73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[BigRob]

I guess that is the whole core of the conflict, isn't it?

I can't control what others think and feel. But there should be a way to protect people's rights without negating other people's rights. . .and, as I said, the person's whose "lost" would be the lease damaging would logically be asked to temporarely bow give in to the other person's rights.

I don't quite follow this logic. If rights are inalienable, why should I give up any of them, even temporarily? Perhaps I am sick one day and probably won't be talking to anyone, should I forfeit my right to free speech because I won't be as effected by it that day? If rights can only be "protected"'by demanding that others bow, do we really have any rights at all in your opinion?

Just as if two people are stuck on the roof of a home during a flood, and the rescurers can only take one, it seems logical that the person with the greater needs (either age, or physical/mental condition) would be rescued first. Yet,
there is no doubt that both persons have equally the RIGHT to be rescued. But when there is no choice and one's right has to be postponed or limited. . .it should be "the least of two evils" decision rule.

I know. . .I have weird opinions.

What if someone feels the younger person, or more able bodied should be saved first? Maybe they will tell you the other person has lived a long life, and they have more time to contribute to society etc. It seems that our "rights", as defined by you in this case, are just your opinions, and how you see the world. That hardly means others do not see it differently, and you would trample their rights to do what your opinion tells you is "right."

 

[Openmind]

I

don't quite follow this logic. If rights are inalienable, why should I give up any of them, even temporarily? Perhaps I am sick one day and probably won't be talking to anyone, should I forfeit my right to free speech because I won't be as effected by it that day? If rights can only be "protected"'by demanding that others bow, do we really have any rights at all in your opinion?

No, obviously you wouldn't lose yor right to free speech if you didn't feel like exercising it for a day! Come on, Bob. . .I thought we were having a rel discussion!
Having rights doesn't mean we must insist in exercising those rights atall times. in fact, you temporarily give up your right to speak your mind at times, and that doesn"'t mean you lose it completely, it probably means that you use good judgement an/or sensitivity or respect toward someone.

But when the rights of two people collide, there is only two solutions: fight to death, or temporarily wit old from exercising that right.

What if someone feels the younger person, or more able bodied should be saved first? Maybe they will tell you the other person has lived a long life, and they have more time to contribute to society etc. It seems that our "rights", as defined by you in this case, are just your opinions, and how you see the world. That hardly means others do not see it differently, and you would trample their rights to do what your opinion tells you is "right."

I guess, if you had been on the titanic, you would have been exercising your right to climb in those safety boat, no matter who you left behind? I don't think so. But that wasn't the point I was making. What I was saying is that it is impossible to ALWAYS meet everyone's rights, that sometimes, the colision of opposite rights is so great, that one must temporarily compromise on that right. And I believe that the person who would suffer the least from that temporary suspension of his/her rights should logically be the one giving I temporarily.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Did you have anything of value or substance to add to the discussion or are you just here to hurl insults?

There are 330+ million people in the US, this poll contacted 1000 people and that's supposed to be representative of the entire population? Anyone who stayed awake during stats class would know that such a poll is not statistically relevant but it certainly does give the left an excuse to claim they have a majority of Americans on their side of the issue.

I guess maybe you did sleep in class....
1000 people would be about a 3-4% plus or minus.

 

[Gipper]

I guess maybe you did sleep in class....
1000 people would be about a 3-4% plus or minus.

Do you want to take that back? Hahaahahahahhahah.....

And, who was it who slept in class?

Hahahahahahahhaa...........

This has to be your lowest point EVER....even worst than you not knowing the number of pages in the Constitution.

Hahalhahahahhahaha.......ROTFL.............

 

[Gipper]

Just to see what comments it generates.

I'd be surprised if you were among the 73%, but you've surprised me before.

You still did not answer my question. Why?

Of course, I do not support the Buffet Rule. Anyone who does, is obviously not informed. Are you informed or not?

 

[BigRob]

I guess, if you had been on the titanic, you would have been exercising your right to climb in those safety boat, no matter who you left behind? I don't think so. But that wasn't the point I was making. What I was saying is that it is impossible to ALWAYS meet everyone's rights, that sometimes, the colision of opposite rights is so great, that one must temporarily compromise on that right. And I believe that the person who would suffer the least from that temporary suspension of his/her rights should logically be the one giving I temporarily.

How about if all Democrats lose their right to vote in Republican districts and vice-versa. After all, their guy won't win there anyway, so their "loss" is no big deal right?

I have a problem with the concept that we should forfeit our rights, even temporarily, simply because we have less to lose at the moment.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have a problem with the concept that we should forfeit our rights, even temporarily, simply because we have less to lose at the moment.

If you voluntarily forfeit your rights that's one thing, but having them stripped, or curtailed, at the hands of government is something entirely different.

 

[PLC1]

Seriously?

