Don't know who wrote this, but it's hard to beat....a very good read

No Free lunch There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some Exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked, "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke."You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.

One should always remember "There is no such thing as a free lunch!" Also, "You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to think seriously about the candidate you pick for president in 2008. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably ignore this message, but God help you when the gate slams shut!


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/flag7.gif

Yup... HilliaryCare !
That Wart Hog Cares about as mush bout Americans as
Wild Pigs DO,goin to the Hairdresser.
Well,maybe Less.
At least Wild Pigs Try to Lick each utter's cowlicks.

Don't know who wrote this, but it's hard to beat....a very good read

No Free lunch There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some Exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked, "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke."You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.

One should always remember "There is no such thing as a free lunch!" Also, "You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to think seriously about the candidate you pick for president in 2008. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably ignore this message, but God help you when the gate slams shut!


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/flag7.gif



Very apropos.

What about the poor in the United States,and theres a lot of them,dont they need some sort of safety net.

The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.Interesting choice of examples. Here's an idea: How do we end the squabble over Capital Gains taxes? Disallow the passing of assets to children. Afterall, hell, they didn't earn it. Daddy did! No free lunch!
Also, "You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.Yeah, if your time isn't valuable. Think Rush Limbaugh mows his own lawn?
If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably ignore this message, but God help you when the gate slams shut!I don't think a free ride is good, but I strongly doubt the realities of agribusiness have been considered here. And I'm certain that the moral fiber of a people who are unconcerned with such basics as food and medicine shows real dry rot. Don't forget, your story's hero still had a bullet lodged in his back! Bet that wouldn't have happened in the USA which you seem to find so repulsive.

What about the poor in the United States,and theres a lot of them,dont they need some sort of safety net.


The idea of a safety net, is something that stops your fall, and you bounce off of, not stick to for generation after generation.

What about the poor in the United States,and theres a lot of them,dont they need some sort of safety net.

To hear a Liberal talk,one would Tink that Kids are
starving to death,in this Country.
Could someone show me any Media article where a child
in this Country...Starved to Death.?

To hear a Liberal talk,one would Tink that Kids are
starving to death,in this Country.
Could someone show me any Media article where a child
in this Country...Starved to Death.?


Fool, there have been a few cases, in the media, this past year. However, most, if not all, were starved intentionally, by their "care givers".
One comes to mind, in Houston, but I don't remember if the child(ren) died, or not.

What about people on low income,less than $20,000 pa,or people on welfare.
Its strange that people talk about poverty being a generational thing,I believe it is.
Heres an example tho,single parents,in poor areas of the country,inner city and the south mainly,their partners have upped and left,leaving them with no income and no chanceof a job because they cant get any childcare.

To hear a Liberal talk,one would Tink that Kids are
starving to death,in this Country.
Could someone show me any Media article where a child
in this Country...Starved to Death.?The reason you don't find this happening is the very same programs which the post bitches about.

What about people on low income,less than $20,000 pa,or people on welfare.
Its strange that people talk about poverty being a generational thing,I believe it is.
Heres an example tho,single parents,in poor areas of the country,inner city and the south mainly,their partners have upped and left,leaving them with no income and no chanceof a job because they cant get any childcare.


Very few people meet those criteria, on a permanent basis. Besides, kids start school at age 5. Most of these welfare queens manage to keep, at least one toddler in the house, at all times, without the benefit of a "partner".

Most of these welfare queens manage to keep, at least one toddler in the house, at all times, without the benefit of a "partner".Horror stories get a lot of play, but the huge majority of welfare recipients are not the so-called Wellfare Queens.

Fool, there have been a few cases, in the media, this past year. However, most, if not all, were starved intentionally, by their "care givers".
One comes to mind, in Houston, but I don't remember if the child(ren) died, or not.

I believe ALL cases are due to sheer neglect.A Crack mother
who spends her entire income {welfare check} on her addiction
and is so high,she even forgets she has kids.
There are loads of poeple in this Country BELOW the poverty line
who are OBESE. This Country is virtually Loaded to the gills
with TOO mush food.
We have so much Cheese we have to pay other countries to
take it off our hands.

No one is starving to death in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance. No one is being denied medical care in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance. No one is forced to live in the streets in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance.

Nobody is saying take away all the help that's available for people who need it. But I AM saying that we don't need MORE free lunches in this country, especially provided by the Federal Government instead of the private sector. What we need are more programs to help people get off the free lunch wagon. If that's not possible for them, then we need to continue to help them... just like we do now.

But somebody has to draw the line on how much free lunch we need to provide and how much we can afford... and that philosophy seems to be lost on some of the presidential candidates who are spouting FREE LUNCHES FOR ALL. We don't ALL want them, nor do we need them. So why should they be forced on all of us?

SMW

Horror stories get a lot of play, but the huge majority of welfare recipients are not the so-called Wellfare Queens.


The large majority are not on it very long, either. Its the ones who are, and the one who abuse the system that give it a bad rep. If the bleeding hearts in this country would allow another major overhaul of the system, eliminating the loop holes, very few people would object to a properly managed "safety net" system. But the "free ride system" of today is not worthy of defense.

What about people on low income,less than $20,000 pa,or people on welfare.
Its strange that people talk about poverty being a generational thing,I believe it is.
Heres an example tho,single parents,in poor areas of the country,inner city and the south mainly,their partners have upped and left,leaving them with no income and no chanceof a job because they cant get any childcare.

Paul, the point is... we have services available to help people in situations like these. However, they're not all run by the federal govt. There are thousands of non-profit agencies in this country which are supported by donations from individuals and corporations. Agencies that provide services like CHILD CARE for low-income families, HOUSING for women and children in dire need of help, DRUG REHAB for people who want help, etc., etc.

The question is not SHOULD WE PROVIDE FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP? The question is... whether or not it's the govt's responsibility.

What does that single parent in a poor area of Ireland who's partner upped and left them with no income and no chance of a job because they can't get childcare... do to survive? Does your govt provide support for their needs?

SMW

Also, "You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Which is precisely why national health care makes so much sense.
We have been paying a lot of extra money to let someone else provide a service we should just be doing ourselves.
Why pay William McGuire $1.7 Billion just to provide a service the government could be doing for a fraction of the cost?

:thumbs:
DB

The large majority are not on it very long, either. Its the ones who are, and the one who abuse the system that give it a bad rep. If the bleeding hearts in this country would allow another major overhaul of the system, eliminating the loop holes, very few people would object to a properly managed "safety net" system. But the "free ride system" of today is not worthy of defense.

ITA, Moderate. Good point.

The question is not SHOULD WE PROVIDE FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP? The question is... whether or not it's the govt's responsibility.


Since, in a Democracy, the government is We the People, you are merely wording the SAME question two different ways.

:thumbs:
DB

Which is precisely why national health care makes so much sense.
We have been paying a lot of extra money to let someone else provide a service we should just be doing ourselves.
Why pay William McGuire $1.7 Billion just to provide a service the government could be doing for a fraction of the cost?

:thumbs:
DB

LOL, that's like saying why don't we let the govt run gas stations? Why pay $3 a gallon when they could offer it to us for $2 and hit up the taxpayers for the other buck!

It's called free enterprise, Dharma. Supply & demand. Competitive pricing.

You know, AMERICA?

:lolhit:

The large majority are not on it very long, either. Its the ones who are, and the one who abuse the system that give it a bad rep. If the bleeding hearts in this country would allow another major overhaul of the system, eliminating the loop holes, very few people would object to a properly managed "safety net" system. But the "free ride system" of today is not worthy of defense.

