(Huge essay inside) If "need" is the origin of debt then debt itself is inescapable.

[Liberty]

When I look at what the taxpayer should have the reasonable expectation of paying for, I ask myself "what is the origin of the debt?"

For example, in between two private citizens what would be an origin of debt? Can you just walk to your neighbors house and say, "you owe me money!"? Your neighbor would say, "For what?" and then you reply "You owe me money and we are going to court so I can get money from you."

Now, no judge in America would bang the gavel and say Person A owes Person B money simply because person B says so. Now if person B broke Person A's window then person A would have a claim against person B for the cost of repairing the window. So in this case, damaging property is an origin of debt.

Now, we have in the US in the constitution a creation of a court system to settle controversies between citizens, businesses, etc. We have a reasonable expectation that we are going to fund a court system for the purpose of settling controversies, such as an origin of a debt. If you are going to make a claim, you have to prove the claim that's how our courts are set up. Car accidents, property damage, theft, etc.

For a taxpayer, the origin of debt is the legitimate function of government. Those legit functions at the federal level are outlined in the 18 enumerated powers. In the other levels it's the same thing, town charter, county charter, state constitution, etc. But to simply say that planned parenthood for example has a right to funding then you tell me what the origin of debt is for the taxpayer to planned parenthood.

Some would say "I am a taxpayer and I want my tax money to fund planned parenthood." Ok, so why force others to do it via their tax money? Why not cut taxes and you are free to donate to planned parenthood, and I am free to donate somewhere else. The problem is we have built a recipient class society that on so many fronts relies on money that is literally stolen and confiscated away from taxpayers to government FOR and ONLY FOR the purposes of aiding this recipient class that to consider not funding it is considered "inhumane."

The answer you lefties will say is "Well these people need this that or whatever." I know you lefties don't like to talk about this, you like to flame and back yourself into a corner and just lash out about our "meanness" instead of rationally and critically thinking about what exactly the origin of the debt of the taxpayer is based on "need" exactly?

If all debt is based on "need", that is socialism! Get it? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his NEED." That is MARX, ladies and gents.
There is a reason why the far left do not want to see legitimate spending cuts: "If we can bankrupt the country we can finally get to the point where there will be popular support for more government ownership of industry." I know that is what you lefties think, especially lefty politicians. More government confiscation of wealth, control of the economy, because socialism throughout history is ALWAYS sold as a benefit to those who think they are victims of a free market capitalist system or whatever the gripe is.

But how do you get there? If you run up the debt of a country to a point where it is completely and totally unsustainable, you HAVE to start confiscating wealth; you HAVE to start taking over industries. That's how you pay the debts of the country. In other words, and read this carefully leftists, the debt serves as a vehicle for crushing the "have" class. Understand that the political "have" class have already protected and isolated their wealth, so you just hurt the normal citizen.

The debt is being driven by spending based on need, social programs to be precise first and foremost. And it's not just medicare and medicaid. Social security shouldn't even be counted in that because that was supposedly your savings account which is a total lie. Every single spending program that can't be found in the enumerated powers is ALWAYS justified by "need." So, as long as need exists, the life of the taxpayer will be taxed by "need." It has become an inescapable debt because if need allows the government to confiscate ever more of your wealth it's ALWAYS going to find more need. This is the paradox.

Get it yet? If "need" is the origin of debt then debt itself is inescapable. You will live your life from cradle to the grave offsetting need even though you will never offset it when it comes to taxes which is blatantly obvious BY DESIGN.

 

[blu]

the system of only paying taxes for what you want would never work.

I would be against medicare, medicaid, social security, all 3 wars we are waging, and only spending for *defense* (as the consitution states), not an empire with hundreds of bases and active military in nearly every country in the world. I would also not fund the department of education along with many other unconstitutional departments, religious organizations would lose their tax exempt status, along with a number of other set-asides that are unconstitutional bullshit.

 

[Liberty]

i love how no lefties can hop in and refute my logic.

 

[Liberty]

took me nearly 40 minutes to write this and no one wants to try to refute me at all? I am kinda disappointed.

 

[editec]

When I look at what the taxpayer should have the reasonable expectation of paying for, I ask myself "what is the origin of the debt?"

I'm with ya' so far, Lib.

For example, in between two private citizens what would be an origin of debt? Can you just walk to your neighbors house and say, "you owe me money!"? Your neighbor would say, "For what?" and then you reply "You owe me money and we are going to court so I can get money from you."

Now, no judge in America would bang the gavel and say Person A owes Person B money simply because person B says so. Now if person B broke Person A's window then person A would have a claim against person B for the cost of repairing the window. So in this case, damaging property is an origin of debt.

