Man, I hate Liberals

[rvb]

federal governemnt is far more able to collect taxes than the states?

Really ? The state seems to do just as good a job collecting taxes as the feds. Both take $ out of my pay? Both have me complete returns every year.

Yes, but the federal government taxes far more.

Just because they are operating in areas where they have no authority, collecting way more than they -should- need, and doing their best to "spread the wealth" doesn't mean the states are less capable of collecting taxes.

I think we fundamentally agree.

I ... really ... don't think so.

-rvb

 

[tuoder]

Just because they are operating in areas where they have no authority, collecting way more than they -should- need, and doing their best to "spread the wealth" doesn't mean the states are less capable of collecting taxes.



I ... really ... don't think so.

-rvb

The income tax is authorized by the 16th amendment to the constitution.

 

[rvb]

operating in areas where they have no authority, collecting way more than they -should- need

The income tax is authorized by the 16th amendment to the constitution.

I was referring to TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare, unemployment, land use, industry subsidies, education, health insurance, technology research, social security, and on and on and on.

I have no problem w/ the gov raising money to exucute those powers for which it has the authority (eg military).

-rvb

 

[Eddie]

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.

I pay my taxes and make donations as well. I don't pay much in the way of taxes--only a few hundred dollars in income taxes and several hundred more through other taxes, as I don't make much working part time as a college student (~$12,500/year). Neither do I draw from any welfare programs, although I'd be willing to bet that I qualify, I haven't checked. I don't need it. I have a few things I could sell first. I am assisted through the use of college loans. My parents loaned me what they could, but it isn't enough.

The above statement speaks volumes.

You file a petition to the court.

Amazingly vague response. Please, tell me more.

It didn't happen, unless this is more of the disorganization happening.

See the quote at the top where you say that the federal governement taxing and giving money to the poor is a good thing?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I applaud your idealism. I've been in your position where I have made very little money.

Please accept this is not bragging, because it is not. From what I read, you really believe what you are saying. That is based upon your perspective. I would like to give you another.

I pay more in taxes in a month than you make in a year. I own a company that generates almost $8MM a year in gross revenues. I built the company from scratch, and have not asked anyone, especially the government, to share one penny of the risk. I am in the process of starting up two more companies that I will fund wholly out of pocket. All three companies are heavily regulated by the government. Despite their best efforts, I am successful. I have a lot of employees that work for me, and will be adding more employees with the two new companies. I also invest in and coach other businesses.

Do you think anyone can start and run a successful business? Nope. Over 90% fail within 5 years. I assumed 100% of the risk in starting and running my businesses. I have to dodge every government idiot who thinks it is their job to prevent me from doing business. I am in a position that I could stop caring and stop working. I would have to make some major adjustments in my life though. I would no longer have enough income to do many of the things I currently do. My giving would dry up. If I stopped, my business would likely fail, since most of the relationships I have I cultivated. I've also thought seriously about moving to Switzerland, where the taz rates are much lower and freedom and liberty much greater.

So tell me why I should keep working, put up with all the crap associated with being a business owner and put my wealth at risk when the reward keeps getting smaller and smaller. If I, and other like me, decided to stop generating value, who is going to provide the jobs that people seem to think they deserve. Who will generate and pay the massive taxes required to perpetualt the welfare state?

These are rhetorical questions that don't necessarily require response but hopefully provoke thought.

I pay my taxes and make donations as well. I don't pay much in the way of taxes--only a few hundred dollars in income taxes and several hundred more through other taxes, as I don't make much working part time as a college student (~$12,500/year). Neither do I draw from any welfare programs, although I'd be willing to bet that I qualify, I haven't checked. I don't need it. I have a few things I could sell first. I am assisted through the use of college loans. My parents loaned me what they could, but it isn't enough.



You file a petition to the court.



I was responding to someone who said that the government had no right in infringe on one's ability to keep and bear arms at all. I must have become disorganized.



Most liberals find themselves disagreeing with me pretty wholeheartedly. They are hardly a homogeneous group. They do not wish to institute TEOTAWAKI. They simply see ways to make the world more fair.



It didn't happen, unless this is more of the disorganization happening.