Thanks wholly to Newt Gingrich and The New Republican
majority of '94.Those republicans were not to ne denied on
Welfare reform.It took 3 trips to Slick Willy's desk before
that Bubba signed on.Actually I believe Clinton Veto'd it
3 times and signed on the 4th.
That Reform measure took away career welfare roles.
Basically 2 years ON welfare and then OUT.

Since, in a Democracy, the government is We the People, you are merely wording the SAME question two different ways.

:thumbs:
DB

Yeah, you have a point, Dharma. Except for one thing... that WE includes ME and I don't want more govt involvement in my life.

Is that too hard to understand?

Since, in a Democracy, the government is We the People, you are merely wording the SAME question two different ways.

:thumbs:
DB


Why do you have such a hard time recognizing the difference between charitable contributions, given freely, and government mandated collections.
You seem to be against giving the people a choice, in damn near everything.

No, never mind, I don't care what you think.

This myth of the "free ride" system shows a deep ignorance of how the welfare system actually works in America today.

The Welfare system was overhauled in 1996 and again in 2005 so there are no longer people who could work, sitting around receiving welfare. It just does not happen anymore. If you cannot prove that you either have a medical reason for not working or that you are actively looking for work, then you do not receive any money.

The real issue today is whether we should have a welfare system at all. The stated goal of conservatives, going back to Sir Edmund Burke, is to get rid of it altogether. As SMW said earlier, she thinks that there are enough private charities to provide for all the poor and the government should be out of it completely.

This myth of the "free ride" system shows a deep ignorance of how the welfare system actually works in America today.

The Welfare system was overhauled in 1996 and again in 2005 so there are no longer people who could work, sitting around receiving welfare. It just does not happen anymore. If you cannot prove that you either have a medical reason for not working or that you are actively looking for work, then you do not receive any money.

The real issue today is whether we should have a welfare system at all. The stated goal of conservatives, going back to Sir Edmund Burke, is to get rid of it altogether. As SMW said earlier, she thinks that there are enough private charities to provide for all the poor and the government should be out of it completely.

DON'T put words in my mouth, Dharma. I never said any such thing.

Can you ever have an intelligent discussion without resorting to word twisting?

Yeah, you have a point, Dharma. Except for one thing... that WE includes ME and I don't want more govt involvement in my life.

Thanks Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:
You made your opinion on this issue known a long time ago.

The fact is, most people disagree with you.
The majority of Americans support Government aid programs.
In fact, support for the social safety net has surged in the last 10 years. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/467/social-safety-net)

:thumbs:
DB

Thanks Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:
You made your opinion on this issue known a long time ago.

The fact is, most people disagree with you.
The majority of Americans support Government aid programs.
In fact, support for the social safety net has surged in the last 10 years. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/467/social-safety-net)

:thumbs:
DB

And you've made your opinion known as well.

GIMME, GIMME, GIMME... then GIMME some more.

Supply & demand. Competitive pricing.Price gouging?

You know, AMERICA?Have ever noticed how the fringes of the political spectrum, Far Right & Far Left, both bitch and moan about how screwed up the country is, then say something like, "Hey, this is America," when it fits their schtick?

Price gouging?

Have ever noticed how the fringes of the political spectrum, Far Right & Far Left, both bitch and moan about how screwed up the country is, then say something like, "Hey, this is America," when it fits their schtick?

Yeah, Shiloh. I've heard you pull that very same schtick.

I just happen to love this country just the way it is, believe the majority of the system works, and don't plan to sit back and watch bleeding hearts do away with individual responsibility.

What's your excuse?

No one is starving to death in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance. No one is being denied medical care in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance. No one is forced to live in the streets in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance.

Nobody is saying take away all the help that's available for people who need it. But I AM saying that we don't need MORE free lunches in this country, especially provided by the Federal Government instead of the private sector. What we need are more programs to help people get off the free lunch wagon. If that's not possible for them, then we need to continue to help them... just like we do now.
Great post, perfectly sensible. I agree completely.

Yeah, Shiloh. I've heard you pull that very same schtick.Example?

I just happen to love this country just the way it is, believe the majority of the system works, and don't plan to sit back and watch bleeding hearts do away with individual responsibility.If you like it the way it is, why do you seem to be griping here about the way it is?

What's your excuse?My excuse for what?

LOL, that's like saying why don't we let the govt run gas stations? Why pay $3 a gallon when they could offer it to us for $2 and hit up the taxpayers for the other buck!

As I have stated before, I think there are certain industries that should be run by the government. Industries that involve life and death, like police, firefighting, health care and welfare.

It is arguable that fuel could fit into that category, especially in a country with under-developed infrastructure. Personally I don't see a need for it in America right now.


It's called free enterprise, Dharma. Supply & demand. Competitive pricing.

You know, AMERICA?


Actually SMW, there is nothing whatsoever in our foundational laws (The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) that mandates any one economic system for America. All they say is that Congress has the authority to make laws regarding money.

It is foolish to lock yourself into one economic ideology and not allow for any flexibility, change or adaption. The founding fathers knew that.

America has historically had a regulated capitalist economy with touches of socialism when necessary. I think that is the wisest approach.

:thumbs:
DB

Great post, perfectly sensible. Except that it is contrary to the original post which started the thread!

And you've made your opinion known as well.

GIMME, GIMME, GIMME... then GIMME some more.

Actually SMW, so far for the most part, I have been quite fortunate in being one of those blessed enough to do the giving.

:thumbs:
DB

[QUOTE=dharmabum]As I have stated before, I think there are certain industries that should be run by the government. Industries that involve life and death, like police, firefighting, health care and welfare.

It is arguable that fuel could fit into that category, especially in a country with under-developed infrastructure. Personally I don't see a need for it in America right now.



Actually SMW, there is nothing whatsoever in our foundational laws (The Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) that mandates any one economic system for America. All they say is that Congress has the authority to make laws regarding money.

It is foolish to lock yourself into one economic ideology and not allow for any flexibility, change or adaption. The founding fathers knew that.

America has historically had a regulated capitalist economy with touches of socialism when necessary. I think that is the wisest approach.


Yup,You ripe for the picking.A true Socialist in the makin.
Just what most Liberals and Hilliary want and NEED.
An impressionable bOOb lackey Stooge,that they cam manipulate for
a Big Brother mindset.
BTW... Those services you mentioned are run by State and local
municipalities.That's why they work to some degree.
get Big Brother Government involved and they'll fall flat on their
face like a ton a bricks dropped from Trotsky heaven.
What utter Bolshevik Pravda ya gots...fer us.?

No one is starving to death in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance.

Yes, and government funds are providing a key piece of that assistance.

Government Funding for Charities: When it declines, the charities lose twice (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=281)

on a side note,
Man Starves To Death In a New York Hospital (http://www.citizenbay.com/Post/39556/Micronews-News_-_Crime_Justice-New_York-Man_starves_to_death_in_New_York_hospital)


No one is being denied medical care in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance.

Oh Really?

Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/)

Woman dies of Heart Attack in ER Waiting Room. (http://www.aheartylife.com/2006/09/16/woman-dies-of-heart-attack-in-er-waiting-room/)


No one is forced to live in the streets in this country unless they're unwilling to ask for assistance.

Homeless Shelter Closes Its Doors After Losing Federal Funding.
(http://www.poz.com/articles/1_12403.shtml)

Just because you close your eyes to something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Nobody is saying take away all the help that's available for people who need it. But I AM saying that we don't need MORE free lunches in this country, especially provided by the Federal Government instead of the private sector.

Since a lot of the money for the social safety net is coming from the government, you are saying you want to take a lot of it away. The problem is that you offer no real alternative except the hope that private charities will somehow grow to take up the slack.


:thumbs:
DB

Since a lot of the money for the social safety net is coming from the government, you are saying you want to take a lot of it away. The problem is that you offer no real alternative except the hope that private charities will somehow grow to take up the slack.



