Impeach BushFollow

deleted so I can log on as Elne and not put have Jonwin post my liberal rants.



Edited, Sat Apr 15 02:08:09 2006 by Jonwin

You don't have to be priviledged to invest money instead of spending it. You simply have to choose to live on less then you earn. A concept most people don't get, and the reason why most people never become wealthy.



Funny that you say that to someone who grew up with barely enough food to eat most of the time and who got most of his clothes from Goodwill, who could not afford college, does not currently hold a degree, yet managed to land a good paying job, owns a 350k home, and has an investment portfolio worth a bit over a million dollars.

Anyone can do it. I certainly recieved zero benefits in my life, and I did.



I subsisted for 8 years earning just barely over minimum wage before I got my break with an entry level career job. I didn't own a single credit card. I simply didn't spend more then I had. It's not easy, but it's very possible. I did live off my comic book collection for a couple months once, and lived out of my car for a time as well, but I did it.



That's a great incentive to get a better paying job. Of course, maybe if we didn't demonize corporations, there'd be more chances for jobs that provide health coverage. Strange that Liberals are all in favor of small businessses which overwhelmingly do *not* provide health care, but opposed to corporations which overwhelmingly do. You'd think that they wanted most workers to be without health care. I wonder why that is?.

Could it be because the agenda of Social Liberalism (Liberals) is to make as may people reliant on the government for health care as possible? I think so...



Don't you get it? This is the state that people like Smash want you to be in. "Saving for retirement" is an accumulation of wealth. You invest it into a mutual fund (what did you think a 401k was?), and earn capital gains off that invewstment over time. Of course, not only does Smash not want you to save your money for the future in this way, he wants to punish you if you do by raising capital gains so you have less money when you do finally retire. I wonder why that is?

Could it be because Social Liberalists have an agenda to make as many people as possible reliant on the government for their retirement? I think so...



Don't have children until you can afford to support them. I'd go on a rant about how it's a social liberalist agenda to destigmatize casual sex and single parenthood, and provide incentives for both because they know that the more children born to single parents who can't afford to raise them, then the more people reliant on the government for income assistance (and a whole generation raised at the trough of federal entitlement), but that might be a bit obvious at this point.

I wonder why that is?



Everyone has this option. You made a succession of choices that lead you to where you are right now. You chose which jobs to take. You chose how hard to work. You chose whether to develop marketable skills. You chose whether to stay at a crappy job or move on. You chose where to live. You chose whether to spend that bit of extra money on a TV or phone, or put it away for something more important.

You are correct. People don't choose to be poor. But they do make the majority of choices that result in them being poor. Your argument reminds me incredibly of a conversation I once had with the local town drunk (long graveyard shifts back in the day). He insisted that there was nothing he could do about being drunk. He hated being a drunk. He hated the headaches. He hated the way he felt. He hated everything about it. But when I suggested that he simply check himself into any of a number of free programs available, he insisted that he couldn't do it. It was "impossible" for him to not be a drunk. So he wallowed in his own self pity at the impossible situation he was in. And he's probably still there today (assuming he hasn't died yet).

We all make choices every single day. They all count. Anyone who says that have no choice but to be poor has chosen to be poor. I'm not saying that everyone will succeed. There are no guarantees. But to say that it's impossible to succeed? Or that the only way to succeed is to already be succeesful? That's just total defeatist BS. Of course, if I was a adherent to social liberalism, and I wanted people to be poor, I'd work hard to convince them that they had no chance to succeed so as to prevent them from even trying... But that would be obvious, wouldn't it?



You aren't getting it. After a dozen posts by me on the subject of what wealth is, you still think that wealth is about how many physical luxuries you have, or what level of health care you get, or how nice of a home you live in.

Look. You could tax every single penny that the "wealthy" earn, leaving them only with modest salaries to live on. You could spend every penny you took providing health care, and free housing, and free education, and free TV and free cars and public transportation, and free playstations and internet access to the poor, and at the end of the day, they'll all still be poor. They'll just be poor people living in a nicer ghetto.

