Schakowsky: Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure it is.

Which part of American's don't deserve to keep ALL of their money do you disagree with?

The only way you could ever keep all of your money is if you advocated paying no taxes whatsoever. If that's not what you're advocating then you did in fact create a faux-outrage thread.

I advocate paying taxes, and I also believe that everyone deserves to keep all their money.

It seems all relative to me. Certainly not worth getting your panties in a wad over.

Yet you are in the thread trying to defend a position that is untenable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, consenting to pay taxes DOES mean you don't deserve all the money you have legally earned. It means EXACTLY that, in what world DOESN'T it? Not this one. Infrastructure and defense is not free.

I see the problem, you think deserve means something other than to merit, qualify for, have claim to, or be worthy of. Tell me, what does deserve mean in your lonely and confused mind?

I'm kinda jumpin here. Well not kinda, I am. Most of us don't deserve shit. Actually, probably none of us. We all live by the Grace of God. Not governement. They won't save us. Not some greedy corp. They damn sure won't save us. Not any entity on the planet. They are all self serving son of a bitches. So is we got a little, we may have alot or we may lose it in an instant.

So you all tell me. What is the right thing to do? Fight for crap that may be meaningless in an instance? Oh geez, grow up, smell the coffee and see reality. We all are but wormfood in relation to this planet.

So?

 

[Failzero]

Americans don't deserve to keep all their Guns , is on deck .

 

[FactFinder]

I see the problem, you think deserve means something other than to merit, qualify for, have claim to, or be worthy of. Tell me, what does deserve mean in your lonely and confused mind?

I'm kinda jumpin here. Well not kinda, I am. Most of us don't deserve shit. Actually, probably none of us. We all live by the Grace of God. Not governement. They won't save us. Not some greedy corp. They damn sure won't save us. Not any entity on the planet. They are all self serving son of a bitches. So is we got a little, we may have alot or we may lose it in an instant.

So you all tell me. What is the right thing to do? Fight for crap that may be meaningless in an instance? Oh geez, grow up, smell the coffee and see reality. We all are but wormfood in relation to this planet.

So?

Hey, I thought you were a 'Quantum Windbag". Is that it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm kinda jumpin here. Well not kinda, I am. Most of us don't deserve shit. Actually, probably none of us. We all live by the Grace of God. Not governement. They won't save us. Not some greedy corp. They damn sure won't save us. Not any entity on the planet. They are all self serving son of a bitches. So is we got a little, we may have alot or we may lose it in an instant.

So you all tell me. What is the right thing to do? Fight for crap that may be meaningless in an instance? Oh geez, grow up, smell the coffee and see reality. We all are but wormfood in relation to this planet.

So?

Hey, I thought you were a 'Quantum Windbag". Is that it?

You aren't worth my time.

 

[FactFinder]

So?

Hey, I thought you were a 'Quantum Windbag". Is that it?

You aren't worth my time.

That is f'in lazy if not downright cowardly.

 

[RDD_1210]

Hey, I thought you were a 'Quantum Windbag". Is that it?

You aren't worth my time.

That is f'in lazy if not downright cowardly.

And a pretty big insult to you. Especially once you see how much time he does spend here.

 

[daveman]

Liberals have decided it's in your best interests to do so.

Liberals know better than I do what's in my best interests, don't they?

Always. And I'm sure it's just coincidence that the topmost of those best interests is "voting to keep liberals in power".

 

[daveman]

I'm not arguing public versus private sector in terms of who created it, crackhead, I'm talking in-terms of how it's paid for................. and it's paid for through taxation...........and without that infrastructure and security, your capitalism does not exist.

your belief that it can only be paid for through taxation is the fault in your logic.

Actually astute observation reveals that corporate America does not take on community projects unless pressured. and.. then only maybe even if it is in their self interest. Geez, someone may gain benefit besides themselves.

Oh, that's kinda like liberals advocating wealth redistribution through higher taxes on the rich so they can feel good about themselves for helping their fellow man without it actually costing them anything.

Right?

 

[daveman]

Hey, I thought you were a 'Quantum Windbag". Is that it?

You aren't worth my time.

That is f'in lazy if not downright cowardly.

No, but this is:

"So you all tell me. What is the right thing to do? Fight for crap that may be meaningless in an instance? Oh geez, grow up, smell the coffee and see reality. We all are but wormfood in relation to this planet."

 

[The T]

You aren't worth my time.

That is f'in lazy if not downright cowardly.

No, but this is:

"So you all tell me. What is the right thing to do? Fight for crap that may be meaningless in an instance? Oh geez, grow up, smell the coffee and see reality. We all are but wormfood in relation to this planet."

In effect the poster was trying to say screw it...anything goes and who cares anyway?

 

[Texanmike]

As in a country of liberty, every man who is supposed a free agent ought to be his own governor; the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people. But since this is impossible in large states, and in small ones is subject to many inconveniences, it is fit the people should transact by their representatives what they cannot transact by themselves.

It is necessary to pay for some functions. Any time a population of more than one person exists there must be a protocol for how individuals interact with one another. That being the case the individuals, in our country, fall under a contract between the states. As the task grows in scope, a larger level of government is necessary. To that end there are large bodies of government that are necessary but they are necessary for the smallest number of tasks. Acknowledging that means that there must be a means to finance the government. The proponents of a smaller government (to include myself) want the government to provide essential, agreed upon services. The largest form of government (the federal level) does have, by the agreement our states entered into, the most specific and limited number of powers. Proponents of smaller government want to return the federal government to its rightful size.