Still The best and most productive " safety net " is Good
Old Fashioned Charity.Let Corporations and citizens have
charitable exemptions and deduction for charity giving.
And quit lettin the Government,seize Family estates like
Farms,with a death Tax.

I can only hope that this new federal ubiversal health care is handled as exceptionally as.... say.... the Social Security program.

It's just wonderful how I have to wait until I'm 67 (maybe later...who knows... is this fair?.... Sure!) to draw benefits from a system that I'll never even remotely draw what I have put in. That is of course, if there is ANY monies left at that time. I'm glad my S.S. contributions are voluntary!

Plus, maybe a great administration (like LBJ's did) will open the coffers to general use with federal health care, like they did with social security!


I can hardly wait, I quiver with anticipation!

That is indeed a happy thought, OP, and just one of the many reasons why I'll be danged if I allow the government to "take care" of me in my senile old age, when I'm too old to enjoy my money or retirement anyway.

I've been socking money and other valuables away on my own for years where the government can't touch it! not a Swiss Bank account either--that be for rich folk, or crooks.

Since a lot of the money for the social safety net is coming from the government, you are saying you want to take a lot of it away. The problem is that you offer no real alternative except the hope that private charities will somehow grow to take up the slack.



Still The best and most productive " safety net " is Good
Old Fashioned Charity.Let Corporations and citizens have
charitable exemptions and deduction for charity giving.
And quit lettin the Government,seize Family estates like
Farms,with a death Tax.

Why should government be prohibited from giving to charities?

Nobody's "family farm" ever got seized because of the inheritance tax, Drama-Queen.

:thumbs:
DB

That is indeed a happy thought, OP, and just one of the many reasons why I'll be danged if I allow the government to "take care" of me in my senile old age, when I'm too old to enjoy my money or retirement anyway.

I've been socking money and other valuables away on my own for years where the government can't touch it! not a Swiss Bank account either--that be for rich folk, or crooks.

That's a pretty good idear.Stash money and jewelry or
collectables {guns,furniture} now.
It remins me of a story i read about Sammy Davis Jr.
He was illiterate his entire life,and dint want no one to know.
It musta caught up with him.I beleive he did a Sanford & Son
episode,kinda explaining it.
Anywho,he was part of the Rat pack.Could get onstage and
belt out a tune,while dancin with a Cig in his mouth and a big
drink in his hand.A truly gifted performer.
Someone commented after he died about a room he had in his
main house.They said he had a room,with near a thousand watches,every
size and shape imaginable,just tossed on a bed and strewn on the floor.

Yes, and government funds are providing a key piece of that assistance.

Government Funding for Charities: When it declines, the charities lose twice (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=281)

on a side note,
Man Starves To Death In a New York Hospital (http://www.citizenbay.com/Post/39556/Micronews-News_-_Crime_Justice-New_York-Man_starves_to_death_in_New_York_hospital)



Oh Really?

Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/)

Woman dies of Heart Attack in ER Waiting Room. (http://www.aheartylife.com/2006/09/16/woman-dies-of-heart-attack-in-er-waiting-room/)



Homeless Shelter Closes Its Doors After Losing Federal Funding.
(http://www.poz.com/articles/1_12403.shtml)

Just because you close your eyes to something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



Since a lot of the money for the social safety net is coming from the government, you are saying you want to take a lot of it away. The problem is that you offer no real alternative except the hope that private charities will somehow grow to take up the slack.


:thumbs:
DB

What a drama queen you are, Dharma.

:hula:

What a drama queen you are, Dharma.


How unoriginal you are...

:rolleyes:

Why should government be prohibited from giving to charities?

Nobody's "family farm" ever got seized because of the inheritance tax, Drama-Queen.

:thumbs:
DB

What? No article to backup that bold statement?? Here's one... at least as good at the others you googled for.

FARMER'S FAMILY DIES IN FIELD FROM INHERITANCE TAX OVERLOAD AND LACK OF MEDICAL INSURANCE!


:lolhit:

Nobody's "family farm" ever got seized because of the inheritance tax, Drama-Queen.

:thumbs:
DB

Not seized... but lots have been, or will be lost.

http://www.deathtax.com/deathtax/test_ferris.htm

Example?

If you like it the way it is, why do you seem to be griping here about the way it is?

My excuse for what?

Shiloh, I'm not saying one thing about the way it is now. I'm saying we don't need MORE than we're already providing.

You know, like $5000 for every baby born (for their 'education') -- how ridiculous is THAT? Or Federally MANDATED healthcare? Do you want to be ORDERED to take a physical every year? Or maybe you're one of those who NEEDS to be ordered to take a physical every year? Where did we lose the original incentive for even considering universal healthcare... the high cost of private insurance? We can't even get a straight answer on how much this glorious new system will cost us!

Those are the FREE LUNCH issues I'd like to see this country avoid. Unnecessary and unwise investments, to be administered by yet another inefficient and ineffective govt agency. Which, once put into place, will NEVER go away... even if they don't work for everybody.

Your excuse for what?? I'm asking for your REASONING behind the necessity for more free lunches. I stated my reasons for believing we have enough and don't need anymore. You claim to love America too, and I don't doubt that's true. So why do you think we need MORE free lunches than we already have?

That's a pretty good idear.Stash money and jewelry or
collectables {guns,furniture} now.
It remins me of a story i read about Sammy Davis Jr.
He was illiterate his entire life,and dint want no one to know.
It musta caught up with him.I beleive he did a Sanford & Son
episode,kinda explaining it.
Anywho,he was part of the Rat pack.Could get onstage and
belt out a tune,while dancin with a Cig in his mouth and a big
drink in his hand.A truly gifted performer.
Someone commented after he died about a room he had in his
main house.They said he had a room,with near a thousand watches,every
size and shape imaginable,just tossed on a bed and strewn on the floor.

Watches are very good--also coins, stamps, or my own personal fave, diamonds.
Napoleon Bonaparte never left a room unless he had dozens of uncut diamonds stashed in his pockets. We can all learn a lesson from those smart guys who have gone before.

I think the difference being,he had 100,000 troops of le grand armee sitting outside the room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foolsworth
That's a pretty good idear.Stash money and jewelry or
collectables {guns,furniture} now.
It remins me of a story i read about Sammy Davis Jr.
He was illiterate his entire life,and dint want no one to know.
It musta caught up with him.I beleive he did a Sanford & Son
episode,kinda explaining it.
Anywho,he was part of the Rat pack.Could get onstage and
belt out a tune,while dancin with a Cig in his mouth and a big
drink in his hand.A truly gifted performer.
Someone commented after he died about a room he had in his
main house.They said he had a room,with near a thousand watches,every
size and shape imaginable,just tossed on a bed and strewn on the floor.


Watches are very good--also coins, stamps, or my own personal fave, diamonds.
Napoleon Bonaparte never left a room unless he had dozens of uncut diamonds stashed in his pockets. We can all learn a lesson from those smart guys who have gone before.

HA! Y'all are so funny. I got news for you... I'm gonna be destitute when I get old and feeble. Then I can be a burden on society. By God, I've worked hard all my life for what I have and think it's about time for ME ME ME to get in on that govt handout bandwagon.

Where's my fair share, dammit????

;)
SMW

It remins me of a story i read about Sammy Davis Jr.
He was illiterate his entire life,and dint want no one to know.


Wrong. Davis never went to school as a kid (his was a vaudeville family, always on the go), but he certainly wasn't "illiterate his entire life."

Drafted at 18, he graduated from comic books after remedial reading lessons from a black sergeant while he battled racist taunts and insults from white G.I.'s, who repaid him several times by breaking his nose. --NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1208.html)

When you guys pay TAX,what are you paying it for exactly,if you cant get something back when your old or down on your luck,this dosent make any sense to me.