OK, you demonstrated that Obama did a flip flop. Nothing new there.

You also showed that the questioner agrees with your position.

But, raising capital gains taxes actually causes a reduction in revenue from same? Perhaps a temporary one, as people keep assets longer than they otherwise would, waiting for a lower tax before selling.

 

[GenSeneca]

You also showed that the questioner agrees with your position.

He accepts facts...

But, raising capital gains taxes actually causes a reduction in revenue from same? Perhaps a temporary one, as people keep assets longer than they otherwise would, waiting for a lower tax before selling.

Let's say your right, that higher rates cause people to hold onto their investments until the rates are lowered. That would explain why revenue goes down when it's raised and goes up when it's lowered, so while I wouldn't claim that as fact, I can't argue about the soundness of the logic.

However, if you accept the explanation you just offered, then you should also be able to accept that raising CG rates will have the exact opposite effect that your hoping to achieve, i.e., higher CG rates will actually lower revenue.

That means the "Buffet Rule" would be a disaster.

 

[PLC1]

He accepts facts...


Let's say your right, that higher rates cause people to hold onto their investments until the rates are lowered. That would explain why revenue goes down when it's raised and goes up when it's lowered, so while I wouldn't claim that as fact, I can't argue about the soundness of the logic.

However, if you accept the explanation you just offered, then you should also be able to accept that raising CG rates will have the exact opposite effect that your hoping to achieve, i.e., higher CG rates will actually lower revenue.

That means the "Buffet Rule" would be a disaster.

The explanation I offered only operates in the short term.

What other explanation could there possibly be?

 

[Dr.Who]

It is the old story of how far does one's right go to infringe of other's rights. . .

In my opinion (and you already know I am a little weird in term of social conscience), it should go back to "first do no harm. . . " .

In what world is taking someone's, anyone's, money not harm?

Warrne buffet for example paid no income tax because he gave so much money to charity that he completely offset his income. When asked why he did not just pay the taxes he rightly said that he knew better how to give it to charity than the gov did.

If we take more of his money then we are in effect taking it from the charities that he has decided are a better use than the gov.

And in the poll. the 73% don't understand that those millionaires pay less because they give more. They are really advocating making it even harder to give to charity and even easier to give to the gov that spends more than it takes in and uses it to fund the military (as one example) instead of charity.

 

[Dr.Who]

The question is. . .how many people would be willing to compromise on their rights based on someone else's needs and rights?

Many would,

Billions of dollars were given to charity last year - a personal sacrifice for all who gave. Oops, that is a sacrifice and not a loss of rights since it was given voluntarily.

No one should give up their rights. When they do they set the stage for someone else's rights to be lost too. If we value any right at all we need to protect all rights.

But more people should give more of their own free will.

 

[dogtowner]

Many would,But more people should give more of their own free will.

perhaps if we were permitted to retain more of the fruits of our labor we would.

 

[Dr.Who]

I guess that is the whole core of the conflict, isn't it?

I can't control what others think and feel. But there should be a way to protect people's rights without negating other people's rights. . .and, as I said, the person's whose "lost" would be the lease damaging would logically be asked to temporarely bow give in to the other person's rights.

Utilitarian logic inevitably leads to horrific abuse.

Just as if two people are stuck on the roof of a home during a flood, and the rescurers can only take one, it seems logical that the person with the greater needs (either age, or physical/mental condition) would be rescued first. Yet, there is no doubt that both persons have equally the RIGHT to be rescued. But when there is no choice and one's right has to be postponed or limited. . .it should be "the least of two evils" decision rule.

You should probably try another example since neither has a right to be rescued. That would imply that a person who might offer the rescue can be compelled to spend his own time as you decide rather than as he decides - a violation of his rights. The rescuer might agree to rescue for a variety of reasons but it should not be because he does not have the right not to rescue.

 

[Dr.Who]

But, you are trying to empower the government to force people to act the way YOU want them to act, whether they feel that way or not!

Don't you see? The GOP wants the government to worry more about big corporations, and the wealthy. They want to take away every regulations that tries to protect people from excess by corporations. They want this country to live under the "survival of the fittest" rule. . .although they don't believe in evolution!

They do not seem to mind that people are forced by corporations' greed to give up their right to make a decent living, they would like corporations to be able to pay as little as "the market will bear" for employment. . .and obviously, in time of great unemployment, this would amount to starvation rates, especially if unemployment benefits are cut.

I must say that I do appreciate your willingness to debate this and other issues. I thank you for having given me a reprieve from belittleling remarks and attacks. I believe that, although we will probably never agree on most issues, we may not be so far apart on some.

And even if we never agree. . .isn't it more constructive to debate openly, without nastiness, than to spend dozens of posts in rising insults and frustration?

Thank you.

That is just too warped to spend too much time on now.