The Dumb Masses Love Surprises

[heironymouspasparagus]

Attack the successful??  How is that?

[nathanm]

From what you said, your fear keeps you there.  As master Yoda said "Fear is the path to the dark side."

It's not fear, my friend. It's compassion.

[heironymouspasparagus]

From Red Arrow;   So if you have anything to leave to your kids you would advocate that the government dictate that someone else gets first shot?  I'll agree that some offspring don't deserve what they get but to tell someone who/what they can leave the fruit of their labor to is just wrong in my opinion.


Not at all.  Read it again and I will add some details here.  Leave inheritance like it is now.  The heirs get to keep up to a few million tax free - just like now.  Above that, the estate is taxed just like now.  Or maybe even raise it to 70 to 75%.  Taxes actually DO put the money back into circulation in the economy, no matter what the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch crew want you to believe.  It just isn't as efficient as other means, but hey...what the heck.  Got a better idea?  I guarantee you that Paris never made much of a contribution at job creation beyond paparazzi.

If however, the choice is made to sell to the company to itself, meaning the people who work there (Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP). the proceeds get a VERY beneficial tax treatment; treat like ordinary capital gains at 15%.  Beats the 55% of inheritance over $3million (??) in many cases. 

Family farm is exempted from that.  But since there are so few family farms left, that won't hurt tax receipts very much.

And a step further.  As far as being able to 'give it to the kids', well I listen to O'Reilly occasionally and one of his biggest rants (and a theme in great abundance here) is that "people don't deserve what they didn't earn".  I couldn't agree more.  What do you suppose Paris did to deserve what she has??  I submit very little.

I also submit the vast majority of the people who DID contribute to that pile of money ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET WHAT THEY DID EARN from the efforts to assemble that pile of money.  So where is the benefit to those who did deserve what was earned, but didn't get?

But then, this makes sense, so will never see anything remotely similar in reality.

And we get little glimpses from time to time of how this directly works in Tulsa with local companies built by talented, enthusiastic, hard working people who then get hosed or are likely to be hosed soon by the acts of the second or third generation.  Sometimes this is just pure greed and lack of appreciation for the contribution of the people in the effort.  Sometimes it is just lack of the spark that drives the founders generation.

Want some examples??  Answer me this; what is going to happen to the good, hard-working people of some of the list from the original note? 
Arrow Trucking screwed by Pielsticker.  (Is the woman designer in town his wife?)
Bed Check - well meaning heirs that just couldn't make it go, so sold to Stanley Tools, so can be shipped to China.
Oil Dynamics - sold by Franklin to get Bill some cash after that company had paid off a PILE of debt for him.
FW Murphy - just sold to Texas.  Already have been laying off.  Will that accelerate??

There are many more.  Maybe you know some of them?

[Red Arrow]

From Red Arrow;   So if you have anything to leave to your kids you would advocate that the government dictate that someone else gets first shot?  I'll agree that some offspring don't deserve what they get but to tell someone who/what they can leave the fruit of their labor to is just wrong in my opinion.


Not at all.  Read it again and I will add some details here.  Leave inheritance like it is now.  The heirs get to keep up to a few million tax free - just like now.  Above that, the estate is taxed just like now.  Or maybe even raise it to 70 to 75%.  Taxes actually DO put the money back into circulation in the economy, no matter what the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch crew want you to believe.  It just isn't as efficient as other means, but hey...what the heck.  Got a better idea?  I guarantee you that Paris never made much of a contribution at job creation beyond paparazzi.

If however, the choice is made to sell to the company to itself, meaning the people who work there (Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP). the proceeds get a VERY beneficial tax treatment; treat like ordinary capital gains at 15%.  Beats the 55% of inheritance over $3million (??) in many cases.  

Family farm is exempted from that.  But since there are so few family farms left, that won't hurt tax receipts very much.

And a step further.  As far as being able to 'give it to the kids', well I listen to O'Reilly occasionally and one of his biggest rants (and a theme in great abundance here) is that "people don't deserve what they didn't earn".  I couldn't agree more.  What do you suppose Paris did to deserve what she has??  I submit very little.

I also submit the vast majority of the people who DID contribute to that pile of money ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET WHAT THEY DID EARN from the efforts to assemble that pile of money.  So where is the benefit to those who did deserve what was earned, but didn't get?