I think the difference being,he had 100,000 troops of le grand armee sitting outside the room.

And a fat lot of good that did him on Elba.:eek:

When you guys pay TAX,what are you paying it for exactly,if you cant get something back when your old or down on your luck,this dosent make any sense to me.

Me either.

And quit lettin the Government,seize Family estates like
Farms,with a death Tax.If a farm is passed down to the children, they're getting a free lunch! They didn't earn the farm! Hell, they oughta start with nothing and work their way up! No Free lunches!

When you guys pay TAX,what are you paying it for exactly,if you cant get something back when your old or down on your luck,this dosent make any sense to me.




In reality, Paul look at this link, it will give you a rough idea.

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/percentages.html

* don't bother clicking on the "next Budget" link, it doesn't seem to work, at least for me.

FARMER'S FAMILY DIES IN FIELD FROM INHERITANCE TAX OVERLOAD AND LACK OF MEDICAL INSURANCE!


:lolhit:

LOL, nice headline. How bout THIs one??

HUNGRY SOWS TRAMPLE CROOK ATTEMPTING TO STEAL ECCENTRIC OLD WOMAN'S JEWELRY

If a farm is passed down to the children, they're getting a free lunch! They didn't earn the farm! Hell, they oughta start with nothing and work their way up! No Free lunches!

LOL, if they're smart, they'll get rid of the farm and go live in the big city. Nonstop work, being a farmer, and it's make or break nearly every season. At least you eat good tho.

If a farm is passed down to the children, they're getting a free lunch! They didn't earn the farm! Hell, they oughta start with nothing and work their way up! No Free lunches!


Easy to tell you didn't come from a farm family. Those kids worked harder, before school, than you do all day.
Thank God, I never had to live on one, either.

When you guys pay TAX,what are you paying it for exactly,if you cant get something back when your old or down on your luck,this dosent make any sense to me.

The taxes we pay on our incomes go toward running this country, Paul. From paying salaries for every Federal employee (including elected officials) to supporting the military to fuel for Air Force One and everything in between, including many non-defense agencies like Health & Human Services, Dept of Education, Dept. of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept. of Agriculture, etc., etc., etc.

But we also pay taxes on specific commodities, like gasoline and cigarettes and liquor, which go to support other causes like building new roads, health insurance for children (as Dharma pointed out on another thread), and various other programs which don't receive funds from INCOME tax payments.

It's a very complicated system and I'm not pretending to be very knowledgable about where every penny we pay in goes... but I can tell you this -- in addition to TAXES coming out of our checks, there's also a sizable amount that comes out of EVERYONE'S paycheck for Social Security (to provide for us when we're over 65... or 67... or 72, whatever the latest batch of regulators decides... which is paid monthly to ALL our senior citizens, including the very richest in the land, like H. Ross Perot and the Rockefellers) AND Medicare (which provides health coverage for those below the poverty level).

THEN there's property taxes, which we pay for our homes, depending on their value. That money also goes to education AND provides support for public hospitals in the community. Another resource for people who don't have the money for health insurance.

All in all, we pay alot of taxes, but get alot of good services for our money.

It's EXPANDING this taxation to cover not only those who CAN'T, but in many instances, WON'T take care of themselves and their families that I object to in the NO MORE FREE LUNCHES argument.

Complicated enough for ya?

;)
SMW

Easy to tell you didn't come from a farm family. Those kids worked harder, before school, than you do all day.
Thank God, I never had to live on one, either.

Well, there's something to be said for being your own boss tho, and battling the elements. It's a noble profession, and farmers are some of the smartest businessmen out there--the stereotype of the bumpkin in overalls who can barely read is just that--a stereotype. We all have to eat, and that land is gold. When bad times come, if they can hold on to their land and get some decent seed, they'll be about the only group of people who make it.

Well, there's something to be said for being your own boss tho, and battling the elements. It's a noble profession, and farmers are some of the smartest businessmen out there--the stereotype of the bumpkin in overalls who can barely read is just that--a stereotype. We all have to eat, and that land is gold. When bad times come, if they can hold on to their land and get some decent seed, they'll be about the only group of people who make it.


You won't get any argument, from me, on that. But I would like to see a lot more land in the hands of family farms, rather than the big corporations.

The taxes we pay on our incomes go toward running this country, Paul. From paying salaries for every Federal employee (including elected officials) to supporting the military to fuel for Air Force One and everything in between, including many non-defense agencies like Health & Human Services, Dept of Education, Dept. of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept. of Agriculture, etc., etc., etc.

But we also pay taxes on specific commodities, like gasoline and cigarettes and liquor, which go to support other causes like building new roads, health insurance for children (as Dharma pointed out on another thread), and various other programs which don't receive funds from INCOME tax payments.

It's a very complicated system and I'm not pretending to be very knowledgable about where every penny we pay in goes... but I can tell you this -- in addition to TAXES coming out of our checks, there's also a sizable amount that comes out of EVERYONE'S paycheck for Social Security (to provide for us when we're over 65... or 67... or 72, whatever the latest batch of regulators decides... which is paid monthly to ALL our senior citizens, including the very richest in the land, like H. Ross Perot and the Rockefellers) AND Medicare (which provides health coverage for those below the poverty level).

THEN there's property taxes, which we pay for our homes, depending on their value. That money also goes to education AND provides support for public hospitals in the community. Another resource for people who don't have the money for health insurance.

All in all, we pay alot of taxes, but get alot of good services for our money.

It's EXPANDING this taxation to cover not only those who CAN'T, but in many instances, WON'T take care of themselves and their families that I object to in the NO MORE FREE LUNCHES argument.

Complicated enough for ya?

;)
SMW


So, when you turn 65 you're going to tear up those monthly Social Security checks, right? You are, after all, against "free lunches," right?

But wait. I thought you were all about giving to charities. Aren't THOSE people getting free lunches? Cut those lazy fuckers off, dammit. Tell those greedy charity cases you've decided there are NO FREE LUNCHES FOR ANYONE!

:rolleyes:

If you live by the sword, SMW, you must accept that you may also die by it. :slap:

You won't get any argument, from me, on that. But I would like to see a lot more land in the hands of family farms, rather than the big corporations.

100 percent correct. A big corporation just can't love the land like a family born and bred there can, or even a gentleman farmer.

Our farm has been in our family almost 200 years. Through bank panics, the Civil War, drought, dying livestock , bad crops , hail storms, Depression, idiot presidents and stupid taxes, we've hung on to this land. We will never give it up while I've got breath in my bod and god willing, at least one of my kids or grandkids will love it like I do.

So, when you turn 65 you're going to tear up those monthly Social Security checks, right? You are, after all, against "free lunches," right?

But wait. I thought you were all about giving to charities. Aren't THOSE people getting free lunches? Cut those lazy fuckers off, dammit. Tell those greedy charity cases you've decided there are NO FREE LUNCHES FOR ANYONE!

:rolleyes:

If you live by the sword, SMW, you must accept that you may also die by it. :slap:

AGAIN, Frannie.. I never said get rid of anything. I said NO MORE GOVT PAID FREE LUNCHES. Has nothing to do with private charities.

And FYI, SS is NOT a free lunch. I've paid much more into it than I'll probably ever get out of it, as have you. Not to mention my fav cousin who just passed away unexpectedly at 66, after working for 35 years as an RN.

Good nit-picking though... nearly as good as the 'correction' you posted about Sammy Davis, Jr.

:comphit:

Easy to tell you didn't come from a farm family. Those kids worked harder, before school, than you do all day.
Thank God, I never had to live on one, either.Every summer as a kid, no matter where in the world my father was stationed, my brothers and I were shipped back to Texas to work on the family dairy. I know farm life. This past summer my son went out to NoCal to work on an organic farm, came back loving necterines. (The earlier post was sarcastic.)

