Man, I hate Liberals

[dross]

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.

If your final method of collection is men with guns, your method of collection is through force. The threat of force is by definition using force.

Government is an agent of politics, which is a mechanism of popularity and power exchange. The government tries to tax in ways that will get the politicians currently in power elected. That is why we had a Constitution, to limit the power of government to use the threat of force to take money from someone unlikely to vote for them and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for them.

I'm all for families and communities helping out. Let them do it from freedom, not from force.

 

[tuoder]

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.

I'm familiar with Rand and Von Mises' work. The Austrian school of economics is one of two major current ones, the other being Keynesianism, which I favor.

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.

I've met many of these people. It's not easy to game the system. Republicans have made sure of that. Most of the people I've seen drawing a check needed it. It's difficult to qualify for these programs, and you can only stay on them for a small amount of time before you are kicked off.

My uncle is mentally ill and taken care of by the state. My sister got food assistance when she became homeless (chiefly her fault, but not entirely). I had a friend who got knocked up with a guy who ran off when her belly grew, and then she couldn't do much working while 6 months pregnant, when they forced her onto unpaid maternity leave. In all of these cases, the family and the church helped a lot, but didn't have enough for everything. The state bridged that gap. The church gave my sister 90 days to get onto her own feet. They drove her to places to put in applications. She has an associate's degree. No one was hiring when the church kicked her out.

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.

I help where I can. I think that we all benefit from having a social safety net, even we are the optimistic masters of our own destiny that you seem to be. You simply can't know when the S will HTF, and when it does, it will not be distributed evenly.

 

[dross]

I help where I can. I think that we all benefit from having a social safety net, even we are the optimistic masters of our own destiny that you seem to be. You simply can't know when the S will HTF, and when it does, it will not be distributed evenly.

You ignore my point. My point is not whether a social safety net is valuable or not, it's how we provide that safety net. I believe we should provide it through voluntary donations, you believe it should be enforced at the point of a gun.

Your "optimistic master of destiny" comment seems snide. Yes, any of us might find ourselves in need, despite our best efforts. That circumstance, however, is not a check we can cash at the expense of our fellow citizens without their consent.

 

[tuoder]

If your final method of collection is men with guns, your method of collection is through force. The threat of force is by definition using force.

Government is an agent of politics, which is a mechanism of popularity and power exchange. The government tries to tax in ways that will get the politicians currently in power elected. That is why we had a Constitution, to limit the power of government to use the threat of force to take money from someone unlikely to vote for them and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for them.

I'm all for families and communities helping out. Let them do it from freedom, not from force.

I don't think it is bad that the government forces those to pay who would take a free ride on our tax money. If you don't enforce the law, it isn't the law, it's a suggestion.

The Constitution doesn't limit the ability of the government to tax with preference towards one's constituency. Republicans cut taxes on the rich, and on large business. Democrats cut taxes on the poor and build government programs to help them.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at as far as force goes. Are you against he government using force to collect property taxes for schools, or sales taxes to fund police departments? Are you against the federal government forcing you to pay income tax that funds the military?

It's not the method of taxation that you object to, truly. It's what the money is being spent on.

 

[tuoder]

You ignore my point. My point is not whether a social safety net is valuable or not, it's how we provide that safety net. I believe we should provide it through voluntary donations, you believe it should be enforced at the point of a gun.

Your "optimistic master of destiny" comment seems snide. Yes, any of us might find ourselves in need, despite our best efforts. That circumstance, however, is not a check we can cash at the expense of our fellow citizens without their consent.

What I'm telling you is that I've witnessed the private safety net, and it is incomplete. They need help to achieve their aims. They can't do it alone.

I wasn't kidding or trying to be snide. It seems to me that you are optimistic and successful, and so it can be difficult to see why so many others fail. Aren't they trying?

I'm saying that people try their best and fail anyway.

 

[dross]

I don't think it is bad that the government forces those to pay who would take a free ride on our tax money. If you don't enforce the law, it isn't the law, it's a suggestion.

The Constitution doesn't limit the ability of the government to tax with preference towards one's constituency. Republicans cut taxes on the rich, and on large business. Democrats cut taxes on the poor and build government programs to help them.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at as far as force goes. Are you against he government using force to collect property taxes for schools, or sales taxes to fund police departments? Are you against the federal government forcing you to pay income tax that funds the military?

It's not the method of taxation that you object to, truly. It's what the money is being spent on.

My arguments about force are not so much objecting to the method as they are countering YOUR contention that taxes are not collected by force.