Providing those things will *not* end the cycle of poverty. It will make it worse. Because the cost for those things is loss of opportunity. Does free houring, education and medical care make the Muslim minority in France feel less poor? No? Why is that? Because the cost is double digit unemployment which hits minority groups hardest. And they get *crappy* free homes and medical care for that loss.

It's not just a zero sum equation, it's a negative sum equation. Not only do you loss job opportunties when you tax the money away to pay for benefits for the masses, but you *also* stiffle future economic growth, meaning that the relative cost gets *worse* over time.




Ok. Now you've switched (correctly) to identifying that the means to economic advancement is the ability to accumulate wealth. Except you've got the cause wrong. It's the tax structures that punish accumulation of wealth that make it harder for working class people to accumulate wealth (should be obvious, but just in case...). It's the same whether you are working class or ultra rich.

We've come full circle. This is where I started (more or less). What I'm saying is that what you are told by Democrats and what their real agenda is are totally different things (or at least very misleading). When they say that want to increase taxes on the top X% of income earners by Y%, what they *really* mean is that they want to raise capital gains taxes by Y% (or some function thereof). Which also raises that rate for you when you want to retire on your 401k. And also raises the rate paid by bnaks on loans they give out, meaning higher interest payments for car, home, and business loans. There are a host of other detrimental economic effects as well, but those are the most obvious and direct.

Don't trust me though. Go look up capital gains and read for yourself how it works.



Again. Everyone can do this if they try hard enough. Get roomates. Share expenses. You'd be amazed how easy it is to live off even minium wage and still save some cash over time. Spending habits are just that: Habits. You form them over time and then you can't seem to break them. For most people, it's a gradual process because their incomes tend to grow very gradually over their lifetime. At some point they were able to live off 15k a year. At some other point, they survived on 25k. Still later, they got by with 35k. And now that they make 50k, they still "barely get by". I see this all the time. People automatically raise their expenses to meet their income. It's a natural habit. And it's what prevents most people from ever becoming wealthy. They simply can't put that money away. And it doesn't matter if they make 20k, or 200k.

It doesn't take luck. Getting a really good job can certainly take some luck (but mostly skill). But being able to save money and invest it instead of spending it has *nothing* to do with luck and everything to do with self control.

" I'm glad you provided such a good laugh in the opening paragraph, cause there was NO WAY I was going to read the rest of that. "




Too bad, because it's sound advice really. ING offers a very simple online savings account that can be opened with as little as 50 dollars and is paying currently 5%. No service charges ever. Plus they also will set up a direct deposit on a schedule anyone can live with. There are tons of ways to increase your wealth. Sadly, there are no easy ways to remove the jealousy and envy exhibited toward those savvy enough to think ahead by those who are unable to.

You know, it might be the wine, but scrolling over another Smasharoo/Gbaji tag game makes me all warm and gooey in my otherwise hollow chest cavity.


Nah. It's the wine.

Um. Excuse me? Please point out where I contradicted myself in anyway.

My argument is simple and in three parts:

1. Wealth is simply the accumulation of money over time that you earn but *don't* spend. Over time, assuming you invest this instead of just sticking it under a matress or something else silly, that wealth will grow. Anyone can do it.

2. People who have done this and are successful because of it are *not* evil. They aren't stealing from you. They just made better choices. They could have spent that money on stuff for themselves at anytime, but chose not to. They shouldn't be demonized for doing that.

3. Increasing taxes on those investments does not ultimately hurt the ultra rich. What it does do is make it take longer for the working class to accumulate enough to live on. Additionally, it increases interest rates for any sort of loan (typically the first start for working class folks to get ahead), reduces employment opportunities and advancement, and slows down the economy in general (hurting everyone).


Dunno. Seems pretty consistent and logical. But if you can see a flaw, feel welcome to point it out...