But I would like to see a lot more land in the hands of family farms, rather than the big corporations.That is the whole point to farm subsidies and the like, something that was hammered in the openning post.

AGAIN, Frannie.. I never said get rid of anything. I said NO MORE GOVT PAID FREE LUNCHES. Has nothing to do with private charities.

Ah, so YOU'RE the final arbiter on who should receive government assistance and who should not. Got it. (I sure hope a hurricane doesn't hit Dallas and destroy your home. Those fuckers at FEMA with their free lunches for disaster victims... What BASTARDS. :mad: )

Thanks dear, but I'm not convinced you have what it takes to be fair or impartial on such matters. You certainly don't have the temperament for it; you'd let small children from poor families die rather than see them receive proper government-backed healthcare. NO FREE LUNCH FOR THOSE DYING LITTLE FUCKERS!!

You're one sick cookie, SMW.

Ah, so YOU'RE the final arbiter on who should receive government assistance and who should not. Got it. (I sure hope a hurricane doesn't hit Dallas and destroy your home. Those fuckers at FEMA with their free lunches for disaster victims... What BASTARDS. :mad: )

Thanks dear, but I'm not convinced you have what it takes to be fair or impartial on such matters. You certainly don't have the temperament for it; you'd let small children from poor families die rather than see them receive proper government-backed healthcare. NO FREE LUNCH FOR THOSE DYING LITTLE FUCKERS!!

You're one sick cookie, SMW.

And you're one more liberal drama queen, Frannie.

It's my thread... if you wanna play 'arbiter' I suggest you post your own topic and go from there.

(LOL at a hurricane hitting Dallas... 300+ miles from the coast. Guess it COULD happen. Just like Mrs. Clinton COULD get elected and bring forth all those FREE LUNCHES FOR EVERYBODY promises. Odd's aren't in either one of your favors, though. Thank God for that.)

That is the whole point to farm subsidies and the like, something that was hammered in the openning post.


The majority of ALL farm subsidies are paid to big corporations, not family farmers. Family farms are dying because the kids have to sell the land to pay the death taxes. Subsidies will not change that, and some politicians won't give up an existing tax, for any reason.

Ah, so YOU'RE the final arbiter on who should receive government assistance and who should not. Got it. (I sure hope a hurricane doesn't hit Dallas and destroy your home. Those fuckers at FEMA with their free lunches for disaster victims... What BASTARDS. :mad: )

Thanks dear, but I'm not convinced you have what it takes to be fair or impartial on such matters. You certainly don't have the temperament for it; you'd let small children from poor families die rather than see them receive proper government-backed healthcare. NO FREE LUNCH FOR THOSE DYING LITTLE FUCKERS!!

You're one sick cookie, SMW.


FEMA. Now there's a good example of an efficient, well-managed govt agency, huh? Maybe the new healthcare agency can take lessons from them.

:lolhit:

(LOL at a hurricane hitting Dallas... 300+ miles from the coast. Guess it COULD happen.

My bad. I meant to say tornado... like the one that hit Fort Worth (http://www.dallassky.com/fwtornado.htm) a few years back (you know, Fort Worth? That city about 35 miles from Dallas?). But natural disasters don't ever hit the Dallas area now, do they? No flooding in North Texas, nosireee! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19288697/)

Just like Mrs. Clinton COULD get elected and bring forth all those FREE LUNCHES FOR EVERYBODY promises. Odd's aren't in either one of your favors, though. Thank God for that.)

I think you're mistaken about Mrs. Clinton. She's kicking ass these days, not that I'm particularly happy about it; I'm no fan of hers. I know it will wreck your preconceived notions about me specifically and liberals in general, but we don't all automatically LOVE (and make excuses for) every democrat/liberal that walks down the street. There are some we actually don't like.

Unlike hard-core righties like you. You'd follow George Bush off a freakin' cliff.

FEMA. Now there's a good example of an efficient, well-managed govt agency, huh? Maybe the new healthcare agency can take lessons from them.

:lolhit:

First of all, I never claimed that today's FEMA is efficient or well-managed. I merely mentioned the fact that this particular agency hands out "free lunches" to people who've been hit by natural disasters. I surely hope the next North Texas tornado/flood doesn't hit your house because we know you'd starve first rather than accept a "free lunch" from the government, isn't that right?

:rolleyes:

FEMA actually worked quite well under Bill Clinton. It became a disaster itself when Bush started fucking with it. But that's too much for your tiny conservative brain to accept, I know.

Bush tore down the FEMA that Clinton built up

Of all the sad tales of cronyism and ineptitude emerging out of the Katrina catastrophe, probably none is more telling than the history of FEMA under the oversight and management of President Bush.

So let’s review the outlines of the story, beginning with the president’s inauguration in January 2001. Like everything in the second Bush White House, the surest clue to how the administration would proceed was to find what the Clinton White House had done and then expect the opposite.

President Clinton had appointed the first FEMA director with actual emergency-management experience, James Lee Witt. And Witt had gone on to reshape the organization into what was considered a model government agency. Clinton even gave FEMA Cabinet-level status.

Bush demoted the agency’s status and put it in the hands of his chief political fixer, Joe Allbaugh, who went about dismantling much of what Witt had built. As he told Congress in May 2001: “Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management. Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level.”

Tapping Allbaugh, a political operative with no clear experience for the job, was the first clear sign of the importance the new administration attached to the agency’s responsibilities. And that attitude suffused hiring pretty much down the line. As his general counsel, Allbaugh picked his old college roommate Michael D. Brown, another political hire with no emergency-management experience whatsoever.

Brown was a GOP party activist who had worked for the previous decade as a commissioner with the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to run horse shows. But by 2000 things at the IAHA were getting rocky for Brown. Indeed, he would soon be fired for what the Boston Herald describes “a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures.” But he was already thinking about his next gig. Brown told friends that a good job would be in it for him if Bush won in November 2000 — as indeed it was.

Once Brown was at FEMA, it was onward and upward. By the end of the year, Brown was promoted to deputy director; his replacement as general counsel was Mark Wallace, another lawyer and political operative who came up through Jeb Bush’s political campaigns down in Florida.

This was in the period that FEMA was being folded into the new Department of Homeland Security. But it was also during the buildup to the Iraq war. So once American troops were on the ground in Iraq, Allbaugh resigned from FEMA. And with the help of now-Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, he set up New Bridge Strategies, a consultancy to cash in on the Iraqi contracts bonanza.

On Allbaugh’s departure from FEMA, Brown became director, in charge of federal domestic emergency management in the United States. That left Brown — only a couple years out from getting fired from the job running horse shows — in charge of domestic emergency management for the federal government during the war on terrorism.

Once he was in charge, Brown kept up the same level of professionalism in hiring practices. His No. 2 at FEMA — Chief of Staff Patrick Rhode — was an advance man for Bush-Cheney 2000. His deputy chief of staff, Scott Morris, was a “media strategist” with Maverick Media, Bush adviser Mark McKinnon’s ad shop down in Texas. --The Hill (http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/bush-tore-down-the-fema-that-clinton-built-up-2005-09-08.html)

The majority of ALL farm subsidies are paid to big corporations, not family farmers.Yet another example of abusing the system by big business. That was not, however, the point behind farm subsidies.


Family farms are dying because the kids have to sell the land to pay the death taxes.Do you mean Capital Gains taxes? If so, do you have any numbers on this?

First of all, I never claimed that today's FEMA is efficient or well-managed. I merely mentioned the fact that this particular agency hands out "free lunches" to people who've been hit by natural disasters. I surely hope the next North Texas tornado/flood doesn't hit your house because we know you'd starve first rather than accept a "free lunch" from the government, isn't that right?

:rolleyes:

FEMA actually worked quite well under Bill Clinton. It became a disaster itself when Bush started fucking with it. But that's too much for your tiny conservative brain to accept, I know.


