Metro Times cover package on Moroun

[urbanoutdoors]

Although they want to claim riverside claiming homeland security... They want to lift Hazmat restrictions to take business away from the truck ferry.... hmmm

<http://www.todaystrucking.com/news.cfm?intDocID=21954>

Today's Trucking News - USA
According to documents obtained by todaystrucking.com, Ambassador President Dan Stamper wrote to The MDOT last fall officially requesting a change to the ...

[BShea]

What does morality have to do with it?

I'll tell you.

No, you didn't. You trotted out the usual limp bogeymen and extreme examples, which really didn't have anything to do with the question at hand.

You can't make the case so you retreat into the safety of Bush bashing -- silly and loud finger pointing.

Make the case of how government redistribution of personal wealth to people that didn't earn is somehow more moral than me choosing to give it to my family when I die.

[Doma]

Michigan is by far and away the most democratic [[based on voting records) and by extension liberal state in the union. We also have the highest unemployment rate in the country and have been mired by what....7 or 8 years of straight recession.

This is not a coincidence, I don't have the energy to debunk the massive plops of complete bullshit fueled by radical, left wing, socialist values that seem to encompass this board. So I'll leave you with this SIMPLE fact:

Detroit [[the most liberal city in America) is the also the most impoverished.

[Lorax]

What does morality have to do with it?

I'll tell you.

No, you didn't. You trotted out the usual limp bogeymen and extreme examples, which really didn't have anything to do with the question at hand.

You can't make the case so you retreat into the safety of Bush bashing -- silly and loud finger pointing.

Make the case of how government redistribution of personal wealth to people that didn't earn is somehow more moral than me choosing to give it to my family when I die.

The point is moot, since you won't have it to give when you die, because it was taxed, or you simply didn't earn it.

If you were a humanitarian, you would use your surplus wealth to build hospital wings, open a children's charity, found a program to re-introduce music and art to schools where it was cut due to republican budget cuts, etc.

There was always that option, even in the 50's under Eisnhower's 90% tax rate. You had your choice of paying it in taxes, or doing something that would benefit the society at large. Democracy at work.

But you would rather be an apologist for the policies of the Bush Crime Family, and support their tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, even in a time of war.

In the 50's it was a 90% tax rate on personal income over 2 million- perhaps it could be raised to 5 million today, and there is no limit on how much of that you can save and give to your kids later. Trusts are another option.

Handing enormous legacy wealth to anyone, whether or not they are family is a horrendous idea, and rarely ends well.

So, morality aside, there is a duty to give back to the society and the community that allowed you to become wealthy in the first place.

The rich today, and in particular Matted Moron exemplify the worst of human nature when it comes to managing their wealth. Greed, avarice, lack of forebearance, stinginess are ugly words to describe ugly acts by equally ugly people.

Apparently you aspire to that way of thinking.

[MIRepublic]

Michigan is by far and away the most democratic [[based on voting records) and by extension liberal state in the union.

Detroit [[the most liberal city in America) is the also the most impoverished.

Wrong on both accounts. The first one is simply flat wrong; in fact, it's not even close to being correct. And, the last one is probably not even right, even if it happened to be the heavily Democratic city, which I don't think it even is. But, thanks for the attempt at trying to turn everything into some political tirade. Please come back when you get some real facts.

[mwilbert]

One doesn't have to be a socialist to see danger in concentrations of wealth and power. Certainly Jefferson did, and Teddy Roosevelt as well. I believe it is important to the legitimacy of the social order that justice [[civil and criminal) for the powerful be somewhat similar to that of the powerless. I don't see any way that it can be the same, but having people be able to visibly flout the laws that apply to others is clearly very dangerous. It's dangerous when it is done by politicians, and it is dangerous when it is done by the rich.

And the idea that Michigan is the most Democratic state is just wacky, not that it would prove anything if it were.

[KOMPOST]

Michigan is by far and away the most democratic [[based on voting records) and by extension liberal state in the union. We also have the highest unemployment rate in the country and have been mired by what....7 or 8 years of straight recession.

