Man, I hate Liberals

[hornadylnl]

Why is it bad to tax the poor less and help the poor more? What's wrong with helping those who need help?

Why do they post signs in national parks telling you not to feed the animals?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There are signs all over Yellowstone telling people not to feed the bears. Do you think it is because the government hates bears and wants them to starve? No, it is because they know that if the bears know they will get a free meal from campers, they will stop hunting and gathering for themselves and just get food from the campers.

If they come across a camper that won't feed them, the bears get angry and attack the camper. If, on the other hand, the bears are spending their time forraging, they don't have the time or inclination to bother the campers.

Why does this logical escape leftista libs?

Why is it bad to tax the poor less and help the poor more? What's wrong with helping those who need help?

 

[tuoder]

Why do they post signs in national parks telling you not to feed the animals?

So that you don't spoil animals that can fend for themselves, obviously, and so that encounters between humans and many of these animals don't become dangerous.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Bears can't vote.

Why do they post signs in national parks telling you not to feed the animals?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Bears can't vote.

But they can protest.

 

[hornadylnl]

So that you don't spoil animals that can fend for themselves, obviously, and so that encounters between humans and many of these animals don't become dangerous.

Then you've answered your own question. According to the libs, we're all in the food chain with humans having just a few more brain cells than the next creature below us. They believe in evolution and that mankind is nothing more than animals. If providing free meals causes bears to not fend for themselves, then why wouldn't that be true of humans?

 

[tuoder]

Then you've answered your own question. According to the libs, we're all in the food chain with humans having just a few more brain cells than the next creature below us. They believe in evolution and that mankind is nothing more than animals. If providing free meals causes bears to not fend for themselves, then why wouldn't that be true of humans?

That's an..interesting view of what liberals believe.

I'm not advocating giving to those who can fend for themselves, I'm advocating helping those who can't.

 

[dburkhead]

That's an..interesting view of what liberals believe.

I'm not advocating giving to those who can fend for themselves, I'm advocating helping those who can't.

No. If you are an actual liberal, you advocate taking by force from others and giving that to the "poor".

It's not the giving that's the bad thing. It's the taking.

 

[hornadylnl]

That's an..interesting view of what liberals believe.

I'm not advocating giving to those who can fend for themselves, I'm advocating helping those who can't.

Just like everyone in prison is innocent, all those on the welfare dole are incapable of fending for themselves. It's amazing how hard one can work if their life is in the balance. Read the thread about the soldier who lost his entire foot due to a mine. He still plans to be a helicopter pilot. Then look at the able bodied living off of us and how well they get around. Yet, they all seem to have some disability that prevents them from working.

 

[tuoder]

No. If you are an actual liberal, you advocate taking by force from others and giving that to the "poor".

It's not the giving that's the bad thing. It's the taking.

I don't think anyone advocates taking money by force. Taxation is necessary for the existence of government. The alternative is having the government engage in business, which I something that is best avoided.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I don't think anyone advocates taking money by force. Taxation is necessary for the existence of government. The alternative is having the government engage in business, which I something that is best avoided.

It is the size of that government and the scope of it's responsibilities, that most of us take issue with.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't think anyone advocates taking money by force. Taxation is necessary for the existence of government. The alternative is having the government engage in business, which I something that is best avoided.

They're already in business now. The banking industry, Government Motors, Chrysler,etc.

I'm all in favor for helping those who are unable to help themselves through no fault of their own. My grandmother and my wife's grandmother were both legally blind and got to use audiobooks for free. Everything was 100% free to them. The players, the tapes and even postage. That is a taxpayer supported program that I don't have a problem with.

I have an aunt on the other hand who fried her brain on pain killers, mostly oxycontin. She does have some legitimate back issues but this woman will carry on for weeks about a small bruise. She had an excellent career as a critical care registered nurse. She's been on disability since her mid to late 30's. She made her bed, she should be forced to lie in it, not live off of us.

There's a place in Lafayette called the Wabash Center. They take care of mentally and physically handicapped people and even provide small apartments for some of them. They also provide jobs for people and several local businesses give them work to do. It is basically charity but I fully support organizations like this and the tax dollars that I provide for it.

But I have a real problem with paying rent, daycare and buying groceries for those who get knocked up, waste their educational opportunities, etc. and then think it is my responsibility to take care of them.

I gladly help those who help themselves. I mow my 90 yo neighbors yard and would do it for free but he makes me take $10 each time. I do it because he would be the first to help anyone if they needed it. I'm not going to mow the douche bag neighbors yard who is just too lazy to do it.

