Class War Illustrated

[JBeukema]

Morality has everything to do with the question you posed. Obligations are either moral or ethical- and ethical matters are often rooted in morality.

And it is not at all a loaded question.

Yes, it is. You assume that person B is making no effort to better his or her condition. You assume they simply want to sit back and have someone else pay their way. Most who advocate a social safety net would exclude such persons. The proposition is aiding those who are disadvantaged- the sick, children, the elderly, those without the resources they might need to improve their condition. Your question intentionally misrepresented the matter- it was classic reactionary bourgeois rhetoric.

I must ask- what constitution are you referring to? Which version do you agree with? Before any of the amendments? After the Tenth but before the 11th? The current form? Some other form you would have, with some amendment(s) you would see put in place? What interpretation or understanding of the text? Literal? If so, then it was never ratified, since the States didn't all vote on identical texts. 'Original Intent'? if so, how do you determine that- and why should we be ruled by corpses? Your own understanding of what you believe it means? Your understanding of what someone else thought it meant? Your appeal to this bit of parchment raises more questions than it answers.

You also seem ignorant of basic matters of philosophy. The Constitution was written by Liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay yet another liberal who cannot or will not answer the question but distracts and diverts with all manner of non sequitur.

This is getting really interesting.

I answered your question.

People who are sick or old should be helped by those more fortunate.

But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

My question had absolutely nothing to do about the sick or old or what anybody should do about anything.

 

[JBeukema]

Okay yet another liberal who cannot or will not answer the question but distracts and diverts with all manner of non sequitur.

This is getting really interesting.

I answered your question.

People who are sick or old should be helped by those more fortunate.

But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

My question had absolutely nothing to do about the sick or old or what anybody should do about anything.

That's exactly what it means to be obligated to do something

 

[mnbasketball]

He doesn't have a clue, hes just playing people for his own fun, so I say get bent.

 

[Chris]

Okay yet another liberal who cannot or will not answer the question but distracts and diverts with all manner of non sequitur.

This is getting really interesting.

I answered your question.

People who are sick or old should be helped by those more fortunate.

But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

My question had absolutely nothing to do about the sick or old or what anybody should do about anything.

I have a question for you.

I just wrote a check to the IRS for $22,000.

Should I resent the 50% of Americans who don't pay taxes?

 

[Foxfyre]

I answered your question.

People who are sick or old should be helped by those more fortunate.

But modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

My question had absolutely nothing to do about the sick or old or what anybody should do about anything.

That's exactly what it means to be obligated to do something

I don't need a lecture on obligation either or what you personally think is your obligation to do. Can you guys focus just a bit here? We're talking about Citizen A and Citizen B here. Is it possible to concentrate just on that? And answer the question?

Believe me millions and millions of people can answer that question just as it without adding anything to it or taking anything away from it or rewording it or including a lot of extenuating circumstances.

I'm just wondering if there is a liberal on the planet who can do that.

 

[JBeukema]

My question had absolutely nothing to do about the sick or old or what anybody should do about anything.

That's exactly what it means to be obligated to do something

I don't need a lecture on obligation either or what you personally think is your obligation to do.

That was you original question- what obligation someone has and why

Can you guys focus just a bit here?

 

[Chris]

My question had absolutely nothing to do about the sick or old or what anybody should do about anything.

That's exactly what it means to be obligated to do something

I don't need a lecture on obligation either or what you personally think is your obligation to do. Can you guys focus just a bit here? We're talking about Citizen A and Citizen B here. Is it possible to concentrate just on that? And answer the question?

Believe me millions and millions of people can answer that question just as it without adding anything to it or taking anything away from it or rewording it or including a lot of extenuating circumstances.

I'm just wondering if there is a liberal on the planet who can do that.

I answered your question.

You just don't like the answer.

 

[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.

 

[Chris]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's an (odd) opinion... And we're not talking about the budget.

If we were talking about the budget, I'd point out that whether you call it a 'Cost' or not is utterly irrelevant to the fiscal impact. More semantics from the RW echo chamber.

