What do people have against

[Salt Jones]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

What percentage of Americans "live within our means"? We have the lowest personal savings rate of any industrialized country. Americans have an extremely high credit card debt and over 50% of mortgages are underwater. Why do you think politicians plucked from the financial habits of Americans would be any better at fixing America's budget then they are their own?

 

[Avatar4321]

who takes care of the people who cant pull down enough cash to fill their needs?

The first responsibility lies with the individual.

The second responsibility lies with the immediate family

The thrid responsibility lies with extended family

The fourth lies with private individuals within the local community, with the main responsibility being with the Churches

The fifth with the local public community.

The Federal Government should never be gotten to.

 

[Avatar4321]

for some that would mean dying

Then let them die.

You do realize that she wanted you to say that right? You just played into her hands and now they will use this to justify to themselves why they are compassionate to steal other people's money.

They shouldn't die. They and their family should take care of them.

 

[Avatar4321]

who takes care of the people who cant earn enough to fullfill their needs?

Tell me TM, when was the last time you fulfilled someones needs? I mean you. When was the last t ime you did service for someone who needed it?

 

[Avatar4321]

when in history has this need been completely filled by charity?

When people got off their butts and stopped outsourcing their responsiiblities to the government.

 

[Avatar4321]

This guy actually thinks no one starves to death in the US.

Of course they do when they are told that they need to wait for government to get what they want and others say that the government takes care of them and thats all they need to do.

 

[Sallow]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

Nothing. Perfectly appropriate for individuals.

But that’s not applicable to First World Industrialized governments, nor should it be.

Beat me to it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

No, there is nothing wrong with living within ones' means.

However..........slashing your paycheck voluntarily and giving it to the rich neighbors up the street is kinda stupid.

Get rid of Jr.'s tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

What percentage of Americans "live within our means"? We have the lowest personal savings rate of any industrialized country. Americans have an extremely high credit card debt and over 50% of mortgages are underwater. Why do you think politicians plucked from the financial habits of Americans would be any better at fixing America's budget then they are their own?

Who said I did think that? I've been saying for months that the reason our politicians do the things they do is because we need to fix ourselves. We are corrupt as a people so our politicians are corrupt. We are perverts as a people so our politicians are perverts. We refuse to live within our means and so our politicians follow suit.

I'm very much aware that our politicians represent who we are as people. Which is why I've been trying to encourage things otherwise.

 

[Sallow]

when in history has this need been completely filled by charity?

When people got off their butts and stopped outsourcing their responsiiblities to the government.

When did that happen?

Mostly people died young.

Fired at 50.

Destitute at 55.

Dead at 60.

That was the story over and over again.

 

[Full-Auto]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

Nothing. Perfectly appropriate for individuals.

But that’s not applicable to First World Industrialized governments, nor should it be.

Beat me to it.

Theres never been a question of the government holding debt, JUST HOW MUCH.


What is enough?

 

[snjmom]

when in history has this need been completely filled by charity?

When people got off their butts and stopped outsourcing their responsiiblities to the government.

When did that happen?

Mostly people died young.

Fired at 50.

Destitute at 55.

Dead at 60.

That was the story over and over again.

Which is why the Soc Sec was such a no-brainer. Oh death, where are you when needed?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

I suppose its not human nature to be modest.

I don't believe discipline and responsibility are human traits. We're all animals in the animal kingdom - I've never seen a tiger be civilized when they're eating...

I suppose my point is that we learn - some choose to and some choose not to.

Sorry, I make everything I say philosophical.

"Deep thoughts by Mr. Nick"

Anyone remember that SNL skit that made fun of L. Ron Hubbard in the 90's?

 

[snjmom]

Charity is never evil. However, taking money at gunpoint is not "charity." That's what distinguishes charity from welfare: the latter is collected at gunpoint. The former is purely voluntary.

You don't "vote" for charity. Everything the government does is enforced at gunpoint.

Taxing is not taking money at gunpoint. If our society has decided that using the due process of the political system to use tax money to support the poor in order to provide for the common welfare, which supporting the poor does in a number of ways, then you have indeed voted for charity. Government guns only enforce the laws that we are all bound by.

The government hates charity. I can dig up numerous examples where the government outlawed giving food to homeless people.

In fact, they shut down an anti-war organization that was feeding homeless people in my home city.

The gov doesn't hate charity. It does have a public safety interest in attracting large groups of agitated, mentally ill-substance dependent people without adequate crowd control. I'm sure the gov would be happy to talk to them about funding a shelter, dependency treatment and employment help for the homeless.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its really Ironic that these Americans dont realise how many lives are saved by the government programs to make this a livable country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Living within our means? Is there seriously something so wrong about not spending more money than we take in?

Conversely, what is wrong with paying taxes which aid those who can't live within their limited means? Or, punishing those who exploit labor by providing too few hours for their staff to qualify for benefits, which, btw, results in State or county government subsidizing employers by providing taxpayer funded emergency healthcare to their employees?

The world is not as simple as you conservatives make it out to be. It's easy to blame the working poor, but unconsciounable for conservatives to blame business owners.

No one has mentioned paying taxes. Even though a flat tax across the board at a much lower rate with no exemptions would generate much more revenue than we currently do.

Cutting taxes was inferred by Luissa in post #9 above; apparently it went over your head.