 

[tuoder]

I was referring to TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare, unemployment, land use, industry subsidies, education, health insurance, technology research, social security, and on and on and on.

I have no problem w/ the gov raising money to execute those powers for which it has the authority (eg military).

-rvb

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Between these three, they are authorized to do everything you mention.

 

[38special]

I was talking about dealing with charity on a strictly voluntary basis. Some people think they never got any help from anyone, so they don't contribute.

That may be the case, and it's unfortunate. It is not, however, a good reason for forcing through taxation.

Were you never helped by the state in the form of police or military? Do you not benefit from there being clean streets and public schools?

Well I didn't go to a public school. I am not against taxation entirely. I'm against the welfare state and taxing people who make more money at a higher rate.

I see a need for taxes. We need police (by the way, paid for my state and local taxes generally) and we need military. That's not what I'm arguing against here.

That isn't the same as saying that it is wholly and completely incapable of spending money in the interest of society. That's very different.

I didn't argue that it wasn't capable. I argued that the private sector does it better.

If you give them a check that depends on either searching for a job or building new skills that will help them get a job, then there is an opportunity for success that may not have otherwise existed.

We don't disagree here. I just think the private sector does this better.

Oh come now. In every state, you get 2 years of unemployment for life, you have to prove you are looking for a job, and you have to keep the job for a set period of time before you can go back on the dole. In some states they drug test you. People are busted for fraud all of the time.

I missed the part where it prevent stealing? I'm talking about crime here. People on welfare *do* commit crimes, and I suspect (though admittedly I do not have tangible evidence) that the percentage is not much different from those who don't have welfare.

I don't believe this welfare is preventing crime.

 

[tuoder]

The above statement speaks volumes.

What does it say?

Amazingly vague response. Please, tell me more.

I don't know the details of the process.

See the quote at the top where you say that the federal governement taxing and giving money to the poor is a good thing?

I think that it is.

I applaud your idealism. I've been in your position where I have made very little money.

Please accept this is not bragging, because it is not. From what I read, you really believe what you are saying. That is based upon your perspective. I would like to give you another.

I pay more in taxes in a month than you make in a year. I own a company that generates almost $8MM a year in gross revenues. I built the company from scratch, and have not asked anyone, especially the government, to share one penny of the risk. I am in the process of starting up two more companies that I will fund wholly out of pocket. All three companies are heavily regulated by the government. Despite their best efforts, I am successful. I have a lot of employees that work for me, and will be adding more employees with the two new companies. I also invest in and coach other businesses.

Do you think anyone can start and run a successful business? Nope. Over 90% fail within 5 years. I assumed 100% of the risk in starting and running my businesses. I have to dodge every government idiot who thinks it is their job to prevent me from doing business. I am in a position that I could stop caring and stop working. I would have to make some major adjustments in my life though. I would no longer have enough income to do many of the things I currently do. My giving would dry up. If I stopped, my business would likely fail, since most of the relationships I have I cultivated. I've also thought seriously about moving to Switzerland, where the taz rates are much lower and freedom and liberty much greater.

So tell me why I should keep working, put up with all the crap associated with being a business owner and put my wealth at risk when the reward keeps getting smaller and smaller. If I, and other like me, decided to stop generating value, who is going to provide the jobs that people seem to think they deserve. Who will generate and pay the massive taxes required to perpetualt the welfare state?

These are rhetorical questions that don't necessarily require response but hopefully provoke thought.

I think the only thing we really disagree about is the degree to which the things are under your control, and the degree to which you are assisted in what you do.

It can be difficult to see, when you are successful, why others aren't. Aren't they trying? Why can't they do better? I did!

It's complicated. Many people aren't able to generate the startup capital to being doing business, and/or can't get the credit to do so. Many have trouble getting into and staying in college because of poor public schooling. Many are unable to find good jobs in their area, nor are they able to gather the resources to move.

Most are. Most are in the same boat as you, but some aren't as fortunate, or as strong or as smart. Some try like you and fail miserably. I had some old friends form high school who started a hookah bar that failed gracefully (they had to close, but they still made a great deal of money off of the endeavor, owing no debts).

