Trump Tax Plan

**chico2663** · 05-08-17, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by brooks85

^I did say health care and that is what I meant. Actual health care, ie going to the hospital and getting care.

chico it's not your life I doubt even though it does seem like you'd be the next guy to make a Big Fish sequel so good for you. The point is illegals get healthcare and no reason they would pay for health insurance(even if it was a possibility) when they can just walk right in the door.

disagree with this because before my dumb ass gov. passed the illegals can't have dl in texas. they carried car insurance so they could have dl. Since the law passed they still drive but with no insurance or dl.

**Optional** · 05-08-17, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by guitarjosh

Everyone wants their cake and eat it too. You want them to pay their fair share? What is that exactly? Let's say again we have an SBR potluck. I bring 45% of the food, I sit down and eat 17% of the food. How am I being selfish and greedy? I brought nearly half the food. Yes I ate 17%, but of the remaining food, roughly 33% was brought by me, and I'm not going to eat it. Aren't the people who brought nothing and showed up for free food selfish and greedy?

Imagine that every generation of your family is sitting at that table.

Does it still feel so unfair to you that the strongest contribute to the weakest's food needs in that context? Do the children, old people and those not working in your family provide nothing of value to that family in other ways?

Should you as the strong worker now be looked at as a problem once you age and want to retire and still eat at the family table?

Who is it that looks like the selfish/greedy one there? You complaining about having to contribute more than the 'non-workers' or the family members who dare to come to your table with less food than you have?

**chico2663** · 05-08-17, 03:35 AM

**chico2663** · 05-08-17, 03:37 AM

Now under trump care if you don't sign up jibby than you have a 30% penalty. I guess your boy ****** you.

**guitarjosh** · 05-08-17, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Optional

Imagine that every generation of your family is sitting at that table.

Does it still feel so unfair to you that the strongest contribute to the weakest's food needs in that context? Do the children, old people and those not working in your family provide nothing of value to that family in other ways?

Should you as the strong worker now be looked at as a problem once you age and want to retire and still eat at the family table?

Who is it that looks like the selfish/greedy one there? You complaining about having to contribute more than the 'non-workers' or the family members who dare to come to your table with less food than you have?

Not a great analogy.

First, you're using terms like strongest and weakest, but those are only relative to each other. The strongest person might not be able to provide for themself, or the weakest might be able to provide for everyone. Second, am I to assume that in your analogy that people who don't buy the food don't help out? Who sets the table, who cooks, who clears the table, who washes the dishes, who cleans up afterwards? They might not be able to buy the food, but they can still contribute. Third, you're comparing children, old people and people not working in my family to people that I have no idea exist and implying I should treat them the same. When I was little, I could get food I didn't earn, and when I grow older, I can treat them the way they treated me. It's an ongoing family dynamic. OTOH, if I have a need and go to a merchant without a way to pay them now, they're probably not going to meet that need with the promise that I'll pay them back when I can.

Let's keep using the family analogy. Let's say a person in your family decides they're going to constantly invite themselves over whenever you're eating and eat your food for free. They might move in, use your water, TV, electricity, gas, make no attempt to help you pay your bills or even work. If you get a bit fed up after going deeper and deeper in debt to support them and want that person who can contribute to get a job and start paying for some bills, are you a selfish, greedy asshole?

I'm currently preparing for the point when I won't be able to produce what I once did by saving and investing, so that I can still contribute to the family table. Also, if I'm the strongest worker now and someone older than I is weaker, there is a good chance they contributed to me when I was younger, so in a way I am paying them back now. The difference is that when someone is working, it's not for free.

The selfish/greedy one is the one who can contribute but won't, which again is my problem with Social Security. If we're talking about people that can't fend for themselves, I'm not going to pitch a fit over it, but just saying able bodied people that can contribute to society and might be doing well financially should be getting money from people much poorer than they is something I can't endorse.

**Optional** · 05-08-17, 04:32 AM

You are so busy trying to argue your position you dont even read/hear what others say before jumping to defend your Ayn Rand style attitudes with any bent logic you can come up with!

How can I be so sure of that you ask?

You just took a couple of long paragraphs lecturing me, repeating pretty much what I said in one sentence. "Do the children, old people and those not working in your family provide nothing of value to that family in other ways?"

**Optional** · 05-08-17, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by guitarjosh

The selfish/greedy one is the one who can contribute but won't

So back the original point... are you saying everyone at that table should now have to work as long as they are healthy just to prevent whoever it is in your family you think isn't doing as much as you think they should getting any benefit?

