Class War Illustrated

[AVG-JOE]

The question was answered. That you want to dismiss the moral question when that is exactly what you yourself are talking about proves that you have no intention of discussing the matter honestly. If you simply want to parrot rhetoric, find someone else to with whom to waste the time.

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

They should...but that responsibility should NOT be coerced by Government against their will. It's an individual choice.

So, can I deduct 60% from the check I write to The People of The USA c/o I.R.S. this year because I don't feel like contributing to the military budget?

 

[kaz]

Right, NOT taking money and redistributing it from people who earned it to people who didn't is "class warfare." And you're not a brain deal liberal buffoon. You continue to belie that shallow idiotic claim.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There will never be a society that can flourish based on a pay for services if you want to population. Conservatives will never have that society so they complain until they do...which is never.
Ppl who catch the bus won't have to pay for roads
Ppl who are vegans won't have to pay for meat inspection and safety
Ppl who don't want wars won't have to pay
And ppl who don't have kids won't have to pay for children services or education

What a wonderful society that will be. Stranger still, there has never been a society like that in history, but conservatives are convinced it will work.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The question was answered. That you want to dismiss the moral question when that is exactly what you yourself are talking about proves that you have no intention of discussing the matter honestly. If you simply want to parrot rhetoric, find someone else to with whom to waste the time.

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

Personally, I think that if one makes his own well being and then that of his family their sole concern then a society as a whole will prosper.

Making one less able to care for himself and his family by taking his earnings away so as to support another is counterproductive.

I contribute to the overall health of a community by not being and not allowing anyone in my family to be a burden on other members of said community.

Civic responsibility begins and ends with personal responsibility.

That's all well and good and I applaud your sense of civic and personal responsibility. I also agree wholeheartedly that supporting professional sun-tanners with tax-payer dollars sends the wrong message - the questions in this thread are two: Are taxes unfairly shouldered by the middle class? and Do We, The Peeps want to take up a collection to keep the bums and beggars off the streets for the tourists?

Who qualifies as a bum or a beggar is a question worthy of its own thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

And our miltary should get their money from fundraisers too right? I mean afterall, taxing people to pay for foreign wars is just as much a coercion as taxing people to pay for general welfare programs right here at home.

The military is a constitutionally mandated requirement for the government to do. Charity is not.

 

[Seawytch]

Right, NOT taking money and redistributing it from people who earned it to people who didn't is "class warfare." And you're not a brain deal liberal buffoon. You continue to belie that shallow idiotic claim.

Wealth has been continually redistributed to the top 2% over the last few decades and yet it is "class warfare" to insist that the wealthy help pay for the financial mess that greed created. Why must the mess, that the wealthy created, be paid for by the poor and middle class?

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification - The Federalist Papers are a series of editorials. They are not in any way, shape or form codified into law. Invoking the Federalist Papers as proof that one's own intepretation of the Consititution is correct and another's incorrect, is both a logical fallacy and a massive fail.

This is correct. But the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can give us clear insight into original intent in the words of the Constitution which is rather important when subsequent generations would like to twist those words into different meanings.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

Personally, I think that if one makes his own well being and then that of his family their sole concern then a society as a whole will prosper.

Making one less able to care for himself and his family by taking his earnings away so as to support another is counterproductive.

I contribute to the overall health of a community by not being and not allowing anyone in my family to be a burden on other members of said community.

Civic responsibility begins and ends with personal responsibility.

Basic if a civilization intends to survive. And a basic tenant that many here in this thread have yet to come to grips with.

I don't think that's true. If polled, I believe most of the USMB community would agree that spending taxpayer dollars to float some asshole who is simply lazy is wrong.

The tough part comes when JUDGING between "lazy" and "incapable". Judging others fairly is not as easy as it first appears.

 

[manifold]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

And our miltary should get their money from fundraisers too right? I mean afterall, taxing people to pay for foreign wars is just as much a coercion as taxing people to pay for general welfare programs right here at home.

The military is a constitutionally mandated requirement for the government to do. Charity is not.

So 'National Defense' = Invading a country on the other side of the globe.

but...

'General Welfare' =/= general welfare.


I must respectfully disagree while summoning the will NOT to mockingly burst into laughter.