The government did help you, by creating a business friendly atmosphere. Welfare even helps you when the programs are run properly, if by no other method than by bringing in more paying customers. Your family no doubt raised you right. Many of the things you've done were mad possible by your family and community. That's all I'm saying.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm attempting to have a civil discussion. If I've offended you, I'm sorry.

People misrepresenting my views, particularly after repeated corrections, tends to do that.

If you want to apologize, you really have to first stop the offensive behavior.

That's my point exactly. It's not the taxation (by force) that bothers you, it's the spending.

Case in point. You still get it wrong.

I don't object to giving to the poor.
I don't object to the use of taxes for legitimate business of government.

I object to combining the two. You continue to try to see things as some kind of binary set and, despite my attempting to explain the difference several times you continue to attribute a position to me other than the one I actually hold.

Neither. I'm saying that the use of force is necessary and proper to enforce a just law, after all other avenues are exhausted. I don't think you disagree, really.

But taking my money to just hand it to someone else (or taking your money to hand it to someone else) is not a "just law."

Do you have any evidence that demonstrates what that I said is false?

You might want to take a look at some basic epistemology and learn where the burden of proof lies. Start by taking a little time on the "proving a negative" issue--to what it applies and so forth. Here's something to get you started:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know what's involved in getting an FFL? Background checks are part of it. That means that the FFL holders among the Branch Davidians had already passed a background check as required for the NFA licenses. The only thing missing for them to legally own anything listed in the original warrant (you have read that by now, haven't you? It's available online) was the tax stamp.

As for the "nutjob." I simply point out that most of the "crimes" of which they are accused are not only not part of the BATF's purview but were investigated by the appropriate agencies before the assault on the compound (cf. the Texas Children's Services board which investigated the allegations of child abuse) and were found to be groundless.

And on all those issues, it's up to the State to prove it's case, not the other way around.

Yes it does, the vast majority of gun dealers will not sell you one if you are a felon, because you will not pass the background check. Of course, it is still possible to build one or buy one from an illicit source if you can find one, but a felon can't just drop into a Bass Pro Shop and buy a Sten using a payday loan. These restrictions make them less available to criminals. Valuable collector's items, legally possessed, don't often make their way into the hands of criminals.

No it doesn't. The vast majority of guns used in crime are not bought from gun dealers.

If what you were saying were true there would have been corallaries between passing gun control legislation and falling crime rates. Unfortunately, the numbers don't work out that way.

What you are doing is called assuming the conclusion. The laws make things more complicated for law abiding people to acquire guns so you simply assume that it also applies to criminals despite the fact that criminals have different sources for weapons.

Consider: a convicted felon will, pretty much by definition, have spent some time in jail/prison. During that time he or she will have come to know other felons. That gives them contacts by which they can reach other contacts by which they can find illegal firearms if they want them.

Gun control doesn't restrict the availability of guns to criminals. They can still get them, maybe not at the local Sears and Roebuck (which sold guns when I was a kid) but they can still get them.

Of course, I do want to see some of the restrictions loosened up, but not where the danger of the weapon exceeds the utility.

And by what standard is both danger and utility determined? Do you also feel that the same "danger" vs. "utility" argument should be applied to other rights?

I agree with that it should be lower, we only differ in what regard and what degree.

Here's my degree:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(Note that just as the powers involved in "provide for the common defense" are defined below so too are the powers that make up "general welfare")

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; (General welfare)

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; (General welfare)

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; (General welfare)

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; (general welfare)

To establish post offices and post roads; (general welfare)

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (General welfare)

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; (General welfare)

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; (COmmon defense)

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; (Common defense)

To provide and maintain a navy; (Common defense)

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (Common defense)

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (Common defense)

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. (General welfare--but note that it's limited to the forgoing)

Plus a few added in Amendments that followed.

And that's it.

There are people who play victim, certainly. There are leaders and followers and a whole movement of them. There are people who will never do better than that. My point is twofold: there are those who will play victim who are not, but there are also victims who need help, and the trick is finding the difference. Secondly I'm familiar with the work of Oscar Lewis, and his concept of the underclass. Even he distinguished between the deserving poor, and the undeserving poor.