But then, this makes sense, so will never see anything remotely similar in reality.

And we get little glimpses from time to time of how this directly works in Tulsa with local companies built by talented, enthusiastic, hard working people who then get hosed or are likely to be hosed soon by the acts of the second or third generation.  Sometimes this is just pure greed and lack of appreciation for the contribution of the people in the effort.  Sometimes it is just lack of the spark that drives the founders generation.

Want some examples??  Answer me this; what is going to happen to the good, hard-working people of some of the list from the original note?  
Arrow Trucking screwed by Pielsticker.  (Is the woman designer in town his wife?)
Bed Check - well meaning heirs that just couldn't make it go, so sold to Stanley Tools, so can be shipped to China.
Oil Dynamics - sold by Franklin to get Bill some cash after that company had paid off a PILE of debt for him.
FW Murphy - just sold to Texas.  Already have been laying off.  Will that accelerate??

There are many more.  Maybe you know some of them?

I know of at least one company (where I used to work) that the kids were involved in the company on a daily basis and deserve a chance to get the company at minimal cost to continue the business.  The founder had to move out of state to prove he was not involved in the daily transactions of the company to satisfy the IRS.  You and I will probably have to disagree but I think that is just WRONG!

What is so different from a family farm than a family business?

Edit: you put so many frickin returns that my response showed up in the quote of your message.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, I cut and pasted to show your quote.  I haven't spent enough time here to figure out how to highlight the quote.  Usually heavily multi-tasking when online and just haven't bothered yet.  Guess it would help with clarification, huh?

[Gaspar]

I'm not hankering for the old days, but I get the distinct sense that Gassy is talking about the halcyon days of 1873 when he's pontificating about the free market.  And that's what I'm getting at:  the way he thinks we should run our country isn't possibly unless there's a rip in the space time continuum and we all are flashed back to Dodge City during the cattle drives.

And hey, I'm the liberal here.  I'm all ABOUT looking forward.

Why on earth would you believe that Liberalism has anything to do with "looking forward?"  Liberalism used to be about the expansion of rights and equality, a noble goal.  As our system evolved so did liberal philosophy.  Liberals of the past (and those that still exist) encouraged education and outreach to elevate people of all races and philosophies. 

Today's liberals use the force of government as hatchet and saw to level society.  Anyone who progresses, innovates, or succeeds is target.  "Liberal" in today's terms relates more to the liberal application of controls, limits, regulations, tariffs, taxes, penalties, litigation, entitlement, and government general.  Each liberal program is designed to provide for those with less by taking from those with more.  This is done in the name of compassion.

It has nothing to do with looking forward, because the programs and initiatives have a higher cost than profit. There is nothing sustainable within liberalism.  There has never been a single program created by liberals that has been sustainable, and few have been marginally successful.

It brings about the worst aspects of human nature.  Once the dependents learn that they can increase their entitlement through vote, they do.  They progressively vote themselves into deeper servitude in the name of "fairness": 

I want more money because, these people have more.   I want better healthcare, because these people have it.  I don't want to be responsible for my debt.  I want higher taxes, but not for me, for them.  I want to be as successful as everyone else, but I don't want to work as hard, think as hard, or take any risks.  I want to save the environment, but not by making personal sacrifices.  I want everything, and given my choice between WORK, INNOVATION, & FORCE I choose FORCE.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. – Norman Thomas

[rwarn17588]

It brings about the worst aspects of human nature.  Once the dependents learn that they can increase their entitlement through vote, they do.  They progressively vote themselves into deeper servitude in the name of "fairness": 

So what's your definition of "entitlements"?

Is it roads? Water systems? Sanitary systems? Fire departments? Dams? Public schools and universities? Financial aid for college students?

By any definition, these are socialist programs. Many would deny this, but there's little doubt they are. Are you willing to get rid of these?

Or are entitlements, to you, simply things that you don't like?

I strongly suspect that libertarians would loathe to truly have a libertarian style of government if it were foisted upon them. If you want a system where might rules and freedom is unfettered, I think Somalia would fit the bill. And nobody wants their country to be like Somalia.

There are checks and balances to freedom. Without social justice and order, freedom comes nothing more than anarchy.