 

[The T]

Point of clarification - The Federalist Papers are a series of editorials. They are not in any way, shape or form codified into law. Invoking the Federalist Papers as proof that one's own intepretation of the Consititution is correct and another's incorrect, is both a logical fallacy and a massive fail.

This is correct. But the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can give us clear insight into original intent in the words of the Constitution which is rather important when subsequent generations would like to twist those words into different meanings.

This is waht puzzles me. We hear from many on the left that we have no idea what a bunch of dead guys that gave us our Republic meant, but their writings stare us in the face...

If only some would dare to stare back.

 

[kaz]

Right, NOT taking money and redistributing it from people who earned it to people who didn't is "class warfare." And you're not a brain deal liberal buffoon. You continue to belie that shallow idiotic claim.

Wealth has been continually redistributed to the top 2% over the last few decades and yet it is "class warfare" to insist that the wealthy help pay for the financial mess that greed created. Why must the mess, that the wealthy created, be paid for by the poor and middle class?

In what way has any money been redistributed to the top 2%?

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the question asked a number of times now. I'll leave you gentlemen with it to think about if you're going to be up for awhile. Not that I expect any of you to be able to answer it since you've avoided that for hours now. But hope springs eternal.

Good night all.

The question:

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

It implies they started off even.
It implies they both had choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous.

What makes him responsible?

The moral obligation to help others regardless of their bad choices.

I see. And thank you for answering. That makes you a FIRST among liberals that I have presented with that question.

So, okay then. Could you please start sending me about $2500 each month as I didn't save enough for the retirement I would like to have and it's a pretty safe bet that your income far exceeds mine?

 

[AVG-JOE]

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

Because it behooves a society to assist the less fortunate. A parent looking at a starving child will do anything to feed that child. A society that doesn't assist the less fortunate creates more crime. (It goes to the "general welfare" part)

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the malfeasance of financial institutions because their greed (and a lack of sufficient regulations to prevent that malfeasance) led to our economic collapse? Why can't we close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class?

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

When I can choose to not support the military budget and the corporate tax incentives budget simply because I think that those programs are a waste of my hard-earned tax money.

 

[manifold]

Point of clarification - The Federalist Papers are a series of editorials. They are not in any way, shape or form codified into law. Invoking the Federalist Papers as proof that one's own intepretation of the Consititution is correct and another's incorrect, is both a logical fallacy and a massive fail.

This is correct. But the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can give us clear insight into original intent in the words of the Constitution which is rather important when subsequent generations would like to twist those words into different meanings.

I believe that their biggest intent was specifically to enable what you derisively call 'twisting'.

 

[The T]

Because it behooves a society to assist the less fortunate. A parent looking at a starving child will do anything to feed that child. A society that doesn't assist the less fortunate creates more crime. (It goes to the "general welfare" part)

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the malfeasance of financial institutions because their greed (and a lack of sufficient regulations to prevent that malfeasance) led to our economic collapse? Why can't we close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class?

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

When I can choose to not support the military budget and the corporate tax incentives budget simply because I think that those programs are a waste of my hard-earned tax money.

True. There IS alot of military spending that can be cut back for fraud, waste, and abuse. That is certain.

However? We cannot be so short-sighted that we lop our noses off to spite our faces to see that the defense of the Republic is in our best interest to preserve our way of life, and nevermind it is Constitutionally mandated.

 

[Foxfyre]

well foxfrye it's like this, everything is about two things, providing a work force and paying for things that a workforce needs to survive. The only thing the govt does for the citizen is make sure those who would abuse the country and its people can't or are held accountable.


Tell me anything that the govt does beyond helping the poor that doesn't help provide what is needed for business to operate! What is done just for the purpose of helping a citizen that doesn't end up providing help for the business community or has been created to oversee what business does because they can't be trusted?

How does it help business to send millions of taxpayer dollars to Venezuela or many dozens of other countries that intend us no good now. We started sending foreign aid to Venezuela decades ago and nobody seems to remember why but we've never stopped. Do you think American business might be able to do more for Americans if they didn't have that money taxed away from them but had it to save, invest, grow their businesses, and hire people?