And the deserving poor can usually find help.

You simply cannot show that things somehow got better with the passing of the "Great Society" programs.

Very few people honestly advocate living on handouts, as a rule. I certainly don't. They should only do when it is really necessary, and it is, on occasion, necessary.

And yet you endorse the same programs that lead to exactly that.

There are cynical people who see nothing better intheir lives than accepting a handout, and there are cynical people who see government as, largely, nothing more than a handout. I am neither of these people. I suspect you are the latter.

You would be surprised. For one thing I approve of public funding of education and training programs (there is no constitutional problem with it at the State and Local level--at the federal level, if they want it they should pass the appropriate Constitutional Amendment.

I'm happy we agree on the state of our primary and secondary education systems. They run the gambit from downright terrible to the envy of the world, depending on district, property value, and tax rate.

Ah, you see, you are drinking the koolaid again. The state of the schools has very little to do with property values and tax rates (with those as the beginning of the causal arrow anyway). Jerry Pournelle tells of the rural Tennessee schools in which he grew up, the standards that students met (two grades per class, something like 50 students per teacher) were far and away above anything I had to meet in public schools and what I had to meet far exceeds what I'm seeing in schools today.

Look at the progression:

1. School fails to meet standards.
2. School makes excuses, usually "we don't have enough money."
3. School board calls for more money.
4. Voters vote a tax increase (or more lotteries or what have you) to give school more money.
5. Light bulb goes off among school administrators: if we fail and come up with a good sounding excuse, why then we get more money!
6. Schools continue to fail.
7. Go back to step one.

Is it any wonder?

We've managed to send many of our best and brightest to the greatest colleges in the world. Who gave them the land, the grants, and loans? Who lends money to poor students so that they can get a leg up in life if they're willing to work for it? State and Federal government programs do that.

And we were still sending many of our best and brightest to the greatest colleges in the world before all these government programs.

If you can pay, even a part, the system is set up to make you give up what you have in order to become educated. I just think that if you're willing to work hard, and do your part, that it's good to break down other barriers that stand in your way, such as the conditions surrounding your birth.

You might want to look at what happened to college costs when these various government "financial aid" packages went into effect.

My mother "worked her way through college" waitressing. She had nothing when she started and basically had to earn enough to keep herself in school as she went along.

A waitress was able to make enough money then to put herself through school.

Simple economics: make more money available for schools simply drives the cost up. Now, someone like my mother would have to not only "work her way through school" but also take government grant money and a heavy debt load to get the same education she got with just the working her way through back in the day. At the end, that young lady would have had to work just as hard, would have had to reach into other people's pockets, and would be several tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I fail to see the advantage.

The fact that the government is not always run as efficiently as it could be is not proof that it should be dismantled, it's proof that it should be fixed.

A definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

You are assuming that it can be "fixed" when all of history indicates otherwise.

I completely agree that private charitable institutions do a lot of great work, and the govenment rightly supports many private charitable institutions through grants, but when it comes to creating an equal opportunity in life for America's citizens, only the government has shown itself to be up to doing the job completely.

Please, pray tell, explain how the government has "shown itself up to doing the job completely" when it hasn't, you know, done the job.

This is called "wishful thinking" at best

The private sector has always been there, and has always helped, and will always be more flexible, and the first to give and find those who need. They are both useful.

And Mafia dons give to charity too. They remain mafia dons.

"Now you fellas have said some pretty mean things. Some of which *were* true under that fiend, Boss Grissom. He *was* a thief, and a terrorist. On the other hand he had a tremendous singing voice."

Nominal and inflation-adjusted income are higher than they were.

"Post hoc ergo proptery hoc." That's a logical fallacy.

The economy has grown despite, not because of, things like the "Great Society."

Unemployment, except for very recently, is the lowest in the world, and remains better than Europe.

How long do you expect that to last so long as those like, say, our current administration, insist on making us more like Europe?

Oh, you might want to look at the history of unemployment rates. Right around 1970 unemployment rose precipitously and, since then, has hovered around higher rates than in the decades previously.

Seems to me that things like the "Great Society" haven't done anything to acutally help with unemployment rates.

