Man, I hate Liberals

[hornadylnl]

Why? those products have a Federal tax so they are at least paying something into the system.
Plus with those habits they are more likely to die young and get off the dole faster.

If you don't have money to feed your kids then you damn sure don't have the money to buy cigarettes and booze.

I once volunteered to work on a habitat for humanity house. I had just quit smoking because my wife was pregnant and just quit working. I didn't have the extra money to waste on cigarettes. The shack up boyfriend showed up to house and was smoking. I'll be damned if I'm going to give of my time so he and his girlfriend can get a cheap house at my expense so he can afford to smoke and I couldn't.

I give to charities of my choosing. Keep increasing my tax burden and I'll quit. I gave $2500 to build a handicapped accessible garage for a man in my church with cerebral palsey. I gave $2500 to a home for foster children in Missouri. I gave $400 for Haiti. I specifically gave orders to those that I gave the money to to keep it anonymous. I don't give to receive public recognition and I don't give to receive a tax break. The tax breaks are mere pennies on the dollar anyway. I also despise the notion that those of us who are against the government using our money for welfare are selfish.

 

[hornadylnl]

So are you saying you should be entitled to a little welfare hookup every now and then?

You'd think but in reality, I run as far away from those types as I can.

 

[BloodEclipse]

You'd think but in reality, I run as far away from those types as I can.

That just shows you have wisdom.

 

[tuoder]

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.

I'm saying that no one really wants to use force for the tax code, but they will if they have to. Force is used to enforce the entirety of the law. That's what makes it the law. I don't think you really object to that, is what I'm saying.

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.

The government is authorized to spend for the general welfare. Properly managed, welfare programs are good for everyone, or at least most people.

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.

The rich have paid in a lower proportion of taxes than for most of the time after WWII. Here's a chart:

They've paid as much as 94%, and as little as 28%. Of course, it's also true that the threshold for the highest margin has changed over the years as well.

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

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.

This inverse relationship exists, I agree, but it isn't linear. That is, people still give more on the whole when they are presented with optional and compulsory charity.

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

When I look around in Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, and in many of the other towns and cities in Lake county, I do see people failing. They thought they could afford this house, and the bankers agreed with them. They thought they would always have a job making steel, oil, or car parts. They thought the economy would provide jobs, and that there would be enough for everyone. They were wrong. Now there aren't enough spots at college, or enough loans and grants to get in if you have trouble paying for your self-improvement. Even if you get a degree, there may still not be a job.

Even when people suffer for their bad choices, shouldn't they be offered a chance to get back onto their feet? Don't many make the same mistakes?

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

Sorry for misinterpreting your remark.[/quote]

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.

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.

Again, I don't think you object to the fact that force will be used to enforce the law, really. The same force backs the tax collection used for the government programs you agree with as well. Surely you think it is necessary to collect taxes by force to pay for the military. I'm sure you'll feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

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.

There are two parts to the NFA rules: the tax and the background check. It's important to the government that NFA items remain in the hands of hobbyists and/or sane non-criminals. The Branch Davidians were neither. The law exists today to give the government a way to take particularly dangerous weapons from nutjobs. The ATF went to Waco to remove the weapons from the nutjobs.

I'd be completely with you on removing the huge taxes on NFA items, but I'm not interested in convicted felons owning machine guns or DDs. I'd rather see most AOWs, SBRs, and SBSs removed from the list of NFA items, but that's a whole different discussion.

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.

My point is that nobody wants to use force, but all law is eventually predicated on the use of force, and this is not particularly true for the tax code. I'm assuming you aren't against the law, or even large parts of the tax code, so this really couldn't be your point.

The above assumes facts not in evidence throughout.

It has been true in my experience.

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.

There are certainly people with this attitude. There are those who are out to "get theirs". They are the exception, and not the rule. As long as you have social systems, you'll have free riders. There are people driving electric cars who don't pay the road tax through buying gas. There are people who never report their tips as income. There are all kind of things. This isn't proof that we shouldn't have a system for those who truly need it. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the extreme.

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.

The Great Society programs were mostly good. The Civil Rights acts were very good on the whole. The jobs programs, and programs to assist the poor into college or getting them jobs were good, and have almost certainly paid for themselves in the form of increased tax revenue. Federal programs for the encouragement of secondary education has been instrumental in creating America's legendary post-secondary education system (envy of the world). Medicare and Medicaid have created a country where the blind do not any longer roam the streets in want of money. The old do not suffer so much from the tyranny of declining health. Cars are safer. Credit card companies have to tell you the whole story of the cost of credit. The environment is cared for in many ways it was not before.