Did Gbaji just flame someone? Never in reading that windbag's posts did I ever read him even so much as mention another poster, much less flame(In the smallest sense of the word) them.

BTW, once bush hits the 30 percent mark in his approval ratings, you will see a concerted effort to impeach his butt. thats the point politicians feel brave enough to stick their political necks out.

and this CIA leak thing is probably the last straw. people are not going to buy "it was his right" crap. right or no right, he stood up in front of America and not only denied his addministraition had anything to do with it, but championed the investigation into discovering who did...........all the while knowing it stared with him.

his credability right now is ZERO. even repubs are starting to distance themselves from him, like rats from a sinking ship.

lies, divulging classified information for the sole purpose of political payback thus destroying the very integrity of our government, torture, atacking a defenseles country WITHOUT clear cause to do so, allienating this country from some of our closest allies, like Spain, violating international treaties this country signed in good faith.

OMG, how much more will it take?

Evil is as Evil does.

The approval polls mean nothing, much like any other set of statistics, they can and frequently are manipulated. As to the "CIA leaks", you might want to read more about this issue, it is a lot deeper and more complicated than it first might appear.

Gawd...it really amazes me how people think one candidate is so much better than another..

Shadow, seriously, dude...do you have ANY idea how 1) hysterical and 2) ignorant you come off in these posts of yours.

You are NOT doing the liberal cause any favors. In fact, you're one the ones that gives it a bad name.

Quit while you're ahead. Seriously.

Gbaji, you're a complete and total blowhard.

That is all.

It's like this, "Poor" people like to whine and complain about "rich" people. It's a give and take relationship. The rich people keep the economy moving by investing in businesses (including the bank that just loaned the "poor" person the money to buy his brand new house) and the "poor" people keep the economy moving by making the products the "rich" people invested in.

As far as personal wealth growth, I started as a military brat (and a brat of an enlisted man at that). So needless to say we weren't rolling in money. Today, I have an income of six figures and well as a net worth of the upper six figures (for you people out there that can't figure that out, it means I don't have alot of debt. If you have a six figure income and a seven figure debt, you have a negative net worth.) How did I get it? I didn't inherit it, I busted my butt and made many sacrafices to get to where I am today. Do I think I should be taxed more that the man that claimed 25,000 gross on his taxes? Sure! Do I think I should be taxed at a higher precentage? No. Like I said eairlier, I busted my but to earn this money and should get to keep just (percentage wise) as much as the man who earned 25,000

As for impeaching Bush, show me a law that he as broken and I'll join the band wagon. Until then, I suggest that you think for yourself and stop just reading the liberal talking points.

I think there are good points in some of the posts. I understand what everyone is saying. It comes down to where one grows up and the mentality that come with the household that they live in.

Example: If I grew up with parents that owned their own businesses and were knowledgable about finances, they would pass it on to me. I would more likely make good decision about getting student loans to go to school, taxes, saving money etc..to secure my future. They see successful people and believe that is is attainable for themselves.

But, if I live in a poor area the mentality that comes with that is sometimes, they feel as though they will never get out of that poverty circle. Their parents or any adult in their life may not have as much knowlegde about getting out of that situation, so they feel "trapped" and the vicious cycle continues. Yes, the government is partly responsible, but personal responsibilty has to be included(when you get to a certain age). Some people make it out, and some don't. If more disadvantaged kids had the knowledge I believe that the success rate of poor people would increase.

If a person has the drive and ambition they can achieve anything, no matter where you come from, social status or how much money you have. The information is there, it depends on how willing you are to get out and find it and put it to use. I am not rich by no means. I learned the hard way about saving money, what credit was, loans, taxes, etc..All that was never explained to me, all I was told was "dont get a credit card". So I made my mistakes and I am learning from them. I am going to work my *** off to achieve my goals/dreams.



Edited, Mon Apr 17 18:23:00 2006 by kalaria

Yes my friend, while Federally insured, most banks are still privately funded.