At no point should the federal government confiscate (through taxes, excises or otherwise) with the intention to give a benefit to one individual citizen. It is completely reasonable to expect an individual to transact for his own survival. Whether it is working at a job, begging on the streets, finding comfort in a church or in a private charity there is no reason to involve the government in that process. Instead some people have decided that they want the government to make transactions that an individual should make. The problem is that the number of people who are direct benefactors of these transactions are almost outnumbering the number of people who are paying for these transactions.

I do not mind paying for things that I cannot pay for myself I do mind for providing for someone elses needs because they are disinclined to do it for themselves. How does that make me greedy? Selfish? It doesn't make me an anarchist or someone who believes government is free. The federal government is not authorized by the states to spend more than half the money it does and it is time to return the states to their rightful place in society.

Mike

 

[Dragon]

The thing that really boggles my mind is this. The ideology of the "conservative" movement, which has been articulated by a number of posters on this thread, is designed to benefit the richest 1% of the population (at most) at the expense of the poorest 75% of the population (at least). So unless those individuals articulating this position are among the richest 1% of the nation, what they are arguing for will not benefit them, and unless they are at least in the top 1/4 it will do them actual harm.

 

[Texanmike]

The thing that really boggles my mind is this. The ideology of the "conservative" movement, which has been articulated by a number of posters on this thread, is designed to benefit the richest 1% of the population (at most) at the expense of the poorest 75% of the population (at least). So unless those individuals articulating this position are among the richest 1% of the nation, what they are arguing for will not benefit them, and unless they are at least in the top 1/4 it will do them actual harm.

There is such a thing as right and wrong. It would benefit me to go steal money from some elderly person because they are easy targets. It would also benefit me (as a wasp) to advocate jim crow laws. It doesn't make sense to me that you would argue that it is ok to take the possessions of another person. I don't understand how you believe it is ok to tax people at a different rate. It is the same reason that I will call a foul on myself in a pickup game of basketball or why I teach my son not to steal.

It is not right to use a mob (officially or unofficially) to take the fruits of another man's labor. The fact that you can get another person, or a million other people, together and all look at the possessions of another person with envy and all convince yourself that they should be giving those possessions to another person is, to me, revolting. It is despicable. Instead of working on ways to take the possessions of the top 1% or 25% why not work on a way to earn their money? Why not provide or develop a service that compels one of the top 1% or 25% to give you some of their money in exchange for your services?

Holy shit. I really just had to explain why it is wrong to take someone elses shit from them? What the fuck is this country coming to???? Seriously.... It really saddens me to have to try to explain this to someone. It makes me think there is no hope for this country.

When I was an airman and my ex-wife was pregnant, I was told I "would" get on WIC. I refused. I actually had to look the commander in the eyes and tell him that I didn't need it. That I could go without amenities because (even as an Amn 10 years ago) I did make enough money to support my family. The WIC program wasn't buying cheese for me, it would have been paying my cellphone bill and my cable bill. I cut off cable and decided to forgo a new car for a few years. Yet I see people on WIC in new cars or living in a house/apt that is much more than they need. It makes me sad every time someone tells me that they are getting WIC. UGGHH

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The thing that really boggles my mind is this. The ideology of the "conservative" movement, which has been articulated by a number of posters on this thread, is designed to benefit the richest 1% of the population (at most) at the expense of the poorest 75% of the population (at least). So unless those individuals articulating this position are among the richest 1% of the nation, what they are arguing for will not benefit them, and unless they are at least in the top 1/4 it will do them actual harm.

How is arguing that everyone, especially the poor, have a right to every cent they earn designed to benefit the richest 1%?

 

[daveman]

The thing that really boggles my mind is this. The ideology of the "conservative" movement, which has been articulated by a number of posters on this thread, is designed to benefit the richest 1% of the population (at most) at the expense of the poorest 75% of the population (at least). So unless those individuals articulating this position are among the richest 1% of the nation, what they are arguing for will not benefit them, and unless they are at least in the top 1/4 it will do them actual harm.

That's the ideology of the conservative movement as articulated by leftists on this board.

It bears little resemblance to reality.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

While everybody "deserves" to keep what they make-the problem is it's not realistic. No matter how you slice it-there are certain aspects of life that has to be paid through taxes. It's not realistic for the private sector to provide everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While everybody "deserves" to keep what they make-the problem is it's not realistic. No matter how you slice it-there are certain aspects of life that has to be paid through taxes. It's not realistic for the private sector to provide everything.

Most people are not saying we do not need taxes. On the other hand, there are some that seem to think the government has the right to tax us to provide needed services. It does not, and I challenge anyone to try to argue that the government actually has that right.

 

[jgarden]

While everybody "deserves" to keep what they make-the problem is it's not realistic. No matter how you slice it-there are certain aspects of life that has to be paid through taxes. It's not realistic for the private sector to provide everything.

Most people are not saying we do not need taxes. On the other hand, there are some that seem to think the government has the right to tax us to provide needed services. It does not, and I challenge anyone to try to argue that the government actually has that right.

US Constitutionreamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Promoting the "general Welfare" and "providing needed services" for "We the People" are one and the same. Was it the Founding Father's express intention to deliberately withhold the right of the government to provide "needed services?"

Hopefully the formation of "a more perfect union" was intended to go beyond just serving the best interests of a select few - the wealthier elements of American society!

 

[bripat9643]

Promoting the "general Welfare" and "providing needed services" for "We the People" are one and the same. Was it the Founding Father's express intention to deliberately withhold the right of the government to provide "needed services?"

Hopefully the formation of "a more perfect union" was intended to go beyond just serving the best interests of a select few - the wealthier elements of American society!

Government has no "right to provide needed services." Government has no rights whatsoever. Government only has duties.

How is not providing "need services" serving the interests of the select few?