After that, yes, I want the government only to do and spend what they are authorized by the Constitution. They are REQUIRED by the Constitution to spend money on defense. No where in the Constitution are they authorized to spend money on charity. So yes, I am arguing about how it's spent. I like pointing out that they are taking money from one person by force and giving it to another, based on constituency.

As to the Republicans lowering taxes on the rich, fine, but they haven't done a very good job since it's the rich and upper middle class who pays most of the taxes. The poor don't pay income taxes, so you can't cut their taxes.

Business doesn't pay taxes whether you "tax" them or not, so that's a moot point.

 

[dross]

What I'm telling you is that I've witnessed the private safety net, and it is incomplete. They need help to achieve their aims. They can't do it alone.

I wasn't kidding or trying to be snide. It seems to me that you are optimistic and successful, and so it can be difficult to see why so many others fail. Aren't they trying?

I'm saying that people try their best and fail anyway.

You aren't old enough to have witnessed a private safety net. There is a verifiable inverse relationship between government social programs and charitable giving.

Look around. There's not that many people failing. The welfare system provides regardless of whether the need was genuine or through poor choices.

You want my money, you should have to convince me.

Sorry for misinterpreting your remark.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I found this and thought it helps make a point.

The Homestead Mindset Anywhere: by Donna Miller

No matter where you live; learn to think like a homesteader & you'll save money!

A "leg up" vs. a "hand-out".

Please let me preface that I know many people who are legitimately in a 'program' of some form, so don't take this the wrong way. There are real people in real need. I also believe their character would prefer a 'leg up' over a 'hand-out' any day of the week. At least, they would after I explain the difference. I can speak because I have been there.
Yep. I looked the difference up. Just to make sure I wasn't living in some southern colloquialism time-warp. I'm a vocabulary geek. They do each mean what I thought they did.
leg up:
a.a means of help or encouragement; assist; boost:
b.advantage; edge
hand-out:
a.a portion of food or the like given to a needy person, as a beggar.
b.anything given away for nothing, as a free sample of a product by an advertiser.


Is there a reason why home grown tomatoes taste better than store bought? I believe it is the effort put into growing them yourself. We can argue the point of what is in or not in the soil, but the truth is, you've earned it and it is a sweet reward!
Is there a reason this quote is, well, quoted so often? "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime." One fish will not keep a man (or woman) from goING hungry. It only stalls the inevitable unless another fish falls in his/her lap the next day.
Let us look at what is created with a 'hand-out', shall we?
By the first definition, yes, it is our duty to care for the needy, but to give one fish means they are only temporarily cared for...so...is our obligation fulfilled? I would say "HARDLY." But also, by simply handing out items that are needed, we have reduced this person, this soul, this productive body of society to a 'beggar.' That is not a label to many would willingly wear for too long.
Secondly, when something is given for 'nothing' - someone, somewhere IS always paying the price for it. Usually it is the consumer, unwittingly until the end, but still ultimately paying a price. By becoming dependent upon the 'hand-out' and seeing no way out or worse, lethargically addicted to it as a source of sustenance (be it drugs, food or money). A free sample from an advertiser, as we all know, is meant to entice us to buy and take the bait, for who's gain? Do those giving free samples have OUR best interest at heart or their own? Free information is one thing. Free money, free food, free items are all another, much like bait.
Now let us look at what a 'leg up' is in comparison.
Let's take the saying to 'teach a man to fish' that act not only impacts his own starving body, but that of his family, friends and community. He will likely out of his boosted confidence spread this skill by teaching others. He enjoys the fish he works for with a more enthusiastic gusto than the one that washed up on shore (that's a little 'iffy' smelling).
Encouragement says: "YOU can do it!"
Assistance says: "I'll help YOU, but I'm expendable, YOU are what is important."
Giving someone a boost, advantage or edge puts them ahead in the game, but the game still has to be played by everyone who is in it. No benchwarmers ever helped win the game.
On a personal note, I know the difference between the two intimately. I was on scholarship (poor-people & talent scholarships, not brainy-people scholarships) for all of my high school and college years. That was humbling and encouraging. It wasn't a free ride. I had to do work-study and still pay for classes. Had I not had that 'leg up' I would not have never gone on to school. Yet, early on in my adult life we found ourselves struggling as a married couple to make ends meet and suddenly a baby was on the way, surprise! We did turn down the government subsidies we qualified for (well below the line) because we'd known what it was to be poor and work hard all our lives already. We did accept food from a food bank ONCE because we had three small children and a job loss. That was all it took to realize the difference between working hard because we had someone give us a 'leg up' (wanting to honor their encouraging trust in us) and waiting for that next 'hand-out'.
I don't fault anyone for doing what they need to do. I just think the two differing means of 'help' create two different attitudes in the receiver. I would rather help someone feel empowered because they don't need me anymore, they’re fine now, and can go and give a 'leg up' to someone who needs them.

