Answer to my Direct Deposit questiongreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
This response is to A@AisA:
You responded to my direct deposit question by assuming that I need it because I am "cutting it close to the line" - that is not the reason, I asked about it because I am interested in convenience. If direct deposit is going to cause more problems than it's worth, then I don't need it. Oh, and I disagree with your disarmment theory - I don't think that we have been disarmed by the government - I think that there are too many guns floating around anyway. The reason there are so many "gangbanger hoodlums, muggers and burglars" around is because our society ignores its poor. And what about the white collar criminals who are mugging their companies? Just food for thought....but thanks for responding to my question. And thanks to everyone else for their responses!
-- Tina Jay (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 1999
We are being diasarmed by the government. New laws are being passed to take guns out of our hands, and when that happens, only the government will have them. Your reasoning for gangbangers, hoodlums, muggers and burgulars is because we ignore the poor is pure BS! We have welfare handouts such as free housing, free medical, food stamps, all paid for by you and me! The problem is the legal system is not tough on the scum. It's easy to commit a crime and get slapped on the hand for it. The poor are poor because they are too lazy to get up off their butt and make something out of themselves. And furthermore they keep breeding generation after generation of welfare children. I hope Y2K is a disaster because it will take care of a multitude of problems when the dust finally settles.
-- justmy02 (email@example.com), July 21, 1999.
Miz Jay I hope that you decide to use direct deposit. And also,why don't you put a "this house hold does not own a gun" sign up in your window.
My dear Lady...Just because the second amendment to the constitution is such an inconvience to you. Does not mean that it is to others. I EARNED the right to consider that all the amendments ARE equally to be observed, and protected against all enemies both foriegn and domestic.
As to your pitiful observations concerning the gang bangers and dope dealers. Dear Lady you are so confused as to be pathetic. I nor any one owe them one thing other than a chance for an education (which we all pay for dearly with our tax money...And receive in return graduates who cannot read, nor follow directions.Nor have any inate concept that there is a socially rekonized form of law and civility).
You my dear young lady, are clearly a liberal bleeding heart.And to be pitied for we live in a real world, one which you have not met face to face with yet. But God forbid, you will be introduced to with-in a few short months. And those poor, pitiful put up on gang bangers and their ilk will laugh with insane glee as you try and reason with them. And you will wish dearly then dear lady, that you would have had one of those horrible instruments that you spurned so imperiously this evening.
-- Shakey (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 1999.
To all my naysayers: I do not need your pity! My views/opinions are just that - mine! I do not believe that I am living in a fantasy world and I, if anyone, have experienced what I am sure most view as the "real world." We spend under 100 billion in all social programs combined - guess who's the real money grubbers here? Corporate and rich America - they receive hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidaries - these are the people who deserve your scathing and pitying comments, not the poor (who by the way, are taxed more than any other group). The rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer...
-- Tina Jay (email@example.com), July 21, 1999.
"I hope y2k is a disaster...".
I hope you didn't really mean that. If so, you've joined the frustrated sickies. Have fun listening to the short wave reporting millions of deaths while hoping your dream world will come true.
-- Carlos (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 1999.
JustMy02 and Shakey: Thanks for covering for me.
Tina Jay: Even less than $100 billion for "social" programs (income resdistribution through government extortion) is whatever too much.
There aren't too many guns around. The real problem is, they are not used nearly enough by the average person. And the reason for that is, the government. You are maybe even more at risk from being shot by a pig (government hoodlum) than a private thug, should you decide to regain your responsibility for your own life from the government.
BTW, the BILL OR RIGHTS, including the 2nd, so hated by all pussies, wusses, and bleeding hearts, is a PACKAGE DEAL. ALL 10 were required to get the states to sign the Constitution. You pussy liberals are just frickin' stupid and/or ignorant. Your sorry butt won't last 5 minutes if TSHTF.
Just keep looking for that convenience and help from the government and central banking system, and sleep...sleep...sleep.
-- A (A@AisA.com), July 21, 1999.
I think that there are too many guns floating around anyway. The reason there are so many "gangbanger hoodlums, muggers and burglars" around is because our society ignores its poor. And what about the white collar criminals who are mugging their companies?
Bull - although I'm aware that this is the opinion of East-coast US Liberals.
The reason there are so many "gangbanger hoodlums, muggers and burglars" is that there are so many 3rd-world savages in the US now. Ever since the 1965 "Immigration Act", the US has been flooded with about 90% 3rd-worlders. The US is becoming as savage as the 3rd- worlders countries of origin. Yes - "whites" can be savages too. In the past though, such behavior was shunned by European culture - now it is "celebrated" as "multi-culturalism".
Take Africa, for example. This continent is arguably the most resource-rich and oldest of all (regarding the existance of home- sapiens). Yet, it is the most primitive. Why? THE PEOPLE. It may make some marginal people happy to blame Africa's problems on others, but that is at best faulty reasoning. At best, a "cop-out".
