what they believe, you believe what you believe. They don't want their flock exposed to gambling but you feel that because you like gambling, what they believe doesn't matter. Are you a gambling zealot or advocate?

I don't think that the majority of the population participates in internet gambling so if a democratic vote was taken on internet gambling, I think the majority of the population would vote it down, that is democracy winning not loosing as you put it. I have had extensive experience with gamblers and alcoholics who if you try to take their action or drink away from them, they get extremely defensive and irrational. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other who gambles and who doesn't. I don't gamble because I feel that it is just literally flushing money down a toilet. I never experienced that rush or whatever it is that gamblers get when they gamble. This really is a non-issue to me but if it came to a vote on controlling it I would be all for controlling it. I don't consider myself a religious zealot. . . I don't think it is a sin or anything like that, I just don't get gambling.:)

krabby5

hearingimpared wrote:

Gambling addiction like alcoholism and drug addiction is listed in the medical books as a disease. I know many who's lives have been completely destroyed by a gambling addiction. Do I think gambling should be banned? A resounding NO. Just like alcohol I think it should be controlled not banned. Just because 8 to 15% of the population become alcoholics doesn't mean that the 85 to 92% should have to do without. There needs to be controls on internet gambling. How that should be done, I don't have a clue, that is why I am not a politician.

Why do you think the "religious zealots" are the minority here? Why do a lot of people make religious people out to be evil. They believe what they believe, you believe what you believe. They don't want their flock exposed to gambling but you feel that because you like gambling, what they believe doesn't matter. Are you a gambling zealot or advocate?

I don't think that the majority of the population participates in internet gambling so if a democratic vote was taken on internet gambling, I think the majority of the population would vote it down, that is democracy winning not loosing as you put it. I have had extensive experience with gamblers and alcoholics who if you try to take their action or drink away from them, they get extremely defensive and irrational. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other who gambles and who doesn't. I don't gamble because I feel that it is just literally flushing money down a toilet. I never experienced that rush or whatever it is that gamblers get when they gamble. This really is a non-issue to me but if it came to a vote on controlling it I would be all for controlling it. I don't consider myself a religious zealot. . . I don't think it is a sin or anything like that, I just don't get gambling.:)

Let's get one thing straight...Poker isn't gambling...playing slot machines and roulette is gambling...

I really don't understand why I am even being argued against...you stated that since I don't agree with the religious zealots, then I am a gambling zealot? The difference is I'm NOT taking away priveleges from them...just because I don't like certain things, I NEVER feel things need to be banned...

I grew up going to a Catholic school and I don't agree with a LOT of things in that faith....but I don't go shoving my ideals down other people's throats when I disagree with them...I just mind my own business and accept the fact that we are all different....different strokes for different folks...

And I grew up in an alcoholic family...Do I think alcohol should be banned? Hell no...

and to be honest, I hardly EVER play interent poker...but to deny me the privelege of playing a $5 tournament is ludacris...I think there are MUCH more important things that need attention...

To say it's too hard to regulate is a cop-out.....Other countries have managed to do it and collect ample amounts of tax dollars...

Seriously...why the argument on this? I totally understand why some people or groups would be against poker...they consider it gambling....and even if it were pure gambling, why do you feel YOU can tell me what I can and can't do with my money in the privacy of my own house?

brettw22

krabby5 wrote:

Let's get one thing straight...Poker isn't gambling...playing slot machines and roulette is gambling...

you've got to be kidding.........

Frank Z

Aren't political threads taboo around here?

You kids will never learn.

Take your political viewpoints elsewhere on the web, or the street corner, we've had far to many threads turn ugly over politics.

krabby5

brettw22 wrote:

you've got to be kidding.........

so you think professional poker players are just really lucky? LOL:rolleyes:

MSALLA

krabby5 wrote:

so you think professional poker players are just really lucky? LOL:rolleyes:

They can read poeples expressions and movements to gain an edge. But don't kid yourself, it's still a gamble. An educated guess is still a guess.

hearingimpared

krabby5 wrote:

Let's get one thing straight...Poker isn't gambling...playing slot machines and roulette is gambling...

I know you are not serious with that statement. If you are you are definetely in a state of denial.

krabby5 wrote:

I really don't understand why I am even being argued against...you stated that since I don't agree with the religious zealots, then I am a gambling zealot? The difference is I'm NOT taking away priveleges from them...just because I don't like certain things, I NEVER feel things need to be banned...

I never said you were a gambling zealot, I asked if you were based on a statement you made about "religious zeolots". I never said internet gambling should be banned, I said IMO it should be controlled.

krabby5 wrote:

And I grew up in an alcoholic family...Do I think alcohol should be banned? Hell no...

If you grew up in a alcoholic family then you know the devistating effect addiction, of any kind, can have on a family. You should also know, living in an alcoholic family, that addiction is the majority of the time passed onto the children in that family. I'm speaking from vast experience here and am not trying to "TAKE" anything from you. I just gave my opinion on internet gambling. Poker is gambling. Anything where money is wagered on an unknown outcome is gambling.

Edit: When you buy stock on the stock market, it is a gamble. Some people loose everything they have on the stock market. The stock market is controlled.

krabby5

I guess I should rephrase....

Of course poker has luck to it...but in the long run, the best players will ALWAYS win...there is an edge...you aren't playing against the house, yer playing against other players...there are a lot of people who make a lot of money online...

I can see the other side though...In the end, the best players will win, but that also means that most other players will lose...which creates the gambling problems..

I agree...I wish they would regulate it...it could generate rediculous amounts of tax revenue..

Like I said, I really don't play all that much..so, either way, this doesn't affect me all that much..it just bothers me when things start getting banned.