 

[Cain71]

Well from what i have gathered in these post everyone is upset about taxes paid to help people that won't help themselves,maybe we should return to the dark ages and have debtor prisons or indentured servants, if you cant pay we could legally put you into servitude to pay your debts....nothing for free, And then we could also go and clean out all the prisons,turn them loose or shot them,have some public hangins,that would save the government some spending,and maybe us some taxes.
Again i will say that we need to hold accountable the people making the decision to spend,vote them out or work to get the results you want,we are still free to ask for answers. Make your congressman accountable,watch how they vote and remember. The only way anything is going to change is by having term limits on congress. Limit their time limit their BS.
If you dont like the country where it is,spend as much time writing them as complaining here and you might start to get something done,rant over

 

[Cain71]

you want to stop free loading from welfare, its easy enough,make any recipeant(Sp) take a mandatory drug test, that would knock out about 75% of them and we would still be money ahead for the cost of the test, send that to your congressmen or women, I have

 

[hornadylnl]

maybe we should return to the dark ages and have debtor prisons or indentured servants, if you cant pay we could legally put you into servitude to pay your debts....nothing for free

But isn't this what they are already doing to us producers? Are we not indentured or enslaved to provide for those who won't provide for themselves? Somehow society believes that if we force welfare queens to earn their handout, that is slavery. But yet it isn't slavery to force those of us to work to pay the way for those who don't. Is not 100% of the fruits of my labor MINE? If not, then I am a slave to those who are taking some of the fruit of my labor.

 

[BloodEclipse]

you want to stop free loading from welfare, its easy enough,make any recipeant(Sp) take a mandatory drug test, that would knock out about 75% of them and we would still be money ahead for the cost of the test, send that to your congressmen or women, I have

Don't confuse discussion here as worthless complaining. Many of the members here keep in frequent contact with their elected officials.
These discussions allow others to form opinions and may encourage them to do so as well.
I have contacted my represenatives about drug testing for public aid as well.

 

[dburkhead]

Generally, men are not sent with guns to collect taxes.

Largely because folk know that if they don't pay their taxes, those Men With Guns are waiting in the wings.

They don't have to send the MWG's every time for the same reason that the local Mafia Boss can get away with sending a modest looking dandy to collect protection money. The occasional show of force (like, say, burning to death 80 some people in Waco) is sufficient to keep the rest cowed.

Threat of force is force.

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.

Did you read the warrant under which the ATF raided the Branch Davidians? I did. The accusation was about "unlicensed" (meaning they didn't pay the tax) NFA items. Yes, I know that all these other charges came up after they were safely dead and could not defend themselves but the charge that sent the ATF in their to start the whole thing was failure to pay taxes. That's what was in the warrant. That's what the "raid" was about.

As for your other ways, they, too, are simply chains in the use of force. Follow those chains to the end where everyone simply refuses to cooperate, says "no", and where do the chains lead? Every one of those chains leads to the use of force. One has no option but to give in or be met with force.

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.

The above assumes facts not in evidence throughout.

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.

And folk on the left play on that. The "victim mentality" is wonderful for the left, instead of people learning to take care of themselves, instead of people being encouraged to help their neighbors (with the "who is my neighbor" clause), we get class envy, and stealing from those who have more simply because, well, they have more. Penalize success, reward failure, and call it good.

A pretty good case can be made that the "Great Society" has done more harm for the poor, and minorities in particular, in this country than all the Klan rallies, all the Night Riders, and all the cross burnings combined.

Even if one accepted that "charity" were a government function (then pass the Constitutional Amendment already) then they are doing it about as wrong as it is possible to do it. It's giving fish rather than teaching fishing.

 

[dburkhead]

I don't think it is bad that the government forces those to pay who would take a free ride on our tax money. If you don't enforce the law, it isn't the law, it's a suggestion.

Excuse me? How is it that the ones having the money taken are the ones "taking a free ride." By any rational definition of the term the one's "taking a free ride" are the ones getting the money.

The Constitution doesn't limit the ability of the government to tax with preference towards one's constituency. Republicans cut taxes on the rich, and on large business. Democrats cut taxes on the poor and build government programs to help them.

You have swallowed the liberal bait hook line and sinker. "Cut taxes on the rich." Please. Look at the actual numbers and you find that that whole line is a pure lie.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at as far as force goes. Are you against he government using force to collect property taxes for schools, or sales taxes to fund police departments? Are you against the federal government forcing you to pay income tax that funds the military?