This is not a coincidence, I don't have the energy to debunk the massive plops of complete bullshit fueled by radical, left wing, socialist values that seem to encompass this board. So I'll leave you with this SIMPLE fact:

Detroit [[the most liberal city in America) is the also the most impoverished.

This "argument" is so thin and skewed it's embarrassing. Seriously, save this one for some 4th graders you'd like to brainwash.

Although they want to claim riverside claiming homeland security... They want to lift Hazmat restrictions to take business away from the truck ferry.... hmmm

<http://www.todaystrucking.com/news.cfm?intDocID=21954>

Today's Trucking News - USA
According to documents obtained by todaystrucking.com, Ambassador President Dan Stamper wrote to The MDOT last fall officially requesting a change to the ...

Can't believe this got buried by a "Bush did this"/ "No he didn't" argument.

[detrola]

Do not be surprised if Dave Bing steers clear of this. I suspect he will do all he can to defer the matter to the FED.

[Lorax]

Do not be surprised if Dave Bing steers clear of this. I suspect he will do all he can to defer the matter to the FED.

A smart politician in his position facing another election shortly will do exactly as you say.

Whomever is elected next election will have to deal with this, and enforcement of the existing laws is a good start.

If it comes down to an issue of "my lawyer's better than your lawyer" vis a vis the Matted Moron/Detroit City Attorney, then we have a real problem.

Unfortunately for us, Moron knows he can out maneuver the city attorney, question is, at his age, can he outlive him?

[Hypestyles]

moroun's organization needs to be put in check and made to stop being scofflaws..

[Doma]

C'mon people, when was the last time you heard the phrase "Detroit Republican"?
http://www.modeldmedia.com/inthenews/detlibcity.aspx

I can't find any information that confirms my other point right now, but I have read it from credible sources. We have been electing democrats like they are going out of style for years now. People need to realize that the government, regulation, high taxes, etc. do not make an economy grow.

This "argument" is so thin and skewed it's embarrassing. Seriously, save this one for some 4th graders you'd like to brainwash.


Can't believe this got buried by a "Bush did this"/ "No he didn't" argument.

[Lorax]

C'mon people, when was the last time you heard the phrase "Detroit Republican"?
http://www.modeldmedia.com/inthenews/detlibcity.aspx

I can't find any information that confirms my other point right now, but I have read it from credible sources. We have been electing democrats like they are going out of style for years now. People need to realize that the government, regulation, high taxes, etc. do not make an economy grow.

Neither do 8 years of systematic rape of the national treasury by the Bush Crime Family.

Are there any Repugnicans left? If so, they're an endangered species.

Perhaps we can stuff one and put it on display at the Smithsonian as a reminder that they failed to evolve, so they died out.

[Homer]

Dave Bing seems to be a friend of "Big Business". Which can be a good thing for Detroit.
But wait, Matty M. is bigger than BIG. Don't look for good for the neighborhood.

[Funaho]

I think people who go on about "socialism" and bitch about paying taxes for the greater good need to read up a little on game theory, and in particular take a look at the prisoner's delimma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

The basic idea here is that not everything in life is zero-sum: sometimes, if everyone pitches in a little more the result is better for everyone than if everyone simply tries to only "look out for #1." This is the whole point behind living together in a society, and if that bothers you so much then go live off by yourself somewhere and take care of all your needs by yourself.

[Bearinabox]

Dave Bing seems to be a friend of "Big Business". Which can be a good thing for Detroit.
But wait, Matty M. is bigger than BIG. Don't look for good for the neighborhood.

Dave Bing being a friend of Big Business is a good thing for Big Business. If Dave Bing were a friend of Detroit, and viewed Big Business as a means to the end of making Detroit a better place, that would be a good thing for Detroit.

[MIRepublic]

I can't find any information that confirms my other point right now...

You can't find any information to confirm your baseless claims because the information doesn't exists. You made those two points central to your claim and you were absolutely incorrect. You're credibility was lost in a snap. Sad, really. Here you were thinking you were making some great point, when all that you ended up doing was embarrassing yourself and ultimately taking yourself out of the game, entirely.

[edgewood]

There should be no billionaires. A fair tax rate, as it was in the 1950's under republican rule, taxed personal income over 2 million per annum at 90%. .