[we vs us]

Wow, Gassy.  You're a loon.

[Gaspar]

So what's your definition of "entitlements"?

Is it roads? Water systems? Sanitary systems? Fire departments? Dams? Public schools and universities? Financial aid for college students?

By any definition, these are socialist programs. Many would deny this, but there's little doubt they are. Are you willing to get rid of these?

Or are entitlements, to you, simply things that you don't like?

I strongly suspect that libertarians would loathe to truly have a libertarian style of government if it were foisted upon them. If you want a system where might rules and freedom is unfettered, I think Somalia would fit the bill. And nobody wants their country to be like Somalia.

There are checks and balances to freedom. Without social justice and order, freedom comes nothing more than anarchy.

Infrastructure and entitlements are very different, but I get a kick out of your inferences.

You bring up a good point for discussion . . . the ROLE of government.  Where does investment and infrastructure end and entitlement begin?

Infrastructure provides for commerce, safeguards the people, and encourages growth and prosperity.  Investment creates a return. 

Entitlement is the opposite.  It shifts responsibility from the individual to the state, stagnates growth, and encourages deeper dependence.  Entitlement creates debt.

[Gaspar]

Wow, Gassy.  You're a loon.

That's like Al Gore calling me a nut job. 

I can't help but say thank you.

[Red Arrow]

No, I cut and pasted to show your quote.  I haven't spent enough time here to figure out how to highlight the quote.  Usually heavily multi-tasking when online and just haven't bothered yet.  Guess it would help with clarification, huh?
Extra Line 1
Extra Line 2
Extra Line 3
Extra Line 4

When I quoted you (by using the quote button) and then scrolled to the bottom of your text, the "/quote"  command was still off the bottom of the reply area.  You probably held the enter/return key down long enough to get a lot of extra blank lines.  My response showed up in the highlighted quote area and appeared to be part of your response.  I probably fixed it before you saw it.  I generally state what I edited when I modify a post.

[rwarn17588]

Infrastructure and entitlements are very different, but I get a kick out of your inferences.

You bring up a good point for discussion . . . the ROLE of government.  Where does investment and infrastructure end and entitlement begin?

Infrastructure provides for commerce, safeguards the people, and encourages growth and prosperity.  Investment creates a return. 

Entitlement is the opposite.  It shifts responsibility from the individual to the state, stagnates growth, and encourages deeper dependence.  Entitlement creates debt.

So what are specific examples of entitlement, then?

Based on the examples I gave above, you seem to have no problems with any of them.

[Conan71]

So what are specific examples of entitlement, then?

Based on the examples I gave above, you seem to have no problems with any of them.

I realize the question was not asked of me but I think you are pulling our leg now.

I don't know of anyone who has a problem with government providing infrastructure, public safety, and national security.  Please don't tell me you don't know the difference between infrastructure and an entitlement.

Some entitlement programs by definition would be:

Welfare
Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
Food stamps
Unemployment benefits
Social Security

An entitlement would be a benefit specifically targeted for an individual not for common use or benefit by all.  Did you really need someone to spell that out for you?

[rwarn17588]

I realize the question was not asked of me but I think you are pulling our leg now.

I want to hear what he says. One person's infrastructure might be another's entitlement.

[Gaspar]

I want to hear what he says. One person's infrastructure might be another's entitlement.

Conan is spot on. . .

Welfare
Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
Food stamps
Unemployment benefits
Social Security

I would probably want to add a myriad of thousands of other programs both on the federal and state level, but those are the biggies.  The drill down is really amazing when you dig in. 

AFDC                           
Food Stamps                   
Supplemental Security Income   
Lower income housing asst.     
Earned Income Tax Credit       
Veterans medical care           
Stafford loans                 
Social Services (Title 20)                         
Low-rent public housing                                 
School Lunch                   
Pensions for needy veterans                 
Head Start                     
Food supplements, Women, infants and children
Training for disadvantaged youth and adults           
Low-income energy assistance   
Rural housing loans             
Indian Health Services           
Summer youth employment         
Maternal and child health       
JOBS and WIN                   
Job Corps                         
Child care block grant           
School Breakfast                 
Child care for AFDC                 
Housing interest reduction       
Child and adult care food program
"At risk" child care