Of course, it helps that no major hurricanes struck, displacing hundreds of thousands of people while Clinton was president either. All govt agencies work well until they're put to the test.

Can't say as I've ever had a free lunch from the govt (although if I needed one, I wouldn't hesitate to ask for my share). You seem to know alot about them, how 'bout you?

The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP),Most of these things you mention are creations of the GOP. But in general, I also believe in a policy of No Free Lunch. The trouble with your logic though, SMW and especially Foolsworth, is that you totally ignore the SUPERSIZED free lunches that we award to the private sector. Welfare for single moms? Chump change! What about the hundreds of millions of dollars we give to defense companies as bonuses for projects which are already over budget and behind schedule? What about the NO-BID CONTRACTS we give to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater? What about huge, greasy pork-barrel projects like Star Wars and the Bridge to Nowhere? Those companies would fail in a year if they were forced to compete in a "free market." But thanks to their generous campaign contributions, they don't have to.

What about the most destructive, disgusting free lunch of all: the 15% capital gains tax awarded to fat loathsome coupon-clipping turds who sit at home on their bloated lard-encrusted behinds paying half the taxes that honest wage earners like myself do? Of all the injustices mentioned in this thread, this is the Double-Whopper of free lunches. Its costs us billions in lost revenue, and it causes overbuilding in cap-gains intensive investments (i.e: real estate) which are now turning to crap before our very eyes. When you think about it, any sort of deficit spending is a free lunch. If you want it, just budget for it. And in case you're wondering who the 3 Welfare Queens of Deficit Spending are, they're two guys named Bush and one named Reagan, along with their ass-slurping apologists in Congress.

So your article's actual conclusion is very true, SMW: be careful about voting Republican in the next election. Bravo!

Family farms are dying because the kids have to sell the land to pay the death taxes. Sorry for the length. This article is a bit dated, but it speaks to the impressions people have which may not be totally accurate.

New York Times
Focus on Farms Masks Estate Tax Confusion
by David Cay Johnston

WELLSBURG, Iowa — Harlyn Riekena worried that his success would cost him when he died. Thirty-seven years ago he quit teaching to farm and over the years bought more and more of the rich black soil here in central Iowa. Now he and his wife, Karen, own 950 gently rolling acres planted in soybeans and corn.

The farmland alone is worth more than $2.5 million, and so Mr. Riekena, 61, fretted that estate taxes would take a big chunk of his three grown daughters' inheritance.

That might seem a reasonable assumption, what with all the talk in Washington about the need to repeal the estate tax to save the family farm. "To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax," President Bush vowed a month ago; he and many others have made the point repeatedly.

But in fact the Riekenas will owe nothing in estate taxes. Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published.

Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said.

Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.

The estate tax does, of course, have a bite. But the reality of that bite is different from the mythology, in which family farmers have become icons for the campaign to abolish the tax. In fact, the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate.

The effort to end the estate tax — which critics call the death tax — gained ground when the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to reduce the tax and then abolish it in 2011. The bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.

The estate tax is central in the debate over taxes, not only because the sums involved are huge but also because to both sides it is a touchstone of national values. To those seeking to abolish it, the estate tax is a penalty for success, an abomination that blocks the deeply human desire to leave a life's work as a legacy for the children. It is also a complicated burden that enriches the lawyers, accountants and life insurance companies that help people reduce their tax bills.

To its supporters, on the other hand, the estate tax is a symbol of American equality, a mechanism to democratize society and to encourage economic success based on merit rather than birthright.

Yet for all the passion in the debate, the estate tax does not always seem broadly understood.

While 17 percent of Americans in a recent Gallup survey think they will owe estate taxes, in fact only the richest 2 percent of Americans do. That amounted to 49,870 Americans in 1999. And nearly half the estate tax is paid by the 3,000 or so people who each year leave taxable estates of more than $5 million.

In fact, the primary beneficiaries of the move to abolish the estate tax look less like the Riekenas and more like Frank A. Blethen, a Seattle newspaper publisher whose family owns eight newspapers worth perhaps a billion dollars.

"Being ever bloodthirsty, the I.R.S. will start with the highest value it can on my estate," said Mr. Blethen, the 55-year-old patriarch of the publishing family. The figure for his share will probably be several hundred million dollars, more than half of which would go to the government. Mr. Blethen is trying to avoid almost all those taxes through a plan also used by other wealthy families, but if he does not succeed his sons' interest in the business will be wiped out, he said.

Estate taxes are paid by few Americans because they are not assessed on the first $1.35 million of net worth left by a couple. Amounts above this are taxed at rates that begin at 43 percent and rise to 55 percent on amounts greater than $3 million. As the Riekenas and the Blethens have learned, there are many legal ways to reduce the value of one's wealth for estate tax purposes. So even for the largest estates, the tax averages 25 percent.

Family farmers are often cited as victims. As Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa hog farmer and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, put it, "The product of a life's work leaches away like seeds in poor soil."

Yet tax return data show that very few farmers pay estate taxes. Only 6,216 taxable estates in 1999 included any agricultural land and equipment, the I.R.S. report shows. The average value of these farm assets was $440,000, only about a third of the amount that any married couple could leave untaxed to heirs. What is more, a farm couple can pass $4.1 million untaxed, so long as the heirs continue farming for 10 years.

In Iowa, the average farm has a net worth of $1.2 million. Loyd A. Brown, president of Hertz Farm Management in Nevada, Iowa, which runs more than 400 farms in 10 states, said none of his firm's clients nor anyone he knew was facing problems because of the estate tax.

Just 1,222 estates in 1999 had enough in farm assets to make the farm property alone subject to estate taxes. But these farm assets amounted to one-tenth of these estates, suggesting that the tax applies mostly to gentleman farmers and ranchers, rather than to working farmers like the Riekenas, whose fortunes are tied up in their farms.

As the Riekenas were surprised to discover, avoiding the estate tax was easy. Their lawyer developed a simple plan that involved making gifts to their daughters and buying life insurance to offset any estate taxes that might be due if the parents died before most of the farm had been turned over to their daughters.

There is a real cost, of course — payments to the lawyer and for the insurance. And in any case the paucity of affected farmers does not end the debate. Patricia A. Wolff, the Farm Bureau's chief lobbyist, said the organization made estate tax repeal its top priority because, while it has not surveyed its members, she was confident "the majority of farmers and ranchers believe that death taxes are wrong and that it is wrong to tax people twice on what they earn."

But Mr. Riekena and all two dozen other farmers interviewed across central Iowa — every one a Republican — said that while they favored increasing the amount that could be passed to heirs untaxed, they did not support the repeal proposed by President Bush and other leaders of his party. A few snickered or laughed when asked whether the estate tax should be repealed to save the family farm.

But Senator Grassley himself opposes the estate tax, in large part because he thinks that while a decision to keep or sell an asset is an appropriate trigger for a tax, death should not be.

He added another reason: "I do not think that the function of government is to redistribute wealth."

Indeed, that seems to be the fault line in the debate: should the government play Robin Hood with estates?

"If you worked hard and put your money away, you paid tax on it as you went along, so it's yours and you should be able to pass it on to your children without the government penalizing you," said R. Elaine Gunland, who grows grapes in Fresno, Calif., and whose family may owe estate taxes when she dies.

Mr. Blethen, the fourth-generation publisher of a newspaper started in 1896 with $3,000, says he speaks for many others in supporting repeal of the tax in the name of preserving family businesses.

"I firmly believe that family- owned businesses are the heart and soul of the country," said Mr. Blethen, who has created a Web site called deathtax.com.

Mr. Blethen says the estate tax benefits publicly traded companies at the expense of family-owned businesses. The reason is that the public companies can often buy family businesses at a discount because the owners did not raise the cash to pay estate taxes and must sell quickly at fire sale prices.