That seems to be the what you are basically arguing?

Anyway, you obviously are either unwilling or unable to accept how a cohesive community works. No matter what community it is there is always a weakest link. In any country, but rich countries more so, that weakest link holds the entire community back. It helps everyone to ensure our weakest are as strong as possible. Even if that offends the personal values we hold for ourselves in some cases. (but honestly, who voted you arbiter of what everyone in your family's values should be?)

**guitarjosh** · 05-08-17, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Optional

You are so busy trying to argue your position you dont even read/hear what others say before jumping to defend your Ayn Rand style attitudes with any bent logic you can come up with!

How can I be so sure of that you ask?

You just took a couple of long paragraphs lecturing me, repeating pretty much what I said in one sentence. "Do the children, old people and those not working in your family provide nothing of value to that family in other ways?"

The point being, they're contributing. Tell me how someone I don't know exists who doesn't work but can who has been fully paid for the contributions they've made contribute to me to the point that I need to send them a check every month? Again, if they can't fend for themselves and have no social circle to help, I'm not going to be really upset about a small amount of my pay going to help, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about able bodied people sitting home and getting checks from workers when they can be out contributing to society.

**guitarjosh** · 05-08-17, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Optional

So back the original point... are you saying everyone at that table should now have to work as long as they are healthy just to prevent whoever it is in your family you think isn't doing as much as you think they should getting any benefit?

That seems to be the what you are basically arguing?

Anyway, you obviously are either unwilling or unable to accept how a cohesive community works. No matter what community it is there is always a weakest link. In any country, but rich countries more so, that weakest link holds the entire back. It helps everyone to ensure our weakest as as strong as possible. Even if that offends our personal values we hold for ourselves in some cases. (but honestly, who voted you arbiter of what everyone in your family's values should be?)

No, they shouldn't have to work at all if they don't want to, and if someone wants to be generous with a person I think isn't doing as much as I think they should that's fine.

What I'm arguing is that I shouldn't be forced to help someone who is completely capable of helping themself, possibly even more than I'm capable of helping them.

People that hit 65 aren't necessarily the weakest link, they might actually be one of the strongest. What you're calling for might even take from the weaker and give to the stronger.

**guitarjosh** · 05-08-17, 04:56 AM

Let's put it this way: If a neurosurgeon decides on his 65th birthday he will never work another day in his life, take the millions of dollars he has in the bank, retire with full social security benefits paid for by people who are living paycheck to paycheck, well, I think that is wrong. If the neurosurgeon needs money that bad, he can keep working for a few more years and save.

**Optional** · 05-08-17, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by guitarjosh

Let's put it this way: If a neurosurgeon decides on his 65th birthday he will never work another day in his life, take the millions of dollars he has in the bank, retire with full social security benefits paid for by people who are living paycheck to paycheck, well, I think that is wrong. If the neurosurgeon needs money that bad, he can keep working for a few more years and save.

You keep throwing in red herrings. In what country, or universe, are people with millions in the bank entitled to retirement benefits?

Retirement benefits are only relevant to blue collar workers and lower middle class or below. It's to give the weaker a sense of life security which makes them happier, more productive and actually willing to stick with the jobs that need doing. And does this whether the people eventually avail themselves of the benefits or not.

The guy that goes to work most of their life to bake your bread or keep your water flowing or picking up your trash at $15/hr so you can enjoy cheap goods and services and a better lifestyle wants to retire just like the neurosurgeon. But living on wages your entire life does not always make that possible.

Those people are not just to be written off as lazy or selfish and should not be expected to work till they die in a rich country. And doing that would not give an economic benefit anyway. It would just bring down average quality of life and increase social problems.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by chico2663

disagree with this because before my dumb ass gov. passed the illegals can't have dl in texas. they carried car insurance so they could have dl. Since the law passed they still drive but with no insurance or dl.

lol... do you disagree that the Sun is hot and the sky is blue also?

you can disagree all you want, it doesn't matter. It's true and you can't prove it wrong.

Also, just because car insurance and health insurance both have "insurance" in them doesn't mean they are the same thing or set up the same way... lol

you do not need a driver license to get health care, illegals do it everyday.

you are wrong

Originally posted by Optional

You keep throwing in red herrings. In what country, or universe, are people with millions in the bank entitled to retirement benefits?

Retirement benefits are only relevant to blue collar workers and lower middle class or below. It's to give the weaker a sense of life security which makes them happier, more productive and actually willing to stick with the jobs that need doing. And does this whether the people eventually avail themselves of the benefits or not.

