Yes, part of the reason was giving up a regular income to try and start our own business.  It takes a while to make a profit so we hung on until the money came in living on what we had saved ahead for the most part. It's a risk we took and it paid off but not before alot of sacrifice like living in a basement and going without a kitchen stove.  There would be no way we could have done this business venture if we lived in a house with a big mortgage to make every month.  It took a couple of years before the business was going well enough not to pinch every penny.  That and having three kids in quick succession took alot out of us. 

BTW.....the basement was cheery and finished in knotty pine so don't think it was like a dungeon or anything. It wasn't fancy but it was warm, clean and comfortable.   I had big braided rugs on the freshly painted cellar floor.  We had a pretty picture window as it was a walk-out basement and the kids were little so they didn't care.  I have good memories of those times but I won't lie.  I was envious going to my newly married friend's brand new homes with new wall to wall carpet and painted walls.  They had dream homes and I was living in the basement.   

only mentioned it because I was thinking you were thinking we were unsymathetic towards the struggling families out there including your own.  You said you were just under 30 and told me where you are now so I'm just telling ya where I was at 29.  Where I am now and where I was then are two different worlds.    I'm sure you'll look back and see the road you came down and hopefully reap those rewards  as well.  You're well on your way and sounds like ahead of where we were at the same age.   

You meant left, correct?

But the war was something the majority voted to participate in. If everybody's money is being used to pay for it, that's fine.

It's different from voting to take money from one group and giving it to another.

I have trouble too with the notion that taxes are taking from the rich and giving to the undeserving poor. But to me that means I will oppose such use of tax money.

Very good. If there was some sort of system in place that guaranteed that everybody has access to oilfields (or land where such can be found) that would work.

But as long as we have private property titles, government enforces a monopoly of oil production.

Oil isn't "made", it's a natural resource. Its value is much higher than the vost of producing it from the ground, like a house in the middle of Manhattan is worth more than just the house.

That's a very good point! Plus those companies are perhaps the most intrusive government-power-abusing companies there are. I don't see oil companies demanding that I don't use the oil I bought in certain ways or that law must prevent me from having other people use the heat in my house.

Plus the Hollywood people really show off their wealth. And they are the least patriotic.

Of course, whenever an oil robber baron is patriotic he is being accused of serving his own ends, trying to steal oil from other countries or something like that.

But when the movie and music industries force American copyright law on the entire world, Democrats are quiet.

Actually, I see many liberals on the streets handing out flyers. They are obviously working to solve complex social problems.

In one case the complex social problem turned out to be the existence of Jews in the middle east.

It was good to learn what the problem is and how I could help solving it.

As for actually _doing_ something to solve the complex social problem; I am glad they didn't.

I don't know leauki, I am not sure she was necessarily referring to oil itself but as an example, such as get your own "place product name here", start your own "place product name here" business or find a way around the ones that exist. But i could be wrong though.

So where was the outrage when some actors were making $20 million per movie, at times 2 or 3 movies in 1 year? And considering they have so many TV shows where we get to see how they live and these TV shows are hits, not because people hate them. Ever wonder how come some actors make more money for showing their faces on the big screen than the stunt man/woman that risk their lives for them in dangerous scenes? I guess these people are not that important either.

I think this Joe the plumber thing has really resonated. The Democrats have spent enough money to get Idi Amin elected if he were their nominee, but this boneheaded comment by Obama may just be enough to lose him the election.

I believe it's a sad sad day in this country when a person has to apologize for being rich or successful.  And an even worse day when they are PENALIZED for it.

Amen! 

you know when they started bringing Joe the Plummer up during the debate especially when the "share the wealth" thing came up I wondered if maybe Joe the Plummer might make a difference in the outcome of the election?  He sure didn't help Obama at all. 

no Charles you got it right.  Years ago before cars we had no such dependence on gas or oil.  We heated our homes with wood and we took the horses to town.  There are still some out there that do their best to be as self-reliant as they can still today.   All I'm saying is if you have a problem with any entitity making a profit, do your best not to give them your money. 

Just look at how opposed to income redistribution plans Americans are:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx

So Obama's 'spread the wealth' might be damaging.

It's about time that a black man becomes president!

all i can say after reading this discussion is

has it come to this?

JOA

Society can't function effectively without a government - we need a government, and we therefore need taxes. The government also, to maximise benefit to us, needs to provide certain services that the private markets can't do effectively - street lighting to help cut crime; services like the police+fire departments. Defence spending in case a neighbouring country wants to invade. They also need to raise taxes so they can regulate some markets which might not be functioning optimally, and to try and correct things, while imposing taxes on areas to make them more efficient - like say using a substance to power your cars that has the minor side effect of destroying the planet (so you tax them to make the final cost reflective of the cost to society as well as the normal costs factored in).

Then finally, we come to the redistribution side of things. This is much more about morals+ethics; is it ethical for the government to turn their backs on someone who has worked all their life, saving what they can, then has an accident, is unable to work anymore, and can't afford to survive on their own? If no, what if the same person had that accident when they'd only been working for a few years (and so hadn't paid much if any in taxes), should the government turn it's back on them? If you want government to be there to stop people dying, or trying to survive below the poverty line, then you need at least some form of income redistribution.

Ok, lets say we can get a general (but not unanimous, of course!) agreement on that point (it's worth noting however that at least some redistribution effect is needed in the tax system to achieve just this). Then we can move away from absolute poverty and look at relative poverty, and increase the prominence of concepts such as taxing people fairly that started to surface with the absolute poverty issue before. The rich can afford to pay more than the poor - they have lots more money to spend on luxuries, so it's only fair to tax them more. Of course the rich will then counter that they've had to work for that money, so it's only fair they get to keep it, and not give it to someone else who isn't as hard working or clever or fortunitate as them. They'll also likely throw in the point that if they start having their money taken away, then they may not work as hard, and so there won't be quite as much money rolling around. So, should we increase taxes on the rich, or keep them the same as on the poor (after dealing with the absolute poverty adjustments which will likely mean they won't be quite the same)? Well it's at this point that things become far more subjective - liberals/democrats will tend to favour more redistribution than conservatives/republicans, and so it is then down to society to decide where they'd put themselves, and therefore which party they feel best meets their aims. It's a democracy, so the party in keeping with the majority then typically is the one in power.

Basically what I'm saying is that redistribution of wealth is necessary, given the alternative. It's how much redistribution that is
variable. So regardless of whether you vote republican or democrat, you're still going to be penalised for success via the tax system, you just likely won't be penalised so much under the republicans than the democrats (hopefully! After all politicians are a hard bunch to trust). Equally, you'll likely have a harsher time for failure under the republicans than the democrats. At least you know roughly where you stand with the two parties though in terms of their approach to this issue.