Mr. Blethen said some of the seven smaller papers his family bought in Washington and Maine came from families that had not planned carefully for the estate tax and decided it was easier to cash out.

"If you like corporate culture, and think America needs more of it, then you love the estate tax," Mr. Blethen said. "I think this march toward corporatism is not healthy and we lose innovation, jobs and charitable giving."

Mr. Blethen said the estate tax also discouraged major new investments in family businesses late in the life of the primary owner because such investments consumed cash that might be needed at any time to pay estate taxes.

He said the estate tax also "forces you into irresponsible gift making" to heirs. He felt compelled to give half the future growth of his fortune to his two sons when they were not yet kindergartners even though he had no way of telling whether the boys would turn out to be industrious, as they did, or scalawags.

Despite his fierce opposition to the estate tax, Mr. Blethen does not support President Bush's current plan to repeal the tax because it would also exempt from capital gains taxes the profits on assets passed to heirs when those assets are sold. "That's not fair," Mr. Blethen said.

He said Mr. Bush's proposal would have the perverse effect of encouraging the sale of family-owned businesses, because heirs would see death as their chance to sell tax-free and to diversify their portfolios, instead of continuing to bear the risks of holding a single enterprise.

Mr. Blethen thinks that rather than taxing an estate, taxes should apply when a business is sold. "You want to defer those capital gains and let them grow so large that the family will keep the business to avoid the capital gains taxes," he said.

The debate does not divide neatly among rich and poor. Since February more than 800 wealthy Americans have joined in a public appeal to keep the estate tax. They argue that repealing the tax would further enrich the wealthiest Americans and hurt struggling families. They also argue that financial success should be based on merit rather than on inheritance.

Warren E. Buffett, George Soros, Paul Newman and William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft's chairman, William H. Gates III, are among the most prominent in that group, which also includes many people with holdings of just a million dollars.

Mr. Buffett said the estate tax fosters economic growth by encouraging Americans to rise based on merit, not inheritance. "If you take the C.E.O.'s of the Fortune 500," he said in an interview, "and put in the eldest son of every one of those who ran the place in 1975, the American economy would not run as well as letting the Jack Welches, who started out with nothing, rise to the top of General Electric."

Back in central Iowa, Mr. Riekena had another reason. He said Washington was focused on the wrong issue when it came to saving family farms.

"For most farmers around here, the estate tax is not high in their minds," Mr. Riekena said. "What we need are better crop prices."

Yet another example of abusing the system by big business. That was not, however, the point behind farm subsidies.

Maybe not the point, but certainly the way it worked out.

Do you mean Capital Gains taxes? If so, do you have any numbers on this?

No, the federal portion of the taxes were called "Estate Taxes", while the state portion were listed as "Inheritance Taxes".
Just what has happened to my cousins, in Kansas and Oklahoma. They have all had to sell off land to pay all the taxes due, when their parents passed away. In some cases they have been able to hold onto a few acres, but seldom enough to farm.

Shiloh's article seems to be more slanted toward how to beat the taxes rather than the taxes don't exist.

I was surprised when my mom passed away to learn that one doesn't have to pay estate taxes on inheritances of less than $600,000? Isn't that the figure? Seemed perfectly fair to a po' white girl like me.

;)
SMW

Most of these things you mention are creations of the GOP. But in general, I also believe in a policy of No Free Lunch. The trouble with your logic though, SMW and especially Foolsworth, is that you totally ignore the SUPERSIZED free lunches that we award to the private sector. Welfare for single moms? Chump change! What about the hundreds of millions of dollars we give to defense companies as bonuses for projects which are already over budget and behind schedule? What about the NO-BID CONTRACTS we give to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater? What about huge, greasy pork-barrel projects like Star Wars and the Bridge to Nowhere? Those companies would fail in a year if they were forced to compete in a "free market." But thanks to their generous campaign contributions, they don't have to.

What about the most destructive, disgusting free lunch of all: the 15% capital gains tax awarded to fat loathsome coupon-clipping turds who sit at home on their bloated lard-encrusted behinds paying half the taxes that honest wage earners like myself do? Of all the injustices mentioned in this thread, this is the Double-Whopper of free lunches. Its costs us billions in lost revenue, and it causes overbuilding in cap-gains intensive investments (i.e: real estate) which are now turning to crap before our very eyes. When you think about it, any sort of deficit spending is a free lunch. If you want it, just budget for it. And in case you're wondering who the 3 Welfare Queens of Deficit Spending are, they're two guys named Bush and one named Reagan, along with their ass-slurping apologists in Congress.

So your article's actual conclusion is very true, SMW: be careful about voting Republican in the next election. Bravo!

I agree with most of what you pointed out, Fluffer. And I've NEVER voted for a president based on what party they represent. I vote according to how candidates stand on issues of interest to me. Just happens that NO ADDITIONAL FREE LUNCHES is my big issue this election. Which doesn't look like it's gonna leave me much room to wiggle come election day, now does it?

:rolleyes:

Focus on Farms Masks Estate Tax Confusion

This article, like all the others dealing with this issue, focuses on one taxing authority, as if that were the only one involved.

I agree with most of what you pointed out, Fluffer. And I've NEVER voted for a president based on what party they represent. I vote according to how candidates stand on issues of interest to me. Just happens that NO ADDITIONAL FREE LUNCHES is my big issue this election. Which doesn't look like it's gonna leave me much room to wiggle come election day, now does it?

:rolleyes:
Vote for Ron Paul!

Vote for Ron Paul!

I'll have to study up on him, DF. Last time I voted my conscience, I ended up wasting one on Perot.

:hula:

I'll have to study up on him, DF. Last time I voted my conscience, I ended up wasting one on Perot.

:hula:
Well, I think Ron Paul's only major hurdle is the primary. If he could win the Republican primary (and it looks grim on this one), he could have a shot. But I have to say, he seems right up your alley. Look at http://www.ronpaul2008.com and see his positions on issues.

EDIT: Plus, you won't be wasting your vote in the primary even if he doesn't make it to the general election.

HA! Y'all are so funny. I got news for you... I'm gonna be destitute when I get old and feeble. Then I can be a burden on society. By God, I've worked hard all my life for what I have and think it's about time for ME ME ME to get in on that govt handout bandwagon.

Where's my fair share, dammit????

;)
SMW
I most certainly welcome you to. Then you can see firsthand the abysmal treatment people of lesser means get in this country.

I most certainly welcome you to. Then you can see firsthand the abysmal treatment people of lesser means get in this country.

LOL, where've you been, Nappy? I've been a member of the people of lesser means my entire life! Just because I never asked for, nor received a handout from the govt doesn't mean I didn't go to 12 different elementary schools because we moved everytime the rent was due. Things got better once I was old enough to make my own living.

Silly boy.

Shiloh's article seems to be more slanted toward how to beat the taxes rather than the taxes don't exist.
First off, no one has said that no tax existed. The effects on family farms, however, is massively overblown by the Right.

Second, how do you see the article as "slanted toward how to beat the taxes?" The entire thrust is that family farms and their stability through generations is not impacted as the "Death Tax" crowd would have you believe.

This article, like all the others dealing with this issue, focuses on one taxing authority, as if that were the only one involved.Well, the point of the thread is the nation as a whole giving out too many "free lunches," so I assumed a look at the federal tax was what was relevant. What other taxing authority than the IRS would you be refering to?

LOL, where've you been, Nappy?
Nowhere you've been, and I want to keep it that way.

Of course, it helps that no major hurricanes struck, displacing hundreds of thousands of people while Clinton was president either. All govt agencies work well until they're put to the test.

Oh sure. There were no natural disasters during Clinton's time in the White House.