I agree with this poster completely. Individuals with such wealth and influence endanger a free society.

[kraig]

I agree with this poster completely. Individuals with such wealth and influence endanger a free society.

You guys need to move to 18th century England with that shit.

[BShea]

The point is moot, since you won't have it to give when you die, because it was taxed, or you simply didn't earn it.

How is the point moot? I'd have it when I die because I have a will that dictates where I want my assets to go. And if it's going to go to people that didn't earn it, I want to choose who gets it. I don't want the government to choose. That's part of my individual liberty -- the sort you want to take away as an authoritarian-loving Leftist, who believes Big Brother must compel the proles to "do good" for "their own good" because only "good" self-appointed elites can decide such things.

Orwell had YOU in mind, Squealer, when he was warning us of the dangers of the Left many decades ago.

If you were a humanitarian, you would use your surplus wealth to build hospital wings, open a children's charity, found a program to re-introduce music and art to schools where it was cut due to republican budget cuts, etc.

Ahh, the typical Lefty tactic of attempting to seize the moral high ground. If I ask a homeless person, all wealth is surplus and should be redistributed. Is he more qualified than a bureaucratic to make that choice? And how much is enough? How good is good? Who decides?

There was always that option, even in the 50's under Eisnhower's 90% tax rate. You had your choice of paying it in taxes, or doing something that would benefit the society at large. Democracy at work.

Your notions of public good have nothing to do with democracy, which is a form of government. You're prattling on about your sense of morality and wealth. Economics, morality and governance are related, but not the same thing. Please try to keep up. If we all pay a 17% flat tax tomorrow, we'd still live in a representative federal republic, not a fascist authoritarian state. Sorry, comrade.

But you would rather be an apologist for the policies of the Bush Crime Family, and support their tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, even in a time of war.

When did I raise the issue of tax breaks, Bush and the wars? Put down the bong, change your dirty Che t-shirt and try to keep on subject, mkay? We're talking about inheritance taxes. Strawmen don't play here, buddy. All they do is make it obvious you can't rant, but not defend your rants.

In the 50's it was a 90% tax rate on personal income over 2 million- perhaps it could be raised to 5 million today, and there is no limit on how much of that you can save and give to your kids later. Trusts are another option.

I find the idea of being compelled to give an inept government more money than it needs to fumble-fuck even more things -- whether they be wasteful social programs I loathe, or to build cluster bombs for waging wars you abhor -- to be morally repugnant. It's my money. It was taxed when I earned it. It was taxed when I spent some of it. Leave it alone.

Handing enormous legacy wealth to anyone, whether or not they are family is a horrendous idea, and rarely ends well.

So says you. History is filled with good and bad examples. It's not for government to decide if my children will be good stewards of our money. And it's certainly not for you to decide. When government makes such forced decisions, liberty dies.

So, morality aside, there is a duty to give back to the society and the community that allowed you to become wealthy in the first place.

Who says there is a "duty?" You? The Bible? The law? LMFAO. There is only individual liberty and free will. Choice. I pay taxes on the money I worked hard to get. Taking away what I saved when I die, and giving it to people who didn't earn it, is MORALLY WRONG. It's wealth redistribution at the point of a gun. The people that will get it didn't earn it, so the only difference in my choice of giving it to my family is that it is MY CHOICE and isn't cumpulsory "morality" backed up by government and weapons.

And society doesn't "allow" me to become wealthy. I am part of that society, too. I earned it. I worked for it. How I choose to spend it is MY CHOICE. And many, many of our greatest cultural institutions come from the donations of the wealthy, not from the local commune.

The rich today, and in particular Matted Moron exemplify the worst of human nature when it comes to managing their wealth. Greed, avarice, lack of forebearance, stinginess are ugly words to describe ugly acts by equally ugly people.

Apparently you aspire to that way of thinking.

I certainly don't aspire to yours, which is authoritarian and anti-individual. Your way of thinking destroys individual liberty incrementally in the name of some "morality" and "greater good." The worst tyrants of history used those very same notions to wage their evil campaigns. Sanctimonious tripe of this sort is nothing more than a thin veil of the sinster society the Left proposes - compulsory morality, the perverse Puritanical sort of thinking the National Socialists reveled in.