What do you think the heading on that chart in the OP titled "Tax Breaks For the Rich" means?

And tell me what is odd about the statement that tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer anything?

Indeed a tax cut leaves taxpayers with more of their own money not less. Government spending is what costs the taxpayers money let's not forget that.

In your checkbook - What the heck is the difference in the bottom line if the deposits get smaller or the outlays get bigger? Nothin... The point is that when either happens your bottom line is lower.

If I pay less in taxes and thereby get to keep more of my money how exactly is my bottom line lower than when i paid higher taxes?

It is the governments wanton reckless spending that is costing me money not a lower tax rate. What don't you understand about that?

 

[The T]

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.

Yeah we know, the so-called safety net. Problem is? too many start using the safety net as a hammock.

Uhmm Chris? It's called responsibility for yourself. Folks as you cry freedom and liberty, but in the same breath you feel that you don't have to be responsible for it, but others should be.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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 it to buy cars and appliances and houses and other products?
( I have never been one for sending our money to other countries in an attempt to help them, that anything we do should be supplied by our manufacturing, not just cash if it is needed).

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?

(yes it would, but making people go without without any hope of improvement do to the fact that there isn't a job around that could make it better. Jobs aren't created because people want jobs, they are created because of a need for the product that would be produce, and if you think that business just hires people because they have more money your nuts).

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? ( I believe that it's got something to do with two things, one is if it is left to businesses they will/haven't done the right thing for the safety of our country, workers and people. #2 everything that a business uses is provided by having a workforce to draw on and way to deliver its product, and that includes providing people to use and sell to)

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?

(Because they use everything that America has in order to run a business. The cost to provide a trained worker should be born by the owners of business, not the workers. What workers need to survive is mainly a byproduct of being an asset of business. You use everything or cause everything to be, why wouldn't what ends up benefiting business cost them more than just an ordinary worker who raises a family to be a workforce to be trained for you)

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

this is honest as it gets, but it won't be what you want to hear.

Bypassing everything but the final question for now, your answer was non responsive. I said nothing about training anybody or even whether Citizen A WAS in business. The question is straightforward and needs nothing added to it.

On the face of the question as written, what makes Citizen A responsible to support Citizen B in any way?

Some would say God. (Let NOT thy unlucky brethren starveth... )

Some would say Humanity. (My fellow Earthlings... )

Some would say Nationalism. (My fellow Americans... )


I don't think ANYONE is advocating taxing a CEO's billions to the tune of a couple of million so that 13,000 lazy fuckers can drink beer all day and still feed themselves.

The Religious and The Social Democrats are right. Some folks are unlucky enough to warrant helping, with no expectations of a return on investment. My humble opinion is that every dollar invested carefully into education will save thousands in welfare down the road, but that too is the subject of another thread.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The only thing that will make poverty go away is for everyone to have access to a job that would pay them an above poverty living. That doesn't mean that there still wouldn't be people who are unable to compete and survive without fucking up, we know that would happen even with rich kids who go bad.

But there is no jobs and saying that these people should not be helped even tho there is no hope is a hard thing to do. the only way would be to build a lot more jails and hire a lot more cops or we just kill them. The truth is most Americans don't want people like those who are pathetic as you suggest around them, they just want them to dissappear.

Give me an Idea of what would you do with those who have nothing, aren't educated, most likely one parent families, drug users and gang members?
Do you think turning your back on the problem will correct it?

Step one: Educate with LOCAL emphasis.

Step two: Reform corporate law and business law so that entering the market place as an entrepreneur does not REQUIRE having an attorney and an accountant on retainer.

Step three: Tax everyone fairly and simply and invest most of those taxes in infrastructure that educates or moves goods and people.

Once We, The People are doing the best we can to educate the next generation and we have an open and competitive market place with fair and simple taxes We'll only have the aged, the truly disabled and the temporarily disaffected to care for and that shouldn't take more that 2% of a balanced budget.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's got nothing to do with taking from one to give to another. It's got to do with what does the country need to provide what it deems necessary to run the county.

the truth is, the country is more important than any one person or group and without what you are referring to "income redistribution" we would have a long time ago ended up with one winner or a KING.