The guy that goes to work most of their life to bake your bread or keep your water flowing or picking up your trash at $15/hr so you can enjoy cheap goods and services and a better lifestyle wants to retire just like the neurosurgeon. But living on wages your entire life does not always make that possible.

Those people are not just to be written off as lazy or selfish and should not be expected to work till they die in a rich country. And doing that would not give an economic benefit anyway. It would just bring down average quality of life and increase social problems.

there is a reason it is called the American Dream

well he can retire like the surgeon but he can not retire and have a life "like" the surgeon. That would be insanely stupid. One was a surgeon, the other was a garbage man. Also, being a garbage man is actually a very well paying job with great job security and retirement.

you don't know what you're talking about.

**jtoler** · 05-08-17, 07:05 AM

He said retire like the neurosurgeon, meaning being ABLE to retire and not HAVE to work, not meaning have as much to retire on as the neurosurgeon, we all know thats not possible thick head.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by jtoler

He said retire like the neurosurgeon, meaning being ABLE to retire and not HAVE to work, not meaning have as much to retire on as the neurosurgeon, we all know thats not possible thick head.

I can read dumbass, you obviously can not

again, nothing is stopping him. Garbageman is a great job and great retirement plan. Talk about job security.

**jtoler** · 05-08-17, 07:52 AM

I suppose you can read, comprehension is altogether a different matter.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 07:59 AM

^these cowardly responses do not save you from these beat downs I give you. You spoke up, you were wrong and nothing is going to change that.

I clearly knew what he was talking about as my post shows and he is clearly wrong about retirement.

**jtoler** · 05-08-17, 08:56 AM

Your post showed the opposite, that you thought he was comparing the retired life of a neurosurgeon to a garbage man as far as money. You are a clown.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by jtoler

Your post showed the opposite, that you thought he was comparing the retired life of a neurosurgeon to a garbage man as far as money. You are a clown.

learn to read

penetrating moron, if you had any shred of respect as a gambler you would notice the obvious trend with your post history.

**khicks26** · 05-08-17, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by brooks85

lol... do you disagree that the Sun is hot and the sky is blue also?

you can disagree all you want, it doesn't matter. It's true and you can't prove it wrong.

Also, just because car insurance and health insurance both have "insurance" in them doesn't mean they are the same thing or set up the same way... lol

you do not need a driver license to get health care, illegals do it everyday.

you are wrong

there is a reason it is called the American Dream

well he can retire like the surgeon but he can not retire and have a life "like" the surgeon. That would be insanely stupid. One was a surgeon, the other was a garbage man. Also, being a garbage man is actually a very well paying job with great job security and retirement.

you don't know what you're talking about.

WOW Brooks up late & up early.

What a sorry bitch that this is the most important thing in his life. LOSER

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by khicks26

WOW Brooks up late & up early.

What a sorry bitch that this is the most important thing in his life. LOSER

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition.

**jtoler** · 05-08-17, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Optional

The guy that goes to work most of their life to bake your bread or keep your water flowing or picking up your trash at $15/hr so you can enjoy cheap goods and services and a better lifestyle wants to retire just like the neurosurgeon. But living on wages your entire life does not always make that possible.

Originally posted by brooks85

Well he can retire like the surgeon but he can not retire and have a life "like" the surgeon. That would be insanely stupid. One was a surgeon, the other was a garbage man. Also, being a garbage man is actually a very well paying job with great job security and retirement.

Youre talking about two different things sugar pants, its ok Im sure youre busy splitting atoms and it was just an oversight.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by jtoler

Youre talking about two different things sugar pants, its ok Im sure youre busy splitting atoms and it was just an oversight.

no, we are not. Learn to read, you're making yourself look very stupid. Again.

Well he can retire like the surgeon but he can not retire and have a life "like" the surgeon. That would be insanely stupid. One was a surgeon, the other was a garbage man. Also, being a garbage man is actually a very well paying job with great job security and retirement.

you have lost on this just like every other time you try to come up against me. Again, trends you amateur.

**jtoler** · 05-08-17, 09:21 AM

But he was never implying having a life like the surgeon but simply being able to retire period when making 15 bucks an hour. Im atomic number 6, split me brooksie.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by jtoler

But he was never implying having a life like the surgeon but simply being able to retire period when making 15 bucks an hour. Im atomic number 6, split me brooksie.

and I never said he did. I simply said that would be insane.

learn to read

Well he can retire like the surgeon but he can not retire and have a life "like" the surgeon. That would be insanely stupid. One was a surgeon, the other was a garbage man. Also, being a garbage man is actually a very well paying job with great job security and retirement.

you have lost again.

