The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[TakeAStepBack]

We do a lot of things not spelled out in the Constitution, that doesn't make them unconstitutional

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is why I say that "Independents" and "Moderates" who post on message boards are either Lying or just stipud

 

[RDD_1210]

Heh.. harder than in need to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

True, but then on the flip side, it can be said Conservatives love spending liberals money on things like the military and war, which many liberals would rather not have their tax dollars go to. But thats the whole point, tax revenues come from everyone to be spent on a variety of things. What you think that money should be spent on is your opinion, but for someone to say "libs love to spend other peoples money" is no less valid than "cons love to spend other peoples money". It's just on different things and thus a ridiculous cliche.

Right, which is what I was addressing earlier (perhaps too abstractly). The power to force conformity in how we choose to spend our money (or do other things via government) should be used only when absolutely necessary. The reasons libs get tagged for this more often than cons is that they have, traditionally, been in favor of expanding the contexts in which this kind of conformity is considered necessary.

Fair enough. This is a fair assessment but I'm sick of the cliches that most of the mindless use that I promise you don't involve your reasoning behind their thoughts.

 

[Ernie S.]

If you're so concerned with the people that need a helping hand I would urge you to go out and give them one, and quit trying to force the taxpayers into footing the bill for you.

But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?

I suggest a simple letter be sent to all tax payers asking if they feel it is the government's job to support those too lazy to support themselves.
All those that support tax funded "charity" would be sent a bill for their share.

 

[RDD_1210]

If you're so concerned with the people that need a helping hand I would urge you to go out and give them one, and quit trying to force the taxpayers into footing the bill for you.

But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?

I suggest a simple letter be sent to all tax payers asking if they feel it is the government's job to support those too lazy to support themselves.
All those that support tax funded "charity" would be sent a bill for their share.

Good to know that you think of ALL poor people as lazy.


Yes I know you didn't say all, but you certainly didn't even try to make a distinction. Now THAT is lazy.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Thanks, that wasn't so hard.

Heh.. harder than in needed to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

I don't want to be "forced" to support wars or our drug laws and yet I am.

The military is authorized under the Constitution, therefore we ALL must pay for it, even if we disagree on it's application.

 

[Ernie S.]

This is why I say that "Independents" and "Moderates" who post on message boards are either Lying or just stipud

Meh... Independents, I understand. Some don't want to be identified with a party, some belong to a party that isn't a choice when registering, but at least, they have some sort of convictions.
Moderates are wishy washy cowards afraid to commit. They vote the way the wind blows or vote for a person based on a single issue.
The scariest of them are those who profess to be conservative, but would refuse to vote for someone based on religion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It all boils down to the use of force through theft or violence. Whether you believe the govt. should provide something that belongs to someone else, or you think that paying to promote murder/death is atrocious.

I believe both are. That is the difference between people like dblack and a bunch of others (myself included) and the left/right players. The left wants to take your money and give it to someone else (they also apparently liek to take your money and kill with it) and the right wants to pretend they dont want to help the poor, but are more than happy to take from you to kill.

Force through theft and violence is not the answer to any of our problems and a free society it DOES NOT make. Period.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Heh.. harder than in needed to be, I dare say.

But that still leaves us with the issue that liberals do want to "spend other peoples' money", even if it includes their own. If they were only interested in spending their own money (to help the poor, or for whatever cause they thought was worthy) they'd just do it. They wouldn't propose a law forcing all of us to.

I don't want to be "forced" to support wars or our drug laws and yet I am.

The military is authorized under the Constitution, therefore we ALL must pay for it, even if we disagree on it's application.

Yes it is, for the protection of the nation based on imminent threat. Not nation building abroad and unjust wars without congressional declaration.

 

[RDD_1210]

It all boils down to the use of force through theft or violence. Whether you believe the govt. should provide something that belongs to someone else, or you think that paying to promote murder/death is atrocious.

I believe both are. That is the difference between people like dblack and a bunch of others (myself included) and the left/right players. The left wants to take your money and give it to someone else (they also apparently liek to take your money and kill with it) and the right wants to pretend they dont want to help the poor, but are more than happy to take from you to kill.

Force through theft and violence is not the answer to any of our problems and a free society it DOES NOT make. Period.

Do you feel that all taxes are "force through theft and violence"?

 

[Ernie S.]

But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?

I suggest a simple letter be sent to all tax payers asking if they feel it is the government's job to support those too lazy to support themselves.
All those that support tax funded "charity" would be sent a bill for their share.

Good to know that you think of ALL poor people as lazy.


Yes I know you didn't say all, but you certainly didn't even try to make a distinction. Now THAT is lazy.

I didn't even mention "poor people" I said "those too lazy to support themselves".
Please don't be putting words in my mouth.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It all boils down to the use of force through theft or violence. Whether you believe the govt. should provide something that belongs to someone else, or you think that paying to promote murder/death is atrocious.

I believe both are. That is the difference between people like dblack and a bunch of others (myself included) and the left/right players. The left wants to take your money and give it to someone else (they also apparently liek to take your money and kill with it) and the right wants to pretend they dont want to help the poor, but are more than happy to take from you to kill.

Force through theft and violence is not the answer to any of our problems and a free society it DOES NOT make. Period.

Do you feel that all taxes are "force through theft and violence"?

All taxes? No. Consumer or user taxes are based on choice. You can choose not to utilize those products or what have you. Income taxation is most certainly theft by force/violence.

 

[RDD_1210]

I suggest a simple letter be sent to all tax payers asking if they feel it is the government's job to support those too lazy to support themselves.
All those that support tax funded "charity" would be sent a bill for their share.

Good to know that you think of ALL poor people as lazy.


Yes I know you didn't say all, but you certainly didn't even try to make a distinction. Now THAT is lazy.