Still, there are poor, this is true. America's approach has been superior to Europe's: We help those who will work, and they help everyone.

America also still has a lot more private charity than does Europe. But one of the things government "welfare" does is it draws on the same money that would be used for private charity reducing the "disposable income" that people might otherwise donate. And since government programs are, almost without exception, fare more inefficient than private charities when it comes to actually getting the help to the people who need it, the result is a reduction in total help available.

No one seriously believes in government control over our lives. They might believe in making some trade of money for services, or not.

I don't know whether you are being disingenuous or naive in the above statement. Considering the amount of government control we already have over our lives, and the folk who keep voting for more, I really don't know where to begin.

When has there not been an underclass, and why shouldn't there be?

The "underclass" has, throughout much of the history of the US, been mostly a transient location for individuals and groups. New waves of immigrants would often find themselves as part of the "underclass" for a time until they, as a group, assimilated and moved out of it. What has happened in recent years is the creation of a large permanent underclass. Folk not only stay there, but their children and grandchildren stay there as well.

Do you really not see this as a problem?

I don't think anyone wants to foster dependence. Find me one liberal who says people shouldn't work to improve their condition.

Their actions speak so loudly I cannot hear their words. When they continue the same approaches that have failed to actually help the situation, which actually have grown the underclass, grown the number of folk dependent on government handouts, grown the people beholden to the people who say, in essence, "vote for me because the other guy will cut off the handouts," well, their actions speak for themselves.

People did starve on the streets, and do starve on the streets. Less do than did before.

Evidence for this claim please.

Simply repeating the same, unsupported, claims is not evidence.

Now, the vast majority of homeless are the mentally ill and drug addicts. Before, able-bodied men and women and children composed the majority.

Cite evidence please.

Personally, I think people need to sell their pride and take the handout. The humiliation of drawing a welfare check is the same as standing in line. It's the same disappointment in one's self that you cannot provide for yourself and your family by yourself. Few want to be on welfare, at worst they see it is as necessary.

Haven't met many people on welfare, in candid circumstances, have you?

At best, you're projecting.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really have no clue about the "entitlement mentality" that runs rampant through much of the underclass (you can usually tell the ones who don't have it--they're the one's who don't stay there for very long).

The force of hunger and poverty are greater than the force of an incremental tax increase. How free are the homeless?

BTDT. I was free enough to spend time in a library rather than moaning on a street corner. I was free enough to work to earn the money to apply for college. I was free enough to earn my way out.

This has been argued since the beginning of this country. Alexander Hamilton held the contrary position. I won't restate it, you can find it here:

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And James Madison, the guy who wrote it, held mine.

We are quite aware that folk, from the very beginning of the US, have tried to twist the meaning of the Constitution from its plain words. That doesn't make them right.

Not at all. I'm arguing for a system where people are taxed, that force be used to enforce the law, and the money is spent in a way that benefits society.

No. You are arguing for something where the money is spent in a way that someone claims is benefiting society. By any metric the so-called "Great Society" has failed of its claimed goals.

I, OTOH, am arguing for limiting the taxes being passed and the laws passed to those powers actually granted by the Constitution.

Tax cuts, exemptions, and reductions disproportionately affect the rich, at least when it comes to the income tax.

No. They don't. This is another lie of the left.

The rich get more of their own money back but that's because they've paid more into it in the first place.

The left looks at someone who pays $100,000 in taxes getting $1000 back as being "unfair" compared to the guy who pays $1000 in taxes getting $1 back. Rubbish and balderdash.

The poor mostly don't pay income tax because they barely have enough to survive.

And maybe if we had a stronger economy--by, say, leaving the people who invest and create jobs more of their money to, you know, invest and create jobs, then maybe these people would have more than "barely enough to survive."

While it's not a 100% thing it is truly amazing how, historically, economic booms so often follow tax breaks.

So go ahead and tax Warren Buffet more. That'll show him. And when he decides that because of the greater expenses, via taxes, that the secretary is just too much of a luxury and he lets him or her go, well, you can blame him for that too.

They do pay Medicare/Medicaid/FICA. They do pay sales tax. They do pay property taxes and renter's taxes. They pay more of the liquor, gas, and cigarette taxes because they consume more of all of these things.