I'm not impressed with you wanting to do "good" with other people's money.

Some quotes that are appropriate:

"When government takes wealth from those who produce it, people become less inclined to produce more of it-or more inclined to hide it. Conversely, when government gives wealth to those who don't produce it, they too become less productive since they're al ready getting what they'd produce in return for not producing it."

"If government is supposed to make things good, what kind of good is it supposed to make them? And how good is good enough? And who's going to decide? What person is so arrogant as to believe he knows what every other person in America deserves to get?"

"Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless."

[Lorax]

The point is moot, since you won't have it to give when you die, because it was taxed, or you simply didn't earn it.

How is the point moot? I'd have it when I die because I have a will that dictates where I want my assets to go. And if it's going to go to people that didn't earn it, I want to choose who gets it. I don't want the government to choose. That's part of my individual liberty -- the sort you want to take away as an authoritarian-loving Leftist, who believes Big Brother must compel the proles to "do good" for "their own good" because only "good" self-appointed elites can decide such things.

Orwell had YOU in mind, Squealer, when he was warning us of the dangers of the Left many decades ago.

If you were a humanitarian, you would use your surplus wealth to build hospital wings, open a children's charity, found a program to re-introduce music and art to schools where it was cut due to republican budget cuts, etc.

Ahh, the typical Lefty tactic of attempting to seize the moral high ground. If I ask a homeless person, all wealth is surplus and should be redistributed. Is he more qualified than a bureaucratic to make that choice? And how much is enough? How good is good? Who decides?

There was always that option, even in the 50's under Eisnhower's 90% tax rate. You had your choice of paying it in taxes, or doing something that would benefit the society at large. Democracy at work.

Your notions of public good have nothing to do with democracy, which is a form of government. You're prattling on about your sense of morality and wealth. Economics, morality and governance are related, but not the same thing. Please try to keep up. If we all pay a 17% flat tax tomorrow, we'd still live in a representative federal republic, not a fascist authoritarian state. Sorry, comrade.

But you would rather be an apologist for the policies of the Bush Crime Family, and support their tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, even in a time of war.

When did I raise the issue of tax breaks, Bush and the wars? Put down the bong, change your dirty Che t-shirt and try to keep on subject, mkay? We're talking about inheritance taxes. Strawmen don't play here, buddy. All they do is make it obvious you can't rant, but not defend your rants.

In the 50's it was a 90% tax rate on personal income over 2 million- perhaps it could be raised to 5 million today, and there is no limit on how much of that you can save and give to your kids later. Trusts are another option.

I find the idea of being compelled to give an inept government more money than it needs to fumble-fuck even more things -- whether they be wasteful social programs I loathe, or to build cluster bombs for waging wars you abhor -- to be morally repugnant. It's my money. It was taxed when I earned it. It was taxed when I spent some of it. Leave it alone.

Handing enormous legacy wealth to anyone, whether or not they are family is a horrendous idea, and rarely ends well.

So says you. History is filled with good and bad examples. It's not for government to decide if my children will be good stewards of our money. And it's certainly not for you to decide. When government makes such forced decisions, liberty dies.

So, morality aside, there is a duty to give back to the society and the community that allowed you to become wealthy in the first place.

Who says there is a "duty?" You? The Bible? The law? LMFAO. There is only individual liberty and free will. Choice. I pay taxes on the money I worked hard to get. Taking away what I saved when I die, and giving it to people who didn't earn it, is MORALLY WRONG. It's wealth redistribution at the point of a gun. The people that will get it didn't earn it, so the only difference in my choice of giving it to my family is that it is MY CHOICE and isn't cumpulsory "morality" backed up by government and weapons.

And society doesn't "allow" me to become wealthy. I am part of that society, too. I earned it. I worked for it. How I choose to spend it is MY CHOICE. And many, many of our greatest cultural institutions come from the donations of the wealthy, not from the local commune.

The rich today, and in particular Matted Moron exemplify the worst of human nature when it comes to managing their wealth. Greed, avarice, lack of forebearance, stinginess are ugly words to describe ugly acts by equally ugly people.