Which of those are Constitutional roles of government? Also, note that most of these discussions are about the Federal Government. Much that is (or should be if Congress, the President, and the Courts would learn to read straightforward English and decide that it means what it says) Unconstitutional for the Federal government is perfectly acceptable at the State level.

It's not the method of taxation that you object to, truly. It's what the money is being spent on.

It's the combination. You will find that most conservatives have no problem with giving money to help the poor. In fact, studies have shown that conservatives give more, both in total and as a percentage of their income, than do liberals.

What I object to is being faced with the threat of force if I don't provide money to help you feel good about helping the "poor."

 

[smoking357]

I have contacted my represenatives about drug testing for public aid as well.

Please, please, please don't do this. Drug testing is a horribly invasive destruction of Liberty and a complete surrender of all privacy to the government.

Drug testing is one of the greatest evils we've ever seen. In perhaps the most savage, brutal, mediaevel and grotesque non-lethal practice committed by the government, police have taken to strapping suspected drunk drivers to gurneys and forcibly drawing blood. I can imagine few tortures more savage. We should all weep that this horribly cruel and unusual punishment prior to arrest and conviction. An atonement is due and well earned for each person engaged in such barbarism.

These tests, these invasions, are destroying our memories of Freedom. That we encourage the government to use such omniscient means is handing unchecked power to those who use it for the most grotesque and unlimited ends.

Please meditate on the full range of employments for the word "limited" when we use it in the term "limited government."

 

[smoking357]

Unconstitutional for the Federal government is perfectly acceptable at the State level.

Provided, of course, that the exercise of state power does not violate natural law or inherent rights.

 

[dburkhead]

Well from what i have gathered in these post everyone is upset about taxes paid to help people that won't help themselves,maybe we should return to the dark ages and have debtor prisons or indentured servants, if you cant pay we could legally put you into servitude to pay your debts....nothing for free, And then we could also go and clean out all the prisons,turn them loose or shot them,have some public hangins,that would save the government some spending,and maybe us some taxes.

Fallacy of insufficient options.

Again i will say that we need to hold accountable the people making the decision to spend,vote them out or work to get the results you want,we are still free to ask for answers. Make your congressman accountable,watch how they vote and remember. The only way anything is going to change is by having term limits on congress. Limit their time limit their BS.

And I'll ask you what I've asked others: How dare you try to use force of law to tell me who I can and cannot have as my representative in Washington. If the candidate I favor cannot get the votes, that's one thing, but to be denied even the chance to vote for the candidate I favor because someone like you says "no, he's been serving too long" is quite another.

I'll also ask another question: We've had term limits for President since Truman (Eisenhower being the first to whom they would apply). Can you honestly say that we've been better served by Presidents since then than before?

And one more question: who's going to bell the cat? The only way to get term limits would be via Constitutional Amendment. To get the Constitutional Amendment even proposed you'd need either 2/3 of both
houses of Congress or a Constitutional Convention called by 3/4 of State Legislatures. Then you need the actual Amendment passed by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

If you dont like the country where it is,spend as much time writing them as complaining here and you might start to get something done,rant over

What makes you think that folk ranting here aren't also doing the other.

It's perfectly valid for people to spend time together (online or in person) to vent, obtain mutual support, or sharpen their arguments before heading out into the fray.

And the irony of someone complaining on an online forum about people complaining on online forums is, well, I've seen it enough that it merely rates "amusing."

 

[smoking357]

And I'll ask you what I've asked others: How dare you try to use force of law to tell me who I can and cannot have as my representative in Washington.

How dare you use force of law to get representatives in Washington? Pause, for a moment, and see your argument in the mirror. This entire edifice is merely an arbitrary imposition of collective will on people. It can be otherwise, of whatever color and shape we wish. You falsely presume an immutable origin.

I'll also ask another question: We've had term limits for President since Truman (Eisenhower being the first to whom they would apply). Can you honestly say that we've been better served by Presidents since then than before?

Now you're the one playing loose. That's a false cause fallacy and anyways not the purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment was passed to make explicit a gentlemen's agreement that America was not to have a regent.

 

[musclecarr]

Don't be Hatein'

 

[dhnorris]

I thought the child tax credit was to encourage the growth of families thus ensuring an adequate supply of taxes at some time in the future. The men bragging about their deductions may not realize that is actually their money the government is giving back to them. In order to claim a deduction you have to pay into the system, (un)earned income tax credits amounts to a free check.