"They consume more of all these things."

Seems like someone who "barely has enough to survive" needs to get their priorities in order, don't you think?

Taxes are paid on profits, not revenue, and losses are deducted.

Yes, they are. But strangely enough these articles that talk about how little the rich pay in taxes so often forget that. Same folk who look at the gross from various businesses and claim they are "profiteering" (when their margins are actually remarkably thin).

Here's the article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[/quote]

Gee, Warren Buffet, at a political fund raiser for his party recites talking points from his parties dogma. Quell surprise.

Now, it's possible that in some cases, such as Buffet's where the primary "income" is through capital gains that the marginal rate is lower (depending on what timeframe and what set of tax laws are involved) since, in at least some eras capital gains have been taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. However, note what capital gains are--they are "income" that come from investments that have increased in value over time. If there's one activity that one should really try to encourage it's long term capital investment. Now, a particular cut in capital gains taxes may "benefit" the rich more than the poor (in terms of taxes paid this year) but 1) there's nothing in the world stopping other taxpayers from taking advantage of capital gains tax rates and 2) when folk make long term capital investments everybody benefits. "A rising tide lifts all ships."

FDR did pack the court to achieve his aims, the rejected many of his programs as unconstitutional before and after that incident, but fewer after. It hasn't been packed since.

But the precedent has already been set.

Do you think most people are against Social Security today? Do you think that if it were found constitutional tomorrow, an amendment to the constitution authorizing it would not be made? It's a deeply popular measure, and it does a lot of good.

Popular and right are two different things. At one time we had enough popularity to write support for slavery into the Constitution. We had Supreme Court decisions to back that up, to say that even if a person had gotten to a "free" state they were still a slave and could be retrieved by their owner.

As for doing a lot of good, that's questionable. It has always been a Ponzi scheme. It remains a Ponzi scheme. Why should it be given any more of a "pass" than any other Ponzi scheme just because it is government run?





Can you demonstrate that it is false?



I'm sorry you think the world is so simple as to contain only members of one tribe or the other. Politics are really much more complicated than that.



I never fail to find someone who thinks liberalism and communism are the same thing, and that I am one or both.



The government built the libraries and helped create as well as pay for all the places of learning. Imagine if you had to pay to read library books. Imagine if you had to pay out-or-state or out-of-country fees in college. It would be harder for the poor to read and self-improve if they didn't. It is better for all that the poor are given the opportunity to exceed their circumstances.[/quote]

 

[tuoder]

That may be the case, and it's unfortunate. It is not, however, a good reason for forcing through taxation.

Yes it is. Everyone here has been born into a free and stable society maintained through taxation. No one has gone completely without assistance from society.

Well I didn't go to a public school. I am not against taxation entirely. I'm against the welfare state and taxing people who make more money at a higher rate.

You still benefit from the fact that everyone goes to public school, and so we don't gave a completely illiterate lower class ruining the country. Welfare is ultimately profitable in the same way: It's better they are neither begging nor stealing.

I see a need for taxes. We need police (by the way, paid for my state and local taxes generally) and we need military. That's not what I'm arguing against here.

I know, and that's why I brought it up. I don't think you are against legal taxation backed through the use of force. You're against some specific spending programs.

I didn't argue that it wasn't capable. I argued that the private sector does it better.

The private sector does many things better than the government. This includes most charity. There are still things that the government does better.

I missed the part where it prevent stealing? I'm talking about crime here. People on welfare *do* commit crimes, and I suspect (though admittedly I do not have tangible evidence) that the percentage is not much different from those who don't have welfare.

I don't believe this welfare is preventing crime.

Most people don't steal car radios for fun. They do it out of desperation. If they aren't allowed to become desparate, there will be less property crime.

 

[printcraft]

..........
I don't think it's particularly controversial to assert that nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of rich individuals. I think you'd agree. Where do you draw the line between weapons anyone ought to be able to get, and ones that should be restricted, and those which should be illegal?

You know perfectly well we were talking about firearms.
Stop escalating the argument when you can't/won't answer the original question.
I will rightly assume by your refusal to answer that you believe the
government is right and that the citizens should be limited and
infringed upon.