 

[tuoder]

Just like everyone in prison is innocent, all those on the welfare dole are incapable of fending for themselves. It's amazing how hard one can work if their life is in the balance. Read the thread about the soldier who lost his entire foot due to a mine. He still plans to be a helicopter pilot. Then look at the able bodied living off of us and how well they get around. Yet, they all seem to have some disability that prevents them from working.

Again you have interesting views on what liberals believe.

The fact that there are people who misuse a system is not proof that it does not do good on the whole. That's not really any proof one way or the other.

Hard work does not always pay off. There are plenty of people who work their entire lives in the steel mills up here in NWI, and end up on the street because of fluctuations in the price of steel. At Bethlehem Steel, people's retirements were wiped out after 20-30-40 years at the steel mill. They did everything right, they worked hard, and they still got ****ed. That's who welfare is for.

The system does not always provide useful work for people to do. Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond near me are perfect examples. When the steel industry boomed from the 50s-70s, everything was great and people moved up from the south to work up here. Decreased demand, competition, and automation deleted most of the jobs that people had up here. The mills that weren't bought up collapsed. People who found jobs found ones that were far worse than what they had. There are now more workers than jobs. these people need money to reeducate themselves, and to pay for bills they can't afford because of circumstances beyond their control. There are abuses of the system, but not having one would be far worse.

 

[dross]

I don't think anyone advocates taking money by force. Taxation is necessary for the existence of government. The alternative is having the government engage in business, which I something that is best avoided.

Taxation is money taken by force. No other way to define it.

Yes, we need a way to pay for the things the government is required to do under the Constitution.

Many of us would argue, however, that taking money by force (taxes) and then giving them to someone else for a purpose not authorized by the Constitution is the problem.

 

[dburkhead]

I don't think anyone advocates taking money by force. Taxation is necessary for the existence of government. The alternative is having the government engage in business, which I something that is best avoided.

If you don't think that taxation isn't taking money by force try not paying it sometime. Note that the whole "Waco" thing back under the Clinton years was about the claimed failure to have paid one or more instances of $200 taxes.

Fail to pay your taxes and Men With Guns will come to enforce that payment.

That said, yes, some taxes are necessary for the functioning of government. They are necessary to pay for defense, for the courts, for police, and for a handful of other Constitutional powers of government.

It's when one uses taxes, which remain money taken by force, to perform "charity" that one crosses the line.

Taxes to "help the poor" (by any means other than ensuring a strong, vibrant, growing economy that can provide jobs for same--but the best way the government can do that, most of the time, is simply to stop being a roadblock) are, in essence saying that these "poor" have the "right" to send Men With Guns to take money from me and give it to them (after the Men With Guns and their immediate masters take their cut).

What gives them the right to demand, under threat of jail, violence, or even death (depending on how strongly I object) the money that I've worked hard (and, I like to think "smart") to earn?

I am quite willing to give to help the poor. I am far less willing to be robbed even when it is claimed to be for the benefit of the poor and even when it is done under color of law.

 

[tuoder]

It is the size of that government and the scope of it's responsibilities, that most of us take issue with.

I'm with you there.

They're already in business now. The banking industry, Government Motors, Chrysler,etc.

I'm all in favor for helping those who are unable to help themselves through no fault of their own. My grandmother and my wife's grandmother were both legally blind and got to use audiobooks for free. Everything was 100% free to them. The players, the tapes and even postage. That is a taxpayer supported program that I don't have a problem with.

I have an aunt on the other hand who fried her brain on pain killers, mostly oxycontin. She does have some legitimate back issues but this woman will carry on for weeks about a small bruise. She had an excellent career as a critical care registered nurse. She's been on disability since her mid to late 30's. She made her bed, she should be forced to lie in it, not live off of us.

There's a place in Lafayette called the Wabash Center. They take care of mentally and physically handicapped people and even provide small apartments for some of them. They also provide jobs for people and several local businesses give them work to do. It is basically charity but I fully support organizations like this and the tax dollars that I provide for it.

But I have a real problem with paying rent, daycare and buying groceries for those who get knocked up, waste their educational opportunities, etc. and then think it is my responsibility to take care of them.

I gladly help those who help themselves. I mow my 90 yo neighbors yard and would do it for free but he makes me take $10 each time. I do it because he would be the first to help anyone if they needed it. I'm not going to mow the douche bag neighbors yard who is just too lazy to do it.

That, by and large, is what welfare systems do: help those who need it, but are unable to fully provide for themselves.