I didn't even mention "poor people" I said "those too lazy to support themselves".
Please don't be putting words in my mouth.

Ok, then how do you define those people? I agree with the idea of not supporting those too lazy to support themselves, but how do you make a real world distinction?

 

[RDD_1210]

It all boils down to the use of force through theft or violence. Whether you believe the govt. should provide something that belongs to someone else, or you think that paying to promote murder/death is atrocious.

I believe both are. That is the difference between people like dblack and a bunch of others (myself included) and the left/right players. The left wants to take your money and give it to someone else (they also apparently liek to take your money and kill with it) and the right wants to pretend they dont want to help the poor, but are more than happy to take from you to kill.

Force through theft and violence is not the answer to any of our problems and a free society it DOES NOT make. Period.

Do you feel that all taxes are "force through theft and violence"?

All taxes? No. Consumer or user taxes are based on choice. You can choose not to utilize those products or what have you. Income taxation is most certainly theft by force/violence.

So there should be no income taxes? State or Federal? What about medicare/SS taxes? Should we do away with those programs completely?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Do you feel that all taxes are "force through theft and violence"?

All taxes? No. Consumer or user taxes are based on choice. You can choose not to utilize those products or what have you. Income taxation is most certainly theft by force/violence.

So there should be no income taxes? State or Federal? What about medicare/SS taxes? Should we do away with those programs completely?

No, there should not be. States that levy income taxation for provided services have the authority to enforce those. People also have the right to move through states should they not like those taxes or service. SS and medicare, or any other federally determined blanket such as these, are unconstitutional and therefore, not authorized. And yes, they are theft by force/violence.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Do you feel that all taxes are "force through theft and violence"?

All taxes? No. Consumer or user taxes are based on choice. You can choose not to utilize those products or what have you. Income taxation is most certainly theft by force/violence.

So there should be no income taxes? State or Federal? What about medicare/SS taxes? Should we do away with those programs completely?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Now that the simple answers are out there, let me apply a little polish to them.

Income taxes account for about 25% of Federal revenues. Eliminate them and the government STILL generates enough money to fund EVERYTHING at 2005 levels. Several states don't have ANY income tax, yet they seem to be doing OK.

Medicare/SS are both going broke faster than a Concorde jet. Ron Paul is right, keep the programs for those that are currently dependent, pay for it with cuts in our overseas military, and let the rest of us opt out of it and fund our own health care and retirement.

 

[Ernie S.]

Good to know that you think of ALL poor people as lazy.


Yes I know you didn't say all, but you certainly didn't even try to make a distinction. Now THAT is lazy.

I didn't even mention "poor people" I said "those too lazy to support themselves".
Please don't be putting words in my mouth.

Ok, then how do you define those people? I agree with the idea of not supporting those too lazy to support themselves, but how do you make a real world distinction?

First of all, if you're capable of standing on a corner smoking dope with your posse, you can get a fucking job. If you have no physical or mental handicap that prevents you from flipping burgers, cleaning school toilets or pushing a lawn mower, you should be able to find employment in a reasonable length of time. I would support mandatory paid 13 week training programs all must attend after the initial 13 weeks of unemployment compensation. 3 months should be plenty of time to learn how to flip a burger and make change at a cash register, stock store shelves or sweep a high school hallway, even for a Liberal.

 

[RDD_1210]

All taxes? No. Consumer or user taxes are based on choice. You can choose not to utilize those products or what have you. Income taxation is most certainly theft by force/violence.

So there should be no income taxes? State or Federal? What about medicare/SS taxes? Should we do away with those programs completely?

No, there should not be. States that levy income taxation for provided services have the authority to enforce those. People also have the right to move through states should they not like those taxes or service. SS and medicare, or any other federally determined blanket such as these, are unconstitutional and therefore, not authorized. And yes, they are theft by force/violence.

What do you propose that seniors do who can't work anymore and who have medical costs far exceeding their savings?

 

[RDD_1210]

I didn't even mention "poor people" I said "those too lazy to support themselves".
Please don't be putting words in my mouth.

Ok, then how do you define those people? I agree with the idea of not supporting those too lazy to support themselves, but how do you make a real world distinction?

First of all, if you're capable of standing on a corner smoking dope with your posse, you can get a fucking job. If you have no physical or mental handicap that prevents you from flipping burgers, cleaning school toilets or pushing a lawn mower, you should be able to find employment in a reasonable length of time. I would support mandatory paid 13 week training programs all must attend after the initial 13 weeks of unemployment compensation. 3 months should be plenty of time to learn how to flip a burger and make change at a cash register, stock store shelves or sweep a high school hallway, even for a Liberal.

So the 8.2%(or even double that if I believe what cons have told me) of people who are unemployed now are choosing not to work? Are you saying that they can all have a job if they wanted it?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So there should be no income taxes? State or Federal? What about medicare/SS taxes? Should we do away with those programs completely?

No, there should not be. States that levy income taxation for provided services have the authority to enforce those. People also have the right to move through states should they not like those taxes or service. SS and medicare, or any other federally determined blanket such as these, are unconstitutional and therefore, not authorized. And yes, they are theft by force/violence.

What do you propose that seniors do who can't work anymore and who have medical costs far exceeding their savings?

That question requires the understanding that medical costs are extremely expensive in the US because of the govt. meddling in the industry from all angles. From fostered monopolies, to oppressive malpractice laws, etc...

I would propose that under the current system, they are going to be fucked no matter what. Prices will continue to rise on everything under the current corporatist environment. So we saddle these costs onto taxpayers current and those not yet born, and the govt. that takes and gives has gotten tot he point it actually can not even take enough and therefore must borrow from other nations to foot these bills.

Your question is relevant, it is just not answerable simply under the context of taxation. The answer is more complicated than that.