I'm not too happy about the cultural spending in the programs. There are many parts of it that are far from perfect, but it was a good program for the most part.

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.

Ensuring the general welfare is a legitimate government function. What it is, usually, is giving out rods. The government can't make you want to learn to fish, but it can feed you while you figure it out for yourself. It can also feed you when there aren't any fish in the sea, or when you are too old to operate the oars.

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.

We all benefit from the social safety net's existence. It's true that most will never use it, but it is good to be prepared.

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.

You think they don't? The top marginal tax rate is lower than it has been for most of the history of the tax. Reagan set it near where it is today.
It isn't Democrats who concern themselves with the AMT or Capital Gains or the top marginal tax rate. It is Democrats who are advocating increasing taxes on the rich. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes, proportionally, than his secretary, and he'll b the first to tell you that's wrong.

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.

All of these programs were tested and found to be legal at the federal level. If they weren't, they would be made to be. Ensuring the general welfare is a legitimate function of the federal government.

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."

I'm aware that conservatives give more to the poor freely. For one thing, they're richer.

I wasn't aware I was a liberal. I mean, if you say so.

 

[SavageEagle]

I'll do you 1 better yet. Those receiving "assistance" shouldn't be allowed to use tobacco or alcohol at all.

I think you forgot this...


And that would be perfectly fine with me. When we received food stamps, I'd had no problem that being a stipulation. I'd have quit smoking long ago. And I hardly drink, so why not? Not gonna argue with you there.

And I'm sorry you have such a problem with people who pay into the system and then use those kinds of programs when they need it. I don't like it being there anymore than you do. I'm ashamed I had to use it. I was brought up differently. However, if it's there, and I've been paying for it, why not? Are you saying someone on foodstamps can't be on it and fight against it? Sure, it makes them a hypocrite in a small way, but at least they're trying to end it.

I never asked for foodstamps. Never once in my life did I say, "Hey, I want that.". My wife had it before we got together and we did everything we could to get off it. Finally we got to where we could and she got laid off. Now we have NO money coming in except for her severance and unemployment until I either get enlisted or get one of the jobs I've applied for. But at least we're trying.

If you want to hate on someone that's getting government assistance, hate on those who are on it and DON'T want off. Hate on those who live off it. Not those of us who have paid into it and used it when we needed it.

At this rate, with how few people are fighting against it, I'll be paying into it the rest of my life. So don't bash me for taking something I paid for.

 

[mconley]

I pay in all year, its my money anyway. Im going to find everyway I can to get as much as MY money back as I can... Its not anyone elses money Im stealing from getting deductions, its mine im getting back. Show me someone that gets more money back at tax time than what he or that family has paid into over the corse of a year ( in everyday taxs and out of their paychecks ) Wont happen.

 

[tuoder]

I pay in all year, its my money anyway. Im going to find everyway I can to get as much as MY money back as I can... Its not anyone elses money Im stealing from getting deductions, its mine im getting back. Show me someone that gets more money back at tax time than what he or that family has paid into over the corse of a year ( in everyday taxs and out of their paychecks ) Wont happen.

If you're poor enough to draw it, you're not likely paying into it. You're paying FICA, which pays for Medicare.

 

[hornadylnl]

I pay in all year, its my money anyway. Im going to find everyway I can to get as much as MY money back as I can... Its not anyone elses money Im stealing from getting deductions, its mine im getting back. Show me someone that gets more money back at tax time than what he or that family has paid into over the corse of a year ( in everyday taxs and out of their paychecks ) Wont happen.

Happens all the time. It's called earned income credit.

 

[hornadylnl]

Tuoder, respectfully suggest you have a poor understanding of the general welfare clause. I suspect this guy know what the intent was as he was there for the founding.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

 

[tuoder]

Tuoder, respectfully suggest you have a poor understanding of the general welfare clause. I suspect this guy know what the intent was as he was there for the founding.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

It is not done out of benevolence, but for the profit of society.

 

[BloodEclipse]

It is not done out of benevolence, but for the profit of society.

Ok I reread that 3 times and it still makes no sense.

 

[hornadylnl]

It is not done out of benevolence, but for the profit of society.

And this is how the constitution has merely become a suggestion and not the law of the land.

Before you suggest that the government take my money by force for "charity", make sure you empty your own pockets first.

 

[38special]

And this is how the constitution has merely become a suggestion and not the law of the land.

Before you suggest that the government take my money by force for "charity", make sure you empty your own pockets first.

Ditto. When, exactly, did the government become better at helping the poor than the private sector anyway?

First - the government forces money away from some and gives it to others. Economic redistribution. It also wastes a LOT of money in the meantime.