Apparently you aspire to that way of thinking.

I certainly don't aspire to yours, which is authoritarian and anti-individual. Your way of thinking destroys individual liberty incrementally in the name of some "morality" and "greater good." The worst tyrants of history used those very same notions to wage their evil campaigns. Sanctimonious tripe of this sort is nothing more than a thin veil of the sinster society the Left proposes - compulsory morality, the perverse Puritanical sort of thinking the National Socialists reveled in.

I'm not impressed with you wanting to do "good" with other people's money.

Some quotes that are appropriate:

"When government takes wealth from those who produce it, people become less inclined to produce more of it-or more inclined to hide it. Conversely, when government gives wealth to those who don't produce it, they too become less productive since they're al ready getting what they'd produce in return for not producing it."

"If government is supposed to make things good, what kind of good is it supposed to make them? And how good is good enough? And who's going to decide? What person is so arrogant as to believe he knows what every other person in America deserves to get?"

"Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless."

Well, Omega Man, since you fancy living in a world that's all about you, you'll need to hole-up in your barricaded townhouse against the starving masses who will look to pick you off every time you leave.

That's the world you're describing, since the world you have the privilege of living in now wouldn't exist without the social ideals and foresight of Franklin Rooselvet's New Deal, without which, you'd be living in a Dickensian nightmare of treadmills, workhouses and stinking poverty.

It was a REPUBLICAN, specifically Dwight Eisenhower who supported the 90% tax rates, and presided over the greatest expansion of capitalism in our nation's history.

So your arguments against reigning in legacy wealth is a red herring, and without merit.

My original point was completely lost on you. You wouldn't be able to become a billionaire under the previous system we lived under. So what you make is yours, after taxes, and you are free to save, or give away to your kids what is left after taxation.

People with your mentality is precisely what is wrong with America.

You personify the "me" generation to perfection.

Without socialized medicine, we will never compete globally again. All European socialized democracies, which is what we were founded as, and have been up though Reagan, have cradle to grave health care, and public education through college level PhD, all paid for by the "evil" government, and as a result have the most educated populations.

Problem is, repugnicans want to squeeze every last dime out of the consumer, or the government, whenever they've had the chance. And have never said 'no' to corporate welfare when it's been offered.

What can you buy with a billion or ten billion bucks that you can't buy with 50 million?

The very idea of billionaires is obscene, and per our founding fathers, a disgusting concept.

You say there is only "liberty" and "free will", well, if that is your metric, then it's my free will to make sure the evil of fascists like you never have another chance at destroying America after the last 8 years of living in a totalitarian state as we did under the Bush Crime Family.

Since you feel you don't have any responsibility to your fellow man, why don't we just get rid of the military, the police departments nationwide, the fire departments nationwide, the public parks, public schools, museums, universities- all of which are supported by our taxes, so we can return to an 11th century lifestyle, which you and the Taliban seem to prefer.

The kind of nation you envision is primitive, backward, and socially retarded.

When your house burns down, or you need an ambulance, I'll be happy to cancel that for you. Since you really don't see any need to support such "socialist" constructs.

I can see you haven't been walking upright long.

[barnesfoto]

"There is only individual liberty and free will. Choice. I pay taxes on the money I worked hard to get. Taking away what I saved when I die, and giving it to people who didn't earn it, is MORALLY WRONG. It's wealth redistribution at the point of a gun. The people that will get it didn't earn it, so the only difference in my choice of giving it to my family is that it is MY CHOICE and isn't cumpulsory "morality" backed up by government and weapons.

And society doesn't "allow" me to become wealthy. I am part of that society, too. I earned it. I worked for it. How I choose to spend it is MY CHOICE. And many, many of our greatest cultural institutions come from the donations of the wealthy, not from the local commune."

Obviously, our society is no place for you. Apparently, the downward spiral came with FDR's New Deal, including those wasteful programs to create public murals, forests, and rural electrification/flood control.

