So you dont consider something that is a luxury to most as being an entitlement to those who get it for free but dont "need" it. Our basic needs to survive being food, clothing, heat and shelter now should include cell phones? why because someone else has them and that's not fair? i really wish I had central vac, couldnt afford it, can we raise taxes so I can have it?

Basically what I am saying is our central government, which cannot determine who is or isnt gaming the system because they are too far removed from the community to know who is in need, and can therefore be easily played, should only be focusing on safety, defense and infastructure, I dont think cell phones and "coming soon" subsidized internet, should be their main concern.

And I have explained in detail that I am not opposed to "charity" for the poor and disabled, but since you and I are even unable to agree, it is obvious over time the definition of charity is being changed.

You are telling me that we have sent men to the moon yet we cannot figure out a way to determine who is and who is not gaming the system? I am not saying I am an expert at figuring this out, somone out there smarter than me must have ideas, Policies that have made it easier to game the system, have not helped.

What entitlements i am talking about?

There are many I will not waste your time naming them all, but how about the commericals that are currently being run for "government subsidized cell phones"

Or three years of unemployment? I currently have a part time employee that refuses to work more than 18 hours per week because he would be unable to continue to collect his unemployment that he has been collecting for THREE YEARS! even though I could give him more hours, or considering the fact that he has not even tried to look for a job. And before you argue the fact that he may not make "as much" money working for me as he collects on unemployment, let me also state that he is "letting" his duplex go into foreclosure and is still collecting rent from his tennant and putting it in his pocket, he figures he has atleast 6-8 months of collecting before the bank takes over, and he is proud of this, not even making an attempt at paying his mortgage with the tennants money. When it comes to Unemployment, people have the misconception that they "paid in" this money, therefore should be able to collect it, this couldnt be farther from the truth.

Public education? that's a can of worms that should be left to another debate. Give me back my taxes I pay and I will send my kids to private school. Not so sure I would call this an "entitlement" for most.

yes Red Tape is a broad term, try to open and run a business these days, you will find out what a tangled web they weave, atleast in my state.

And i did answer the question regarding if i would feel the same if i did not have to pay taxes...my answer was yes.

You say this debate is NOT for the implementation of a police state, yet that is EXACTLY what we would be!!!

I had not heard that Bush was in support of this repeal but it doesnt surprise me, he wouldve been governor at the time? In any event you do not comment on his attempts to rein this in that went unnoticed by the public and fell on deaf ears in the dem congress. Hence I do not think a governor of a state at the time could be held at fault.

And yes, I do think Carter can be linked to this thirty years later, as I stated sometimes it takes time for people to know what the bill does for them. Take FDR for example, SS is a gift that keeps giving, by enacting an entitlement that at the time was thought few would benefit from, since the life expectancy was 58-60 at the time of enactment, things change, now expectancy is 80 and there was no adjustment to this to compensate for longer life spans. And in the 60's added to SS was the spousal and surviving children benefit that we are now seeing also unsustainable and that was 50 years ago!

The fact that we were lessening the criteria in these bills, i.e. the ratio of debt to income for qualification, the percentage of equity required, we were putting people in a position that any bump in the road for them via the economy would result in more likelyhood of default.

I think there are many out there who are deserving of a chance and may not be afforded that chance due to those who entered into a mortgage contract knowing full well they either could not afford the house they were purchasing, or knew they would be hard pressed to make the monthy payment.

Clinton enacted the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which eliminated the last remnants of the Glass Steagall Act. The latter created legal distinctions between what banks, security firms and insurance companies were allowed to offer to the public as well as invest in. It removed the barriers of lending and securitization that was partially responsilbe for the easy money that pumped up housing prices in the last decade.

He also passed the Futures Modernization Act of 2000, that completely deregulated financial derivatives, credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations that assisted banks in making loans to people that couldnt possibly qualify for them prior.

The financial collapse was decades in the making starting with Carter's Community reinvestment Act which put pressure on lenders to loan money to those considered a risk.

Im curious what you think bush did to contribute to this other than not screaming louder when the dem congress refused to look into fannie and freddie, I think he saw it coming but I do blame him for not doing more to inform the public and for that he is at fault. There is not much legislation that he wouldve passed that could have contributed to this because most poorly construction legislation takes time to show damage.

When the two pieces of leg passed under clinton and carter that lessened qualification restrictions, anyone who was opposed to it was shouted down as a racist or hater of the poor. As was with Healthcare which will also bear fruit for our children and their children. i see them having this same debate years from now.