Okay.

Now, we have in the US in the constitution a creation of a court system to settle controversies between citizens, businesses, etc. We have a reasonable expectation that we are going to fund a court system for the purpose of settling controversies, such as an origin of a debt. If you are going to make a claim, you have to prove the claim that's how our courts are set up. Car accidents, property damage, theft, etc.

Yup

For a taxpayer, the origin of debt is the legitimate function of government.

Legit or not the origin of the debt is the government.

Those legit functions at the federal level are outlined in the 18 enumerated powers.

19 enumberated owers as defined by whom?

In the other levels it's the same thing, town charter, county charter, state constitution, etc.

Yup.

But to simply say that planned parenthood for example has a right to funding then you tell me what the origin of debt is for the taxpayer to planned parenthood.

Federal laws found consitutional by previous SCOTUS rulings

Some would say "I am a taxpayer and I want my tax money to fund planned parenthood." Ok, so why force others to do it via their tax money? Why not cut taxes and you are free to donate to planned parenthood, and I am free to donate somewhere else. The problem is we have built a recipient class society that on so many fronts relies on money that is literally stolen and confiscated away from taxpayers to government FOR and ONLY FOR the purposes of aiding this recipient class that to consider not funding it is considered "inhumane."

Well that's one take on it. Another is to assume that what any individual taxpayer want to support is not relevant, since, let's face it, it isn't.

We can ALL point to things that the Federal government, state governments or local governemtns spend money on that we object to, can we not?

The answer you lefties will say is "Well these people need this that or whatever." I know you lefties don't like to talk about this, you like to flame and back yourself into a corner and just lash out about our "meanness" instead of rationally and critically thinking about what exactly the origin of the debt of the taxpayer is based on "need" exactly?

Here's a clue...you don't get to speak for the "lefties". When you try to do that all you do is create straw men to debate.

If all debt is based on "need", that is socialism! Get it? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his NEED." That is MARX, ladies and gents.

So the military is also socialism? Okay, if that's your definition of socialism, I suppose you're right. Because according to your definiteio0n everything a government does is socialism, lad.

There is a reason why the far left do not want to see legitimate spending cuts: "If we can bankrupt the country we can finally get to the point where there will be popular support for more government ownership of industry." I know that is what you lefties think, especially lefty politicians. More government confiscation of wealth, control of the economy, because socialism throughout history is ALWAYS sold as a benefit to those who think they are victims of a free market capitalist system or whatever the gripe is.

Ascribing other's motives is generally a waste of time. You can know what people do, but knowing why they do it is problematic

But how do you get there? If you run up the debt of a country to a point where it is completely and totally unsustainable, you HAVE to start confiscating wealth; you HAVE to start taking over industries. That's how you pay the debts of the country. In other words, and read this carefully leftists, the debt serves as a vehicle for crushing the "have" class. Understand that the political "have" class have already protected and isolated their wealth, so you just hurt the normal citizen.

Oh those poor poor billionaires.

The debt is being driven by spending based on need, social programs to be precise first and foremost. And it's not just medicare and medicaid. Social security shouldn't even be counted in that because that was supposedly your savings account which is a total lie. Every single spending program that can't be found in the enumerated powers is ALWAYS justified by "need." So, as long as need exists, the life of the taxpayer will be taxed by "need." It has become an inescapable debt because if need allows the government to confiscate ever more of your wealth it's ALWAYS going to find more need. This is the paradox.

Get it yet? If "need" is the origin of debt then debt itself is inescapable. You will live your life from cradle to the grave offsetting need even though you will never offset it when it comes to taxes which is blatantly obvious BY DESIGN.

YOu complaint is about BAD government.

On that we can agree.

We definitely do have a kleptocracy running things, without doubt.

 

[Wiseacre]

Not sure if the "need" of the constituency is the driving force or whether it's the "need" of the politician to get re-elected. There's a lot of superfluous spneding going on that isn't needed but is done anyway to curry favor with voters. I would say some ofit is altruistic to benefit the poor or disadvantaged, but a lot isn't.

 

[Liberty]

Thanks for at least some response. The enumerated powers I am referring to are found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and the military is exempt from my criticism because funding for the military is a legitimate function of government outlined in the Constitution. the Court can have all the decisions they want, but what makes an individual personally liable to the needs of others?

Also, regardless of some points that are based on opinion, is the basic thesis of "if you spend money based on need, then spending will never end" a legitimate point because those in power will always seek to help those with need, to get votes, to create more problems, to spend more to curb the need, etc. vicious cycle?