Despite the wonderful Conservative Policies of the Eisenhower years [[McCarthyism, Segregation, US Government Funding of Coups in Iran/Guatemala, beginning of Vietnam War) it's obvious that our society began it's terrible downward spiral to Socialism with massive government programs like those the Flouridation of our water supply
[[a little research will uncover that this was a communist plot, just like the civil rights movement), The creation of an Interstate Freeway System, and a massive public health program that eliminated Polio [[Since when is it the duty of the government to pick the pocket of the hardworking adult to improve the health of children, who make no financial contribution to our society?)
Of course, I've forgotten to mention those draconian tax rates, which led to the terrible poverty of the 1950's. No doubt you have heard the terrible stories from your parents/grandparents about how desperately poor everybody was in the 1950's and early 1960s.

I suggest that BShea stop being a victim of such massive extortion and move to a country with "Lassie Farire" [[to borrow a Batsonism) tax policies: Mexico, Guatemala, Hounduras, or Haiti would all be grateful to have another citizen whose beliefs about taxes are so in line with their own government policies.

[BShea]

Constructing these frail, limp strawman arguments because you cannot support the immorality of your communist fantasies is pathetic.

The most dangerous legacy wealth facing this nation is that in the hands of the federal government. For all the wonderful social programs you think it will create, it will construct nuclear weapons and wage illegal covert wars against the benighted native peoples of the world, or whatever your Che propaganda handbook slogans tell you.

You wouldn't be able to become a billionaire under the previous system we lived under. So what you make is yours, after taxes, and you are free to save, or give away to your kids what is left after taxation.

Who's talking about billions? You can't defend your intellectually bankrupt adolescent Utopian fantasy worldview, so you simply and deceptively create arguments that I didn't start. Nice.

People with your mentality is precisely what is wrong with America.

If you say so, Comrade. It's entrepreneurs that created America as an economic world power. No government. Your desire to do "good" with everyone else's money, under the coercive threat of imprisonment, isn't what built America.

Without socialized medicine, we will never compete globally again. All European socialized democracies, which is what we were founded as, and have been up though Reagan, have cradle to grave health care, and public education through college level PhD, all paid for by the "evil" government, and as a result have the most educated populations.

And what allowed them to do that? Take off the tea shades, put down your book of Chomsky quotes and study a little history. Western Europe was allowed to spend themselves silly into nanny state's because THEY SPENT NOTHING ON THEIR OWN DEFENSE for 60 years. Why? Because they lounged in the shadow of American military power protecting them from the Soviet and Warsaw Pact shadow looming over them. If Europe had been forced to fend for itself, and spend on its own defense to keep the Soviets from rolling into Western Europe, there would have been no money for socialism, or it would have been Soviet-style depressing version involving long lines, guns, prison camps and lots of walls and barbed wire.

And how do you possibly imagine we were founded as a socialist country? What government charity was provided until the 1930s? What taxes did the federal government collect from individuals until the 1860s? Are you mad? Did you ever read the Federalist Papers? That statement alone saps any shred of credibility you had, comrade. That's a delusional fantasy. Any social programming in the United States prior to the New Deal was almost universally private charity.

The very idea of billionaires is obscene, and per our founding fathers, a disgusting concept.

Most of them would also have found many of your Leftist beliefs [[and many of mine, which are similar to yours in some areas) obscene, as well. Hijacking historic figures for one argument is cute, but fails when you use them for another. Civil rights, universal suffrage, gay rights -- how do you think most of them would have voted on those today? You can't use Jefferson for one point, then ignore his views on the next thing. History isn't a salad bar for you to cherry pick your arguments. I also would suspect most of them couldn't comprehend billionaires being a common thing these days, despite many of them have what would be considered obscene wealth today [[adjusted dollars-wise).

You say there is only "liberty" and "free will", well, if that is your metric, then it's my free will to make sure the evil of fascists like you never have another chance at destroying America after the last 8 years of living in a totalitarian state as we did under the Bush Crime Family.

What right don't you have today that you did on Sept. 10, 2001? And there breaks down your hyperbolic lies. You also cheapen the real terror of life in a totalitarian state by use of your hollow rhetoric. If we had lived under such a state, this forum wouldn't exist, and you'd be in a ditch with a bullet hole in the back of your skull.