It was Carter and Clinton who lessened the restrictions on banks and lowered the criteria for lending that lead to the mortgage bubble. Bush introduced a bill to rein in Fannie and Freddie during his term and this was turned down by a democratic congress. It takes time for policies to show their real effect on society and unfortunately it happened to be Bush in office when Carter and Clinton's policies bore fruit.

I am not a big fan of Bush, but probably not for the same reasons as you, my reasons are TARP, Nation Building, and Entitlement Expansion, which are all policies that yes, will blow up with time.

Really? because my husband builds houses, daily, and some antique shop owner profited from the furniture sales assuming they ONLY buy antiques! And I own a restaurant, my profit from a meal after taxes and overhead is about 15% my employees make an average of 25% off that same meal with their pay and tip....and my suppliers also make money off of that inventory purchase, as did THEIR suppliers...small business accounts for 52% of all business in america... It never trickles down is an absurd statement! You live in a bubble, stop being brainwashed.

But you said Egypt was trickle down economy??? obviously you are conceeding my point...he WAS the government...and NO it didnt trickle down....he wasnt the private sector who worked for his own money. Only those who dont pay taxes think that taxes only affect the rich, I am middle class and am not getting any breaks, I am sick of people screaming rob the rich to give to the poor, I am not rich and still working four + months per yearjust to pay my tax obligations!

Well first let me start by telling you how much I have enjoyed our exchange. I dont think we disagree totally, I just think our conflict comes from how to achieve the results.

1. I am not sure if maybe we are arguing different positions. I am never against helping those who are unable, or opressed, i am against helping those who are "unwilling". I could site several examples of this from personal experience, I will give you one:

A friend of mine passed away at an early age, she was 23, left behind a husband and two children. He now collects $1500.00 a month for the two minor children thru Social Security, money which the mother NEVER paid in, because she only worked for four years before passing. Now, knowing this, and keeping in mind he is an able bodied male who could support his own kids, do you think he works? NO! why should he? he can stay home and collect $1500 to do NOTHING! These are the people I have a problem with, these are the people that are driving up taxes.

2. We agree totally on this point, yet you do not mention entitlements as being the responsibility of government, which is where we disagree. All those listed by you i definately agree with, the problem is that the funds being collected for those things are being gobbled up by entitlements and therefore our schools and such are suffering, some areas of the country are now charging fees in addition to the taxes you pay for emergency services, again, because the lock box has been robbed for other things.

3. Keep in mind that government regulations, red tape, lawsuits, licensing, etc are making it very impossible for the next Thomas Edison to emerge. The poor and down on their luck may have a great idea, but would never be able to tackle the red tape required to be able to build and market their ideas. So the rich do keep getting richer. Government decries the rich, until they have control over them, then they coddle them and make it easier for them and harder for their comeptition (i.e. GE, GM).

4. Would I feel the same if my taxes did not increase? Well that would not be possible, unless money starting magically appearing (printing press) to cover the waste and abuse of tax money, which would in turn make the dollar worthless, so my answer is yes? i would feel the same. As a side note, those "poor" are suffering as well, with inflation that is being created to keep their entitlements going and any xtra burden/taxes on businesses because this cost only gets passed down to the consumer. And if you think that would be any different if governemnt were in control of business, look at how many times they have raised postage in the last four years.

5. How can you say that someone should not have to change their lifestyle if their circumstances change? So if i can no longer afford my house, internet, cellphone, cable, I should go to the government and request a hand out to keep these luxuries? Or should I sell my house, downgrade, cancel my cellphone, internet, cable and stop eating out? We have forgotten what are the necessities, heat, health, clothing, food, I would help anyone who needed these things as long as they didnt text, cellphone or email me to ask. We are losing site of who is truly in need in our country, now anyone who cant pay their car payment bill is in need. Is the doctor who saved your life important any more? or just skip out on the bill? Trust me this is coming from someone with experience! I have been in the position of hand washing my kids clothes because I didnt have money for the laundry mat, we ate Aldi soup and Mac and Cheese, and I never went for a hand out, I got a second job. We came out of it due to hard work, and my kids and I are better people for having lived it. And i have raised kids that WILL cancel their cellphones, internet, cable if needed to pay for their health insurance, heat, clothing and food.

Trust me, I feel bad for the single mom/dad who cant afford to pay daycare in order to make a living, I DO NOT feel sorry for the guy/girl who wont take a job paying $10 an hour because they make more money on unemployment, unemployment is not a job!

Our Priorities are severly distorted.