Quote Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood View Post
Right. I'm saying that that system doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense that the people who pay much, much more in proportion to everybody else receive slightly more back?

No, of course it doesn't. They should get much, much more back, because they're paying much, much more. Did you read the little story, or did you just skip over it because it didn't fit your argument and you couldn't come up with anything against it?

They can afford to pay higher taxes, so why are they getting such large cutbacks?
Honestly, is your argument, "they can afford it, so they should be forced to pay more, despite the fact that they earned their money"? Seriously?

It should be alright to rape a woman if she's been with more than fifteen sexual partners. Hey, it won't hurt her as much as it would a virgin -- she can afford it.

It should also be alright to key cars that already have bad paint jobs, or run into cars that already have dents. They're not pretty anyway, who'll notice? They can afford it.

And why not make it alright to kill people in overpopulated areas? I mean hey, it's for the "common good", and since they're overpopulated anyway, they can afford it, right?

When their cutbacks are as big as they are, who do you think picks up the tab? They split it up and raise taxes on the middle class.
There is no "tab". They're already paying proportionally more than everybody else. I'm really not sure why you don't understand this incredibly simple concept.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being rich. What I have a problem with are these politicians and big business associates who get rich by purging money from other people. Yes, they get rich off of their work, but their work includes purging money, which makes them a disgrace.
And just who do you label as people that "get rich by purging money from other people"?

The only thing in the mail I've gotten recently was an overly priced hospital bill that my health insurance only paid 80% on, leaving me with a pretty large debt to fill. Any money that I may be getting from the government is going to filling this ridiculous hole. Apparently I'm not getting enough.
Then go get a job. It's not the government's (read: other taxpayers') responsibility to support you, it's your own.

And they get cutbacks because since they pay more taxes because they have more money. This proves exactly what I was saying about widening the gap between rich and poor.
Letting "the rich" keep some of their own money while still charging them an extremely disproportionate percentage doesn't widen any gaps.

Rich people get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. The so-called "gap" is widening because the poor (some) insist on relying on the government to steal from the successful to give to them, instead of doing it for themselves. But then, if they were the type to rely on themselves, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

You're saying the boys in the senate are lower class? I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about politicians.
If you want to put it that way, then the people (politicians) who are for OR against it are all upper-class. The same with people (politicians) who are for or against ANY bill.

The fact remains that the majority of the populace is against Obama's healthcare plan.

I find it very disrespectful that just because my family is middle class, that that automatically gives you the right to assume that my family isn't hard working.
If they're middle class, you have nothing to bitch about. So stop bitching. If they wanted to be upper-class, they could work smarter, harder, or longer. If they were satisfied where they were, financially, good for them -- it's because of themselves that they have the money they have, whether it's a lot or a little.

I don't give a shit if I'm rich or not. That's not what life is about. I do, however, get stressed out if I have literally a negative amount of money in the bank.
So you blame that on Bush.

It can't be my fault that I have no money, it just can't! I mean, even though I choose to work when and where and how I work and choose to spend my money the way I spend it, being broke isn't my fault at all? I know, it must be Bush's fault!

All the problems that my family began having with finances began when Bush was in office, so of course I blame him. He was in charge.
George Walker Bush was in charge of your family's budget? Damn, he never stopped by to balance my checkbook ...

He was supposed to take care of us.
It's not the government's job to take care of your family.

Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.
You win the quote of the year, kid. Congratulations.

Again, you insist on insulting my intelligence. I'm not an idiot.
When did I insult you? When did I call you an idiot?

I gave my own personal opinion, and you combated that with petty insults.
What "petty insults"? You believe in a foolish conspiracy theory. I simply listed a few other foolish conspiracy theories. If you're insulted by the idea that you buy into some conspiracy theories but not others, that's on you, not me.

Tell you what -- I'll bite. You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

It is population control. You're not thinking things through. It costs more to die than it does to live. By allowing sick people to die, the states make more money.
It costs who more to die than it does to live? Anybody with a chronic illness could tell you that living with it takes quite the financial toll.

You claim that the cures aren't released for purposes of population control, but fail to address the myriad treatments and medicines that actually do exist that prolong the lives of people with AIDS and cancer. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper -- and control more of the population in a more efficient manner -- to produce medicines that don't prolong their lives, but simply make them more comfortable on their way to death? After all, they somehow make more money from dead people than they do from live people, right?

That's just your opinion. You may be an egomaniac and believe that you're always right, but that doesn't mean you are.
Then prove me wrong. I've been waiting.

You did insult my intelligence, because if you didn't, then I wouldn't feel like you were insulting my intelligence. Duh.
There's a difference in being insulted and feeling insulted, kid. You can whine that your feelings got hurt all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually were insulted.

So you're a troll then. Hmm, good to know. I already didn't take you seriously.
Of course you didn't take me seriously -- I disagree with you, so naturally, that makes me wrong, doesn't it?

Like I said, he already knew he was getting laid off. He couldn't afford to waste the gas money going to work to get fired. He figured he'd just get fired at home.
He wasn't going to get fired, he was going to get laid off. There's a difference. When you get a job, you might learn this.

It wasn't his decision to leave his job.
He decided to stay home and get fired. Hate to break it to you kid, but that's a decision.

We aren't lower middle class. However, we have very little money, considering that we own two houses. It wouldn't be a problem, but my grandparents live in the second house. We can't just kick them out on the street. We have moral values, after all, and one of those moral values is protecting the family.
If you value the financial protection of your family that much, form a decent budget. Have your grandparents move in with you and sell the other house, or put them in a home, or have the rest of the family share the expenses. Paying for your grandparents' house is not a necessity -- and it certainly isn't a reason to suck money from other taxpayers.

It's not my fault. I'm not the one who ****ed up the economy.
And Bush did? I'd like to hear this. There was a recession before Bush even stepped into office, and eight months into his Presidency, he was hit with the worst terrorist attack in history in one of the prime financial centers of the world. But I suppose that's his fault too, isn't it? Or are you picky about the conspiracy theories you buy into?

Why do you think I keep blaming Washington? It's their fault. Not mine.
Of course it's not your fault. Damn ol' Washington wants to make sure you don't get an education so you'll get paid more, or get more hours, or get a more demanding job.

And for you to blame me for my financial failures is very arrogant. I've been applying for jobs every day for the past ten months. I've been doing what I have to do to get a job, and yet I haven't gotten a single call back. Not one phone call, not one interview.
Do you seriously mean to tell me that you've submitted over three hundred applications and never even received a phone call back?

I'm not at fault for any of that.
No, of course it's not your fault. I mean, you don't meet the qualifications of what employers are looking for, but that's not your fault, right? You've gotten all the education you can, you've gotten all the labor training you can, you know how to do every job in America (or at least more than three hundred of them), you've suggested working any and every shift you can doing the most demanding, demeaning, and disgusting jobs you can, and nobody wants you. It's all Bush's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.
I just can't get enough of that. Wow.