Yes "white-collar" crime is a problem, but that is not what has changed. It is bi-peds imported into the US that have changed.
-- joes (email@example.com), July 21, 1999.
Tina -- Your safety in a disarmed country relies entirely on the quality of law enforcement response. Having lived in extremely poor, inner-city neighborhoods, I agree in part that the problems of the very poor are not well-addressed. However, the experience of living there (where the law enforcement response can never be adequate), left me a firm supporter of my second ammendment rights to keep and bear firearms.
-- Helen (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 1999.
Tina Jay wrote:
"We spend under 100 billion in all social programs combined - guess who's the real money grubbers here? Corporate and rich America - they receive hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidaries - these are the people who deserve your scathing and pitying comments, not the poor (who by the way, are taxed more than any other group). The rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer..."
Your knowledge of taxation is as porous as your logic, to wit:
The left just loves to refer to the Reagan years and the "Decade of Greed." The implication is that higher income types got away with absolute murder during the '80's when it comes to paying income taxes. Well, let's take a look at some statics from the Internal Revenue Service to see just what the various income levels were paying in income tax in 1981, and what they were paying in 1991.
1983 -- THE BEGINNING OF THE DECADE OF GREED -- THE YEAR THE REAGAN TAX BREAKS TOOK EFFECT.
Here we find the top 1% of all income earners in the United States paying a total of 20.3% of all of the personal income taxes collected by the IRS. The top 10% were paying 49.7% of all income taxes, and the top 50% was paying 92.8%. The bottom 50% of all income earners were payign only 7.2% of all income taxes.
1993 -- THE DECADE OF GREED ENDS! CLINTON RAISES TAXES TO THE EVIL RICH WILL PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!
Ten years later, in 1993, we find the top 1% of all income earners paying 28.7% of all income taxes collected! Wow! Those rich SOB's really got away with murder, didn't they? The top 10% saw their share of total income taxes collected go from 49.7% to 58.8%. The greedy so-and-so's. The top 50% saw their share rise to 95.2% of all taxes, while the bottom 50% saw their share drop from 7.2% to 4.8%.
IT'S 1998 --- HOW ARE THE EXPLOITERS OF THE POOR DOING NOW?
The September 23, 1998 issue of The Wall Street Journal has the new numbers for us. The share of the taxes being paid by the top 1% has gone up again! For the year 1996 they are approaching 33%.
YEAH .. BUT THOSE RICH BASTARDS ARE EARNING SO MUCH THEY STILL WEREN'T PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE
OK, fine. What would you consider a fair share? If the top 10% was earning 70% of all the income but only paying 58% of the taxes, that wouldn't be fair, would it? Well ... let's see what the figures show.
In 1993, at the end of the Decade of Greed, the top 1% were paying 28.7% of all taxes. They earned only 13.8% of all earned income. Oops! sounds like they are paying a bit more than their fair share, doesn't it? What about the top 10%? They were paying 58.5% of the income taxes but earning only 39% of the income. The top 50%? Paying 95.2% of the taxes, earning 85% of the income. The bottom 50%? Earning only 15% of the income but paying just 4.8% of the income taxes.
Update ... In 1996 the share of the income earned by the top 1% reached 16%. Remember: They're paying one third of all the taxes.
So ... who is getting away with not paying their fair share? Looks like the bottom 50% to me ... not the evil, hated, mean, nasty, wicked rich.
These figures came from The Tax Foundation and IRS Statistics, 1983 through 1993. You go and do your own research and verify them! Then tell me just what the hell Bill Clinton was talking about when he said that the rich need to pay "their fair share."
Excuse me ... I have to go throw up.
-- Doc Havoc (Doc_Havoc@learnthetruth.net), July 21, 1999.
Regarding the IRS and "poor", I'm reminded of a little black boy in the Washington Post a couple of days ago getting his daily "free" breakfast. Generally, the article was about how terrible it would be if schools closed for the summer, and little kids stopped getting their "free" food. I guess the "free" food comes from the "free food fairy". Anyway...
It struck me that many such people must look to the Government like others look to parents. For example, this little boy (and numerous brothers/sisters in his single-room apartment) had no mother or father - they lived with their grandmother. If their "family" followed typical trends, the brothers/sisters would each be from a different "father".
Anyway, in my opinion, this would account for the increasingly "religious zeal" with which many defend "big Government".
-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 21, 1999.
Too many guns? Nah -- NOT ENOUGH GUNS! Not enough guns in the hands of the 'average' citizen.
Somehow, the general public has been brainwashed to believe that if you are a law abiding, peaceful citizen, there is no need for a gun -- only 'bad guys' and 'nuts' keep and bear arms; if someone has guns, there *must* be a reason (they *must* be doing something WRONG that justifies their 'need' to have a weapon). Bull.
I can remember not so long ago when it was very common for 11 and 12 year old boys to receive a shotgun for Christmas....not an air gun, or a BB gun, but a real, live shotgun. The presentation of a shotgun was something of a rite of passage, and the acquisition of other firearms followed as a matter of course. (I grew up in upper middle class suburbia, so no, my perspective is not one of a rural background.)