And your repeated return to the Bush family also proves my point: I never brought them up, and don't even like them [[false conservatives and religious nuts bother me more than coffeehouse radicals such as yourself), but you continue to trot them out because it's easy to attack such political pinatas instead of defending your point. Bombastic rhetoric is easier than a logical argument, as you illustrate. Repeat this until it sinks in: Bush isn't a conservative.

Since you feel you don't have any responsibility to your fellow man, why don't we just get rid of the military, the police departments nationwide, the fire departments nationwide, the public parks, public schools, museums, universities- all of which are supported by our taxes, so we can return to an 11th century lifestyle, which you and the Taliban seem to prefer.

Again, another deceptive attempt by you. I never said there was no personal sense of responsibility. There is -- but it's a personal choice based on your own moral code. You can't legislate a universal morality [[although your Leftist heroes would argue otherwise). Corporate America and wealthy Americans give billions every year. And no where did I argue against government services, or even government safety nets. Not ever my beloved Hayek argued against those. I firmly believe in donations and personal charity. I just don't believe it should be compelled with guns and government. Look at all Bill Gates has done with his wealth -- he's given the world wonderful things and helped nearly eradicate a disease. And he pays massive amounts of taxes. I'm not arguing against taxes, just the immoral death tax.

And here in Detroit, the vilified rich folks have done things that government cannot. Hell, the M1 Rail project will happen simply because government is completely incapable of doing it. Without billionaires, it wouldn't happen. Your precious federal government won't be giving Detroit the money to do it any time soon.

When your house burns down, or you need an ambulance, I'll be happy to cancel that for you. Since you really don't see any need to support such "socialist" constructs.

Again, making a complete strawman because you can't argue the point I brought up: Coercive government collection and redistribution of wealth to people that didn't earn it, after my death, is no more moral than me giving it to my family.

Besides, the death tax doesn't pay for police, fire and other local services. Local taxes pay for that. I would imagine vast fortunes seized pay for the weapons and wars you hate, and for corporate welfare -- something you and I probably agree is a bad precedent.

Back to your barricades, comrade.

[Lorax]

Well, Shea, that's quite a screed.

Where in my argument did I mention the Inheritance Tax, which you on the right love to label the "death tax?"

This is yet another fascist attempt to control the language by shape-shifting terms to suit your beliefs.

You are really paranoid that what you earn is going to be taken away.

As I have mentioned ad nauseum, you are free to earn as much as you want under the system we had up to Reagan, and set up any number of tax shelters and trusts so your kids won't have to work for a living, but over that maximum dollar amount in earnings, whatever the new figure should be, there should be a 90% taxation rate.

And if you save wisely, you'll have even more to hand down- your kids will still be fabulously wealthy. Nixon, another well loved republican endorsed 75% tax rates which existed under his administration.

Your screed also contradicts itself in stating on one hand that personal liberty and freedom to earn as much as you like without giving back to the system which allowed you to do so, is somehow a birthright.

Next you mention that wealthy individuals like Bill Gates have done fantastic things with their surplus wealth.

A little note- Gates did nothing for years, until he was basically shamed into starting a foundation, since the public's perception of him as a skinflint was beginning to color his reputation.

And for thousands of other members of the UberRich, they have, like Matted Moron decided to forego the philanthropy route in favor of the Ebenezer Scrooge model. And the current system allows them to do so.

Great wealth, whether concentrated in the hands of a few monopolistic corporations, or a group of individuals does nothing to better the common good, which is what a large "D" Democracy is all about.

Rethugnicans love living in a small"d" Democracy which has allowed them the window dressing of being legitimate, without the regulation and oversight necessary to achieve a true Democratic Republic.

It will be great to see the right wing nutjobs explode when Bush's tax cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, since they'll be reduced to living under tax rates they had under Bill Clinton.

And as we all know, those were tough times for repugnicans- many had to cut back to only two Rolls Royces per year instead of three. My heart bleeds.

[BShea]

Well, Shea, that's quite a screed.

Yes, and it deconstructed you completely.

Where in my argument did I mention the Inheritance Tax, which you on the right love to label the "death tax?" This is yet another fascist attempt to control the language by shape-shifting terms to suit your beliefs.