You mentioned the signs in the parks about feeding the bears. Do you know what happens to blind bears? How about bears after a warm year and the salmon don't run like they used to? They suffer and die, and people can do better than that.

 

[hornadylnl]

Again you have interesting views on what liberals believe.

The fact that there are people who misuse a system is not proof that it does not do good on the whole. That's not really any proof one way or the other.

Hard work does not always pay off. There are plenty of people who work their entire lives in the steel mills up here in NWI, and end up on the street because of fluctuations in the price of steel. At Bethlehem Steel, people's retirements were wiped out after 20-30-40 years at the steel mill. They did everything right, they worked hard, and they still got ****ed. That's who welfare is for.

The system does not always provide useful work for people to do. Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond near me are perfect examples. When the steel industry boomed from the 50s-70s, everything was great and people moved up from the south to work up here. Decreased demand, competition, and automation deleted most of the jobs that people had up here. The mills that weren't bought up collapsed. People who found jobs found ones that were far worse than what they had. There are now more workers than jobs. these people need money to reeducate themselves, and to pay for bills they can't afford because of circumstances beyond their control. There are abuses of the system, but not having one would be far worse.

Did you ever stop to think of the economic policies that drove these jobs away? I've read a lot of your posts on here and I think you are a genuinely good guy who is interested in real discussion. I want you to know that I'm not attacking you.

If you've got a few minutes to read 1000 pages, I recommend the book Atlas Shrugged for you. It will give you a pretty good understanding of economics and how the government hinders business. Anything by Ludwig von Mises is excellent as well.

 

[hornadylnl]

That, by and large, is what welfare systems do: help those who need it, but are unable to fully provide for themselves.

You mentioned the signs in the parks about feeding the bears. Do you know what happens to blind bears? How about bears after a warm year and the salmon don't run like they used to? They suffer and die, and people can do better than that.

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that the truly incapable make up less than 10% on the dole. I'm all for helping the blind, the handicapped, etc. but that doesn't mean just because you are those things that you are entitled to a lifetime of sitting on your duff. You'll find that most truly handicapped people will do everything in their power to live just like us vs expecting a handout for it.

 

[dross]

I'm with you there.



That, by and large, is what welfare systems do: help those who need it, but are unable to fully provide for themselves.

You mentioned the signs in the parks about feeding the bears. Do you know what happens to blind bears? How about bears after a warm year and the salmon don't run like they used to? They suffer and die, and people can do better than that.

Give them all of the money you want from your own pocket. Convince others that they should reach into their pockets and give too. Persuade as many people as you can to help provide for those in need. This is noble and necessary, and is an exercise in freedom.

It's ceases being noble and about freedom, however, when you decide that I should be giving to people YOU think are needy and deserving, and you use men with guns to enforce your beliefs. That is tyranny, not charity.

 

[tuoder]

If you don't think that taxation isn't taking money by force try not paying it sometime. Note that the whole "Waco" thing back under the Clinton years was about the claimed failure to have paid one or more instances of $200 taxes.

Fail to pay your taxes and Men With Guns will come to enforce that payment.

That said, yes, some taxes are necessary for the functioning of government. They are necessary to pay for defense, for the courts, for police, and for a handful of other Constitutional powers of government.

It's when one uses taxes, which remain money taken by force, to perform "charity" that one crosses the line.

Taxes to "help the poor" (by any means other than ensuring a strong, vibrant, growing economy that can provide jobs for same--but the best way the government can do that, most of the time, is simply to stop being a roadblock) are, in essence saying that these "poor" have the "right" to send Men With Guns to take money from me and give it to them (after the Men With Guns and their immediate masters take their cut).

What gives them the right to demand, under threat of jail, violence, or even death (depending on how strongly I object) the money that I've worked hard (and, I like to think "smart") to earn?

I am quite willing to give to help the poor. I am far less willing to be robbed even when it is claimed to be for the benefit of the poor and even when it is done under color of law.

Generally, men are not sent with guns to collect taxes. It is occasionally necessary, when the government knows that its efforts to collect will be resisted with force. Usually wages are garnished. Sometimes property is seized. Waco was about a lot more than taxes, but I think you know that.

Government is the agent of society. It tries to tax in ways that are the least harmful, or are even beneficial (in the case of fines), and it attempts to spend in a similar way. It is good for everyone that the poor get a check instead of starving or stealing.

People are funny. When they are doing well, they credit only themselves. They had no help from the government, or their family, or their community. When people are doing poorly, suddenly the world is out to get them! Everyone is a racist, bigot, and tyrant.