Responsible people HAD guns. So did 'bad guys', but they were not the only ones to have them. Somewhere down the line, society has been led to believe that you can't be responsible if you *do* own a gun. Bull.
-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), July 21, 1999.
Growing up in the 60's, in rural america, having several guns in our home was a norm. I was taught by my father at age 10 to shoot a 22, a might powerful for a young girl, but I wanted to learn. I also learned to fish, shoot bow and arrow and look for edible mushrooms. My playtime was in the woods, roaming about.. I never realized till a few years ago that I was being taught the basic necessities of survival by my father (god bless his soul) Thanks dad. I have always had an interest in survival never understod why. Living once again in the country, with strangers roaming about, I feel it is Vital to have a gun to defend oneself and ones family. Unfortunately our lax laws have given the burgler,the right to come into our homes and take freely what he/she wants. If I dare shoot him,I will me charged or sued. This similar incident happened to one family in my area. Not only did the people whos home that was being robbed have to go to court once, but twice. First for charges of murder, then being sued by the robbers famliy.. My opinion is this, our laws are made for the criminals and Lawyers who are looking to loot all of us!!!and not for the common man or women who is trying to protect their families...By the way, I would shoot the bloody bastard.. Just sharing info on what actualy happened here..as outrageous as it sounds, all very true..
-- Cassandra Bello (email@example.com), July 21, 1999.
"By the way, I would shoot the bloody bastard.. "
I have heard it said that if you shoot somebody attacking your property, it is best that they not live. It complicates matters greatly when the cop investigating the crime has two stories to contend with.
-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 21, 1999.
I could go through all the rhetoric about why the Second Amendment is our birthright, and ask you to read history which shows that when modern societies have taken away the guns of their citizens, dictators have then been able to take over the population. I could explain to you that when the government takes away the registered guns of its law-abiding citizens, the criminals will STILL keep their illegal guns, and then we are all more at risk. I could point out that in states which have initiated concealed carry laws, there has been a drop in crimes against persons.
But instead I will just ask you this: have you ever, like me, been raped? Have you ever, like me, been mugged by three big guys? Or like my sister-in-law, been mugged and thrown to the ground by two big guys? Or like my nephew's wife, mugged and smashed in the face? Have you ever, like my neighbors, come home to find someone burglarizing your house and endangering you with a brandished weapon?
No? I thought not. Because if you had, your question would not have appeared here. You would, like me, be armed.
-- Second Amend Gal (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 1999.
Sorry you had to take so many negative hits, but some of these people have important things to say. As for myself, I am a liberal, but am getting pretty fed up with the liberals penchant for big government: Everything can be fixed if we enact another big government law. As for guns, I was once a pacifist. No longer. Seen too many innocent people clobbered by enthusiastic slimebags that I simply had to face the fact that human rubbish truly exists. And quite frankly if someone attempted to enter my house and injure my family, well, they would be dead in an instant. I have come to terms with that. And let me say that as a liberal I also agree totally that there is a concerted effort by the present government to take our arms away. This is a no-brainer and quite apparent. Further, I have become quite disgusted with Clinton and question his motives. As for Gore, he has lost my vote by not showing leadership in this Y2K matter.
But I am also disgusted at the "conservative" attitude that seems to belittle the poor. I disagree that everyone "has a chance". No f**king way. There are individuals who are so deep in the hole that it has become exceedingly difficult for them to extract themselves from it. I agree with conservatives that there are elements of the poor who exploit welfare. I think they should be identified and taken off the welfare list. But reading some of the comments on this list I get the feeling that some of the conservatives here identify the poor as "scum". It's a pathetic generalization which says more about the individual saying it than anything else.
Further, there seems to be a disconnect or denial among conservatives that "greed" doesn't exist: Only this vast opportunity. Case in point are these damned HMOs. I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to make a buck, but not at the expense of another's health or welfare.
Frankly, I'm really tired of the liberals vs conservatism horseshit. In my opinion both political schools are full of it, greedy and insolent.
-- y2kaware (email@example.com), July 21, 1999.
Tina and y2kaware,
I am a conservative. I also think that you, as I, have a right to your opinion. I do not think that being poor makes you "scum" nor do I belittle poor persons. Heck, I'm poorer than some and richer than others. It's just that I don't think I have a right to demand help (goods, money, food, cars, shelter and so on) from those that have more than I. Nor do I believe that others have a right to take what I have earned and give it to others without my ok.
If you feel that you must give part of YOUR wealth to others with less, I will not complain nor will I try to stop you. That is you right. But, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, moral or legal, to take from me what is mine and give to those YOU feel need it more than I do. WHAT, other than your own feeling that you "are the only right thinking persons here" gives you the right to do anything with what is mine?
You may not like what I do with my resources and I may not like what you do with yours. However, I will not tell you what to do with what is yours and you are welcome to keep you noses out of my wallet.
-- sigmund (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 21, 1999.