Um, the entire conversation is about coercive government seizure of money after death, and the morality debate of what should happen to fortunes after death. Try to keep up, please.

And you have the gall to attempt to accuse me of manipulate language when you toss around hyperbole, Daily Kos talking points and pejorative terms like fascist in an attempt to smear me. Anyone to the Right of Che, to you, seems to be a fascist. It's juvenile. I'll paint you a Leftist because your wear it with pride and a total lack of irony.

You are really paranoid that what you earn is going to be taken away.

No, I'm trying to get you to explain how having the government do the exact same thing I want to do it somehow more "moral." You've failed every time, and try to deflect and dodge with nonsense about Bush and the GOP, etc. FAIL.

And who decides what is "rich enough?" You? Obama? Congress? A panel of experts? LMFAO.

As I have mentioned ad nauseum, you are free to earn as much as you want under the system we had up to Reagan, and set up any number of tax shelters and trusts so your kids won't have to work for a living, but over that maximum dollar amount in earnings, whatever the new figure should be, there should be a 90% taxation rate.

No, there shouldn't. And this isn't about my children. It's about my freedom as an individual to do whatever I choose with my money. You prefer the incremental loss of liberty in the name of "the greater good" and you believe self-appointed bureaucrats in Washington know better than the typical American. The ancient criticism of the Far Left is it hates freedom and individuality, and you reinforce that notion with your lust for authoritarianism and government control. Jonah Goldberg had you in mind for his "Liberal Fascists."

Your screed also contradicts itself in stating on one hand that personal liberty and freedom to earn as much as you like without giving back to the system which allowed you to do so, is somehow a birthright.

It's not "giving back." It's being forced to hand it over. The money was taxed when I earned it. Why do you want it taxed again? Does your government need more cruise missiles? Or do you really think all that money is being spent on your precious welfare state programs? Check out the DoD's budget, comrade. Why do you want to inflate the military-industrial complex with even more money?

And "the system" doesn't "allow" me to do anything. We the people allow the government to do things, not vice versa. And that's the difference between me and authority-loving people like you, haters of freedom and individualism. You lust for forced equality and collectivism. Yours is a bankrupt ideology, except in places like North Korea and Cuba. Nice company you keep.

Next you mention that wealthy individuals like Bill Gates have done fantastic things with their surplus wealth. A little note- Gates did nothing for years, until he was basically shamed into starting a foundation, since the public's perception of him as a skinflint was beginning to color his reputation.

Regardless of his motivation -- which is his right -- he does it. And he does things no government can do, except maybe in the your delusional mind pining for a world in which the government does everything for you.

And for thousands of other members of the UberRich, they have, like Matted Moron decided to forego the philanthropy route in favor of the Ebenezer Scrooge model. And the current system allows them to do so.

Again, you argue for forced charity. Nice.

Great wealth, whether concentrated in the hands of a few monopolistic corporations, or a group of individuals does nothing to better the common good, which is what a large "D" Democracy is all about.

Who says it is? Communists? The Far Left? Democracy is a form of governance. Why can't you grasp that? Coercive redistribution of wealth in the name of forced equality is NOT democracy, and such methods quickly require guns and walls and secret police ... not the typical symbols of democracy.

Rethugnicans love living in a small"d" Democracy which has allowed them the window dressing of being legitimate, without the regulation and oversight necessary to achieve a true Democratic Republic.

I'm a big believer in oversight. It's needed. I'm a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt. He was all about oversight and trust-busting, but he sure as hell didn't buy into your freedom-hating fantasies of wealth redistribution as "social justice."

It will be great to see the right wing nutjobs explode when Bush's tax cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, since they'll be reduced to living under tax rates they had under Bill Clinton.

Again, who was talking about this? Yet again, you're tossing out stuff to avoid the conversation at hand.

And as we all know, those were tough times for repugnicans- many had to cut back to only two Rolls Royces per year instead of three. My heart bleeds

I'm sure it does. But none of that has anything to do with what we were talking about. We get it - you dislike rich people.

[barnesfoto]

and we get it, you like rich people's asses, and want to live in a developed country, but with the tax structure of an undeveloped country...

Who built our nations interstate freeway system again?