Govt does what is necessary to make sure that the country continues. Over the last 40 years they have done a poor job of it as wealth has moved more towards a small group of people while the other much larger group has lost out.

Now your telling me that it should get worse.

But the government has no money that it doesn't take from somebody. It either prints more money which erodes the value of everybody's money--if they do that enough, money becomes worthless--or they take it from somebody.

So we're not talking about the country continuing. We're not talking about what is or is not good for the country.

We are asking one simple question. Please don't rewrite it. Please don't add to it. Please don't make any supposition other than what is clearly stated.

What makes Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who didn't choose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous.

It's really a simple question that any conservative can answer without even thinking about it.

I want to see if it is possible for a liberal to do so. As I said, so far not one has been willing to do so.

The answer is easy when Citizen B is a lazy fuck who CHOOSES not to work, but what say you 'Conservatives' when Citizen B is an unlucky fuck who wishes he could work, but is physically and/or mentally unable to perform significant gainful activity in today's economy?

 

[AVG-JOE]

How prosperous is Citizen A?
Richest 1%
Richest 10,000 Americans?
Richest 400 Americans?

Can you be more specific about how you see Citizen A supporting Citizen B?

Doesn't matter.

What makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who did not choose to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

As I said, I have never found a liberal willing or able to answer this question while ALL conservatives can do so easily.

Absolutely does NOT matter!

Either We, The People want to take up a collection among ourselves and spend that money keeping bums and beggars off the streets for the tourists or not.

How much those who can afford to contribute should contribute and what the definition of 'afford' is are valid questions, but subjects of another thread.

Most conservatives on this board are self declared 'Conservative' because it's the clubhouse for what they perceive as the 'cool kids', not because they advocate keeping the status quo of complicated laws and skewed tax codes we currently enjoy. Most conservatives would deny that the definition of 'conservative' is to 'maintain the status quo' - which is just another testament as to how fucked up the education system is since we started trying to run it from the top down.

All "conservatives" can NOT easily answer this question - especially without resorting to regurgitation of lines from some talking head on t.v.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Maybe you haven't found a liberal who understands how A is allegedly supporting B?

Are you claiming that making A pay taxes supports B?

I haven't found a liberal capable enough or honest enough I guess to simply answer the question as written.

It honestly goes to the very core of the principle behind all of liberalism and all of conservatism.

Let's try wording it a tad differently:

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 necessary to become honorably prosperous?

Does Citizen A care if he has to step over bums and beggars to get to his glass office in the sky?

Does Citizen A toss 10% in the plate as it swings under his nose while he's warming a pew on Sunday? Is he happy with the job that the church is doing to keep the bums and beggars off the streets?

How does Citizen A feel about the return on his social welfare dollar?

How does Citizen A feel about the return on his corporate welfare dollar?



'Responsibility' is an attitude - Why does Citizen A feel like he shouldn't share in the responsibility of keeping beggars and bums off the streets?

 

[manifold]

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?

Citizen A could not have become honorably prosperous in a vacuum. He needs a functioning society, economy and basic law and order, all of which require buy in from a critical mass of the population. If said buy in were to be irreparably eroded by an over proliference of 'Citizen Bs' being cast off as dishonorable makers of poor choices, then eventually it all collapses and Citizen A is left with nothing he cannot physically defend and protect himself. Therefore, Citizen A has an obligation to himself, his children and especially his grandchildren, to help support Citizen B... to a point.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fox, do you think we should be sending aid to Japan?

Sure. And the American people should be accumulating the cash and/or relief supplies to send over there. It should NOT be the responsiblity of the U.S. government however though it could be the receiver and transporter of the relief.

So you advocate all the neighbors in a neighborhood grabbing garden hoses in the event of a house-fire instead of taxing a community to pay for professional firefighting?

I wonder which would be more efficient?