Second - the government has taken on a "War on Poverty" spending BILLIONS of tax dollars and has no real impact on poverty.

Private entities are more than welcome to help the impoverished at their will and discretion. I'll be happy to support them, and I do. Being forced through taxation to pay for a failed "war on poverty" is not my idea of the greater good OR in my opinion the intent of that clause.

 

[hornadylnl]

What I don't understand is the idea that the rich have an obligation to the poor. What are the poor obligated to do in return besides holding the rich in contempt for not providing more than they already do?

 

[BloodEclipse]

What are the poor obligated to do in return besides holding the rich in contempt for not providing more than they already do?

Hey now that is as close to a fulltime job as most of them will ever have.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...The top marginal tax rate is lower than it has been for most of the history of the tax. Reagan set it near where it is today.
It isn't Democrats who concern themselves with the AMT or Capital Gains or the top marginal tax rate. It is Democrats who are advocating increasing taxes on the rich. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes, proportionally, than his secretary, and he'll b the first to tell you that's wrong....

Perhaps they do, but that proportional less amount is still far greater than the amount received from others making less money. In effect, making them pay more, proportionally, is penalizing success.

Is that what you're advocating? Penalizing success?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bruenor]

I'm feeling lazy this morning, so I'll just plagiarize from wiser minds than mine.


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

 

[tuoder]

Ok I reread that 3 times and it still makes no sense.

Oh come now. You understand clearly that the government stands to gain from making sure people don't become homeless drug addicts or thieves.

And this is how the constitution has merely become a suggestion and not the law of the land.

Before you suggest that the government take my money by force for "charity", make sure you empty your own pockets first.

I don't think it's mere charity to help those in need. We all profit from helping others to get back on their feet and share in the tax burden. It's not just out of love for your fellow person, you stand to gain as well. The constitution does not prohibit it, it authorizes it.

Ditto. When, exactly, did the government become better at helping the poor than the private sector anyway?

First - the government forces money away from some and gives it to others. Economic redistribution. It also wastes a LOT of money in the meantime.

Second - the government has taken on a "War on Poverty" spending BILLIONS of tax dollars and has no real impact on poverty.

Private entities are more than welcome to help the impoverished at their will and discretion. I'll be happy to support them, and I do. Being forced through taxation to pay for a failed "war on poverty" is not my idea of the greater good OR in my opinion the intent of that clause.

Again, this is not mere charity. This is an investment in society with a return, and one where the government is better positioned than the private sector to execute it.

The private sector rewards the greedy--those who believe that never have had any help, and so feel no need to help anyone.

Government waste is a real concern, of course, but again that's not really a case against them, unless you can prove that most of the intended money doesn't get where it ought to be going, or that others could do a better job.

What I don't understand is the idea that the rich have an obligation to the poor. What are the poor obligated to do in return besides holding the rich in contempt for not providing more than they already do?

The rich have an obligation, not to just the poor, but society. It's quite greedy and selfish to think one never had any help in making their millions. How rich would Bill Gates be if he were born in Russia, or Uganda? There are real opportunities that exist here that don't exist almost anywhere else, and there is no country that both has these opportunities, and asks so little in return to maintain the opportunity for others to do the same.

Perhaps they do, but that proportional less amount is still far greater than the amount received from others making less money. In effect, making them pay more, proportionally, is penalizing success.

Is that what you're advocating? Penalizing success?

Blessings,
Bill

The income tax bracket system is specifically arranged never to punish success. This is a common myth I've seen. Tax brackets don't allow this to happen. The income tax system only tries to tax according to one's ability to pay. The rich frequently are able to pay less than the middle class due to various sorts of deductions, although this is usually done through private sector donations which are rightly tax-deductible.

I'm feeling lazy this morning, so I'll just plagiarize from wiser minds than mine.


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

I don't think most people are under this impression. I'm sure some are, but I am not.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

I do not seek to tax because one has made too much. I do not seek to tax to spare to others. I do not seek to dole to those without equal industry or skill. I seek to tax from those most able to pay, in order to invest in those who are not yet self sufficient due to circumstance, in order that they will become self-sufficient instead of destitute.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#cite_note-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#cite_note-6

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Again, it is not pure benevolence, but for the good of the country.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Oh come now. You understand clearly that the government stands to gain from making sure people don't become homeless drug addicts or thieves.

So you are equating welfare dollars as a means to prevent homelessness, drug abuse and thievery?

Surely you must be joking.

 

[IndyMonkey]

He is also saying that because someone has become successful that they have a responsibility to help other people out.

Did anyone want to share the burden with me when I started my company or help me and my family when our income is down 73% this past year?