Oh, I know........ we were talking about phasers or better yet......
I'm going to got out and get a new construction loan for a shiny DEATH STAR!!!!!!!

If you want to escalate, let's do it right.

 

[dburkhead]

dburkhead,

Still wonder why I'm going Galt?

Oh, I know why you're going Galt. There are really only two reasons to chose from:

1) The mistaken belief that "going Galt" actually accomplishes something to make things better.

or

2) One finds a certain schadenfreude ("joy in others' misfortune") in sitting and watching while everything goes to while doing nothing to try to avert the trainwreck.

 

[dburkhead]

Really? You support an individual right to thermonuclear weapons?

Until they pass and have ratified the Constitutional Amendment.

 

[SavageEagle]

Holy Carpe diem guys. I take the kids for a small bike ride and come back and you expect me to read all that?!?!?

 

[dburkhead]

I was talking about dealing with charity on a strictly voluntary basis. Some people think they never got any help from anyone, so they don't contribute.

Ah, so your objection is that somebody, somewhere, might not be "giving" as much as you think he or she should?

Some people don't give. I can live with that. There are enough decent people in the world that the one's who aren't are dealable with.

You'll find that things work a whole lot better when you stop expecting perfection and being disappointed by its lack.

 

[38special]

Yes it is. Everyone here has been born into a free and stable society maintained through taxation. No one has gone completely without assistance from society.

This is what we call a "red herring" argument. I never argued that taxation isn't necessary. I argued that redistributive taxation isn't.

You still benefit from the fact that everyone goes to public school, and so we don't gave a completely illiterate lower class ruining the country. Welfare is ultimately profitable in the same way: It's better they are neither begging nor stealing.

You've failed to show me where welfare recipients don't beg or steal.

I know, and that's why I brought it up. I don't think you are against legal taxation backed through the use of force. You're against some specific spending programs.

I'm against lots of spending programs, but namely redistributive taxation, which is specifically taxation, as well as welfare.

The private sector does many things better than the government. This includes most charity. There are still things that the government does better.

This is an argument for taxation in general which, again, I have never argued against. Taxation is necessary. Redistributive taxation in the name of "welfare" is not.

Most people don't steal car radios for fun. They do it out of desperation. If they aren't allowed to become desparate, there will be less property crime.

Or they do it out of greed or maybe their just a bad person in general.

Regardless of the reasoning, I've yet to see *any* compelling evidence that welfare prevents people from stealing other than your opinion.

 

[hornadylnl]

Oh, I know why you're going Galt. There are really only two reasons to chose from:

1) The mistaken belief that "going Galt" actually accomplishes something to make things better.

or

2) One finds a certain schadenfreude ("joy in others' misfortune") in sitting and watching while everything goes to while doing nothing to try to avert the trainwreck.

No, I'm just realistic enough to know that I and others will never change a huge percentage of minds that believe as Tuoder does. They are going to enslave us. Why give them the tools with which to do it?

 

[dburkhead]

No, I'm just realistic enough to know that I and others will never change a huge percentage of minds that believe as Tuoder does. They are going to enslave us. Why give them the tools with which to do it?

Ah, so basically you have just given up and are waiting for the axe to fall.

I can respect that. Well, no, actually, I can't, but hey, it's your choice.

 

[tuoder]

Holy Carpe diem guys. I take the kids for a small bike ride and come back and you expect me to read all that?!?!?

Yeah I'm kind of in the same boat. I thought I had a pretty high tolerance for typing paragraphs on stuff like this. Everything I say gets so many responses, I'm not sure I can stay committed to keeping up.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ah, so basically you have just given up and are waiting for the axe to fall.

I can respect that. Well, no, actually, I can't, but hey, it's your choice.

No, I just know that there is about a 90% certainy that I'm going to be hung. There is a 90% certainy that those who will do the hanging don't have the wherewithal to make or provide the rope and tree. They are counting on me to provide the means of my own death. Imagine if you will having to provide the firing squad with the guns and ammo with which they will kill you. The likelihood of them being competent enough to prodide the guns and ammo is nil.