Let's see.... I've got a list of 16 major natural disasters that occurred between 1993 and 2001, all competently handled by Clinton's FEMA.

Floods
1993 June–Aug., Mississippi River
Two months of heavy rain caused Mississippi River and tributaries to flood; almost 50 deaths and about $12 billion in damage from the Dakotas to Illinois; almost 70,000 left homeless.

1997 Dec. 1996–Jan. 1997, West Coast
Torrential rains and snowmelt produced severe floods throughout the West, causing 36 deaths and about $2–3 billion in damage.

1997 March, Ohio and Mississippi valleys
Flooding and tornadoes plagued Arkansas to West Virginia, 67 killed and damage totaled approximately $1 billion.

1997 April, Red River
Grand Forks, N.D., and surrounding area devastated as the Red River swelled 13 ft above flood level.

Earthquakes
1992 June 28, Landers/Big Bear, California
7.5 magnitude quake centered near Landers and 6.5 magnitude quake at Big Bear three hours later; 1 death in relatively sparesely populated San Bernardino County; $100-million in damage to homes, roads, public buildings; largest since 1952, second largest since 1906

1994 Jan. 17, Northridge (Los Angeles), California
6.8 magnitude quake along a blind thrust; left 61 dead, extensive damage to buildings and freeways

Hurricanes
1994 Nov. 8–21, Southern Florida, “Gordon”
8 deaths in Fla.; total estimated U.S. damage nearly $400 million (actual cost)

1995 Nov. 29, Florida panhandle and Alabama, “Opal”
Storm surge caused extensive damage to coastal areas. In U.S. death toll reached nine and damages more than $3 billion

1996 Sept. 5, North Carolina and Virginia, “Fran”
Took 37 lives and caused more than $3.5 billion in damage

1999 Sept. 14–18, East Coast, “Floyd”
Associated flooding caused at least 57 deaths; hardest-hit N.C. suffered 35 deaths; damage estimated at $4.5 billion (actual cost)

Tornadoes
1997 May 27, Jarrell, Texas
Multiple tornadoes, including one particularly strong one that devastated the town of Jarrell, caused 29 deaths and an estimated $20 million in damage

1999 Jan. 17–22, Tennessee and Arkansas
A series of tornadoes left 17 dead; damages were estimated at $1.3 billion

1999 May 3, Oklahoma and Kansas
Unusually large tornado, thought to have been a mile wide at times, killed 41 people and injured at least 748 others in Oklahoma; a separate tornado killed another 5 and injured about 150 in Kansas; damages totaled at least $1 billion

Blizzards
1993 March 12–14, Eastern U.S., “Superstorm”
Paralyzed the eastern seaboard, causing the deaths of some 270 people; record snowfalls (with rates of 2–3 in. per hour) and high winds caused $3–6 billion in damage

1996 Jan. 6–8, Eastern U.S.
Heavy snow paralyzed the Appalachians, the mid-Atlantic, and the Northeast; 187 were killed in the blizzard and in the floods that resulted after a sudden warm-up; damages reached $3 billion

Other Extreme Weather Emergencies
1995 July, Midwestern Heat Wave
739 Chicago residents died of heat exhaustion and related causes
--Disasters in the United States (http://www.easternct.edu/depts/amerst/disasters.htm)

Interestingly enough, there have been only two natural disasters in the US during Bush's tenure, and the ONE that was (mis)handled by Bush's "new and improved" version of FEMA is considered the WORST natural disaster response in this country's history.

2001 June 8–15, Gulf Coast to southern New England, “Allison”
Caused severe flooding, especially around Houston, where 20,000 residents were evacuated from their homes. Damage estimated at $5 billion (actual cost); 41 deaths, including 23 in Tex.

2005 Aug. 29-30, Louisiana to Alabama Gulf Coast, "Katrina"
Category 4 hurricane struck the Mississippi Delta and the mainland just east of New Orleans, causing damage in the tens of billions of dollars and more than 1,000 deaths; failure of levees protecting New Orleans caused widespread flooding; more than 400,000 persons were forced to flee the city

Can't say as I've ever had a free lunch from the govt (although if I needed one, I wouldn't hesitate to ask for my share).

Interesting. You'd deny a sick child a "free lunch" of healthcare, but if you needed a free lunch, you'd be right there in front, shouting for it. Way to go, SMW!

You seem to know alot about them, how 'bout you?

I know a lot about a lot of things, SMW. Because I read, I think, I listen, I research. How 'bout you?

No, don't bother answering. Your absurd Bush-blindness/insistence that Clinton's FEMA was never put to the test makes my point quite clearly.

:thumbs:

I was surprised when my mom passed away to learn that one doesn't have to pay estate taxes on inheritances of less than $600,000? Isn't that the figure? Seemed perfectly fair to a po' white girl like me.

Estate taxes don't kick in until the estate is something like $3 Million.

They should not "kick in" at all.

It's just another "distribution of wealth" tax. The monies earned to build the estate have already been taxed. This is one of the most bullshit taxes there is. It's for NO ones benefit.

They should not "kick in" at all.

It's just another "distribution of wealth" tax. The monies earned to build the estate have already been taxed. This is one of the most bullshit taxes there is. It's for NO ones benefit.

All taxes and all government expenditure are a "distribution of wealth". Most of it redistributes money from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy.

All governing is about nothing more than controlling the "distribution of wealth".

The estate tax is for the benefit of our society.

Paris Hilton can get a damn job like everyone else.

All taxes and all government expenditure are a "distribution of wealth". Most of it redistributes money from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy.

All governing is about nothing more than controlling the "distribution of wealth".

The estate tax is for the benefit of our society.

Paris Hilton can get a damn job like everyone else.
Paris could lose everything and 2 days later she'd still have more than you.

now :stfu: and get me a slurpee.

All taxes and all government expenditure are a "distribution of wealth". Most of it redistributes money from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy.

All governing is about nothing more than controlling the "distribution of wealth".

The estate tax is for the benefit of our society.

Paris Hilton can get a damn job like everyone else.

Therefore why we seldom agree... If I build a business to a multi-million dollar size, and pay taxes while doing it... you think that my children/grandchildren should have to pay additional tax on already taxed properties... just because I was successful at my enterprise?

That is bullshit AND illegal/immoral/unfair.

They should not "kick in" at all.

It's just another "distribution of wealth" tax. The monies earned to build the estate have already been taxed. This is one of the most bullshit taxes there is. It's for NO ones benefit.
it's still income. the money i pay the kid who mows my lawn has already been taxed, but he should still be paying taxes on it. which i'm sure he would if he had a real business and didn't want to go to jail.

Therefore why we seldom agree... If I build a business to a multi-million dollar size, and pay taxes while doing it... you think that my children/grandchildren should have to pay additional tax on already taxed properties... just because I was successful at my enterprise?

Yes, they definately should pay taxes on it. It is income.
They didn't earn that money originally, it was gifted to them when you died.

Paris could lose everything and 2 days later she'd still have more than you.


That, like most things you post, made no sense.

:thumbs:

That, like most things you post, made no sense.

:thumbs:
I believe he meant that she could lose all her inheritance and still have more than you. It is true. She stands to inherit less than $100 million, but she made over $200 million in income in 2006 alone.

If I build a business to a multi-million dollar size, and pay taxes while doing it... you think that my children/grandchildren should have to pay additional tax on already taxed properties...It doesn't matter who you gift it to, they are now responsible for the taxes on their new net worth. No different than the taxes one would be responsible for if I gave them a car.
...just because I was successful at my enterprise?No, but because they are now in possession of the property.

I believe he meant that she could lose all her inheritance and still have more than you. It is true. She stands to inherit less than $100 million, but she made over $200 million in income in 2006 alone.

I took him at his word that he meant "everything" when he said "everything".