**khicks26** · 05-08-17, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by guitarjosh

I guess you also think the Nazi party in 1920s Germany wasn't racist due to their lack of political clout, whites can't be racist in towns where blacks are the majority, you can't form political coalitions to oppress a certain group, and there is no racism in areas where there are no racial majorities?

The Jews were only 1% of the German population. So yes they were racist in the 1920's. Also it wasn't just the Nazi's in Germany that hated the Jews. Learn some history or STFU smart guy.

If you read my post I say the United States of America. Yes whites can be racist in black towns. Due to the fact that whites control the country, culture, economy, & everything that the majority black town relies on. Its all about who holds real power & is a majority over all.

Things like gentrification happen in majority black area's all the time. Namely Detroit & Chicago, dumb ass brooks prime example, & I know your not as stupid as brooks. So don't act that way.

**khicks26** · 05-08-17, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by brooks85

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition.

What did you win? Fool of the year. LOL

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:25 AM

^stop running alice

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition. Like I said because you are so easy to predict, you have accepted defeat. You went to bed angry, shortened your lifespan a little bit more and woke up accepting reality.

**jtoler** · 05-08-17, 09:25 AM

You implied it, no reason to even bring it up. You never responded to anything he was talking about.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by jtoler

You implied it, no reason to even bring it up. You never responded to anything he was talking about.

lying isn't going to save you.

learn to read you pathetic moron

Well he can retire like the surgeon but he can not retire and have a life "like" the surgeon. That would be insanely stupid. One was a surgeon, the other was a garbage man. Also, being a garbage man is actually a very well paying job with great job security and retirement.

**khicks26** · 05-08-17, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by brooks85

^stop running alice

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition. Like I said because you are so easy to predict, you have accepted defeat. You went to bed angry, shortened your lifespan a little bit more and woke up accepting reality.

LOL Brooks with a massive hard on. Thinking he finally has something,

To fuking funny. What a clown.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:28 AM

^when has a non-response ever saved you?

lol

Originally posted by brooks85

^stop running alice

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition. Like I said because you are so easy to predict, you have accepted defeat. You went to bed angry, shortened your lifespan a little bit more and woke up accepting reality.

**khicks26** · 05-08-17, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Optional

You keep throwing in red herrings. In what country, or universe, are people with millions in the bank entitled to retirement benefits?

Retirement benefits are only relevant to blue collar workers and lower middle class or below. It's to give the weaker a sense of life security which makes them happier, more productive and actually willing to stick with the jobs that need doing. And does this whether the people eventually avail themselves of the benefits or not.

The guy that goes to work most of their life to bake your bread or keep your water flowing or picking up your trash at $15/hr so you can enjoy cheap goods and services and a better lifestyle wants to retire just like the neurosurgeon. But living on wages your entire life does not always make that possible.

Those people are not just to be written off as lazy or selfish and should not be expected to work till they die in a rich country. And doing that would not give an economic benefit anyway. It would just bring down average quality of life and increase social problems.

Hey, Optional.

If you have time, can you read the posts between me & brooks85 to decide a wager he made. The posts in question are 579 thru 608.

The topic is racism, & if a black man in the USA can be a racist. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

Thanks.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by khicks26

Hey, Optional.

If you have time can read the posts between me & brooks85 to decide a wager he made. The posts in question are 579 thru 608.

The topic is racism, & if a black man in the USA can be a racist. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

Thanks.

lol do you not realize how pathetic this makes you look? You're not even intelligent enough to realize you should PM when you're begging someone for help. You're not doing yourself any favors but putting your desperation on display.

YOU HAVE LOST you penetrating little baby haha

lol

Originally posted by brooks85

^stop running alice

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition. Like I said because you are so easy to predict, you have accepted defeat. You went to bed angry, shortened your lifespan a little bit more and woke up accepting reality.

**khicks26** · 05-08-17, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by brooks85

^when has a non-response ever saved you?

lol

Making fun of you is too easy. Maybe I shouldn't do it. You being special & all.

But sometimes you have to give the troll a good trolling.

**brooks85** · 05-08-17, 09:42 AM

^lol clockwork khicks in action, the level of desperation is so pathetic and so common for you

Originally posted by brooks85

^stop running alice

this won't save you from your beat down khicks. You have lost and were proven to be a lying moron, again.

also, where are you mods?

obviously I win. You never posted a definition. Like I said because you are so easy to predict, you have accepted defeat. You went to bed angry, shortened your lifespan a little bit more and woke up accepting reality.