How does it help business to refuse to seal the border but require Americans to take care of, feed, clothe, provide medical care for, and educate everybody who sneaks into this country? Would Americans benefit more if that money wasn't taxed away from them so that they had it to buy cars and appliances and houses and other products?

How does it help business to make people easy in poverty so that many become so dependent on government that they become hardcore unemployable generation after generation? Wouldn't we all benefit with a more thriving economy if those people were instead led or driven out of poverty and were persuaded to earn their living and prosper so that they would contribute to the economy instead of sucking a whole lot out of it?

How does it benefit business to so tax it, regulate it, restrict it, force it, require it in this country that the only way to show a decent profit is to set up shop overseas?

And again I ask you:

What makes you think that Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do to prosper should be responsible in any way to support Citizen B who chose not to do that?

I've neve been able to get a liberal to honestly answer that question. Maybe you'll be the first.

First of all, you're ass-u-me-ing that liberal thinking supports the idea of taxing one hard working American for the sole purpose of supporting a lazy one. Liberal thinking does not. A truly staunch liberal would advocate letting the lazy one starve in the street - that's why we need social democrats - to point out how lazy Americans, starving in the streets, is not good for the tourists to see.

That being said, do We, The People want some sort of safety net for the unlucky, the stupid and the lazy? Do we want our streets free from bums and beggars?

If the answer to that is 'yes' then we need a method of collecting from those who have and dispersing it to those who We, The Peeps deem deserving of our help.

How to collect from the successful and how to disperse to the unlucky are two completely separate questions. Question one is fair taxes. Most everyone knows I advocate simple paperwork and NO tax 'incentives' for industry or individuals.

7 + 7 on 3.

Question two is worthy of its own thread.

LOL. As I tried to explain to our other friends, it is never safe to assume that I think anything that I have not expressly stated that I think.

And of course when I say "liberal" I am referring to the modern American liberal and in no way to the classical liberal that you define.

What one chooses to do and what one is assumed to be responsible for are also two separate things. I'm just trying to pin down our liberal brethren here (that's modern American liberal brethren) as to what rationale makes Citizen A responsible to support Citizen B. So far as I know there is no mandate for any sort of 'morality' written into the Constitution but is rather an intent to secure the unalienable, legal and civil rights of the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Right, NOT taking money and redistributing it from people who earned it to people who didn't is "class warfare." And you're not a brain deal liberal buffoon. You continue to belie that shallow idiotic claim.

Wealth has been continually redistributed to the top 2% over the last few decades and yet it is "class warfare" to insist that the wealthy help pay for the financial mess that greed created. Why must the mess, that the wealthy created, be paid for by the poor and middle class?

Please define and quantify 'greed'. Is it wanting more than bare subsistance? Is it wanting more than the poorest people have? Is it wanting more than the average? What?

 

[AVG-JOE]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

And our miltary should get their money from fundraisers too right? I mean afterall, taxing people to pay for foreign wars is just as much a coercion as taxing people to pay for general welfare programs right here at home.

The military is a constitutionally mandated requirement for the government to do. Charity is not.

All spending mandated by law today is mandated and things not mandated by law are not up for discussion.

Do y'all really want to see a tax structure where we can pick and choose which budgets we want supported? As a liberal, I would certainly advocate for that power to be placed in the hands of The People but I'm not sure that some around here would be willing to see the military get slashed that much or education be funded that well.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Right, NOT taking money and redistributing it from people who earned it to people who didn't is "class warfare." And you're not a brain deal liberal buffoon. You continue to belie that shallow idiotic claim.

Wealth has been continually redistributed to the top 2% over the last few decades and yet it is "class warfare" to insist that the wealthy help pay for the financial mess that greed created. Why must the mess, that the wealthy created, be paid for by the poor and middle class?

In what way has any money been redistributed to the top 2%?

Among others...

 

[AVG-JOE]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

When I can choose to not support the military budget and the corporate tax incentives budget simply because I think that those programs are a waste of my hard-earned tax money.

True. There IS alot of military spending that can be cut back for fraud, waste, and abuse. That is certain.

However? We cannot be so short-sighted that we lop our noses off to spite our faces to see that the defense of the Republic is in our best interest to preserve our way of life, and nevermind it is Constitutionally mandated.

So we're in agreement that there IS a role for 'government' going forward?

That's a good start.​