Who is responsible for YOU?

[Gunny]

That's great, Gunny. Now did you bother to read beyond that first sentence?

Sure did. Did you bother to read my other responses? I don't have a problem with reasonable taxation to support a program or programs designed to support the basic needs of those who cannot support themselves. The prerequisites to the latter of course being a viable program with each and every dime accounted for and bureaucracy within the program minimized as much as possible.

We have neither.

I addressed socialism because that is what I responded to. I addressed the argument that my argument is based on the fallacious premise that I have never been poor because that poster attempted to use that fallacious premise as a basis to dismiss my previous comments.

I don't agree in regard to the Clinton administration. Seems I heard something along those lines. I did not and do not see that any legislation passed by Clinton to make social program abuse harder had or has any noticeable effect.

Denying that socialism is real possibility won't make the fact that it is a real possibility go away.

 

[Gunny]

I'd just like to quickly add that career military people in most, if not all cases could have chosen more lucrative careers in the private sector, but made that sacrifice to serve their country. So can we put ALL the bullshit to bed about military service and tax dollars ? Were getting a fucking BARGAIN with our tax dollars for what military folks are paid. thanks ......

My father put over 20 years in the USAF and retired when he was 39 years old from it, then for the rest of his life since he was 39 he has drawn his retirement for his 22 years in the USAF....he is now in his late 70's, almost 40 years and counting...another 20 if his health keeps.....that is 69 years of his life drawing his Millitary retirement because he gave 22 years to them....

In addition to this, he and my mother have had paid for health care their entire lives as a military benefit as well....all the 49 years so far of retirement from the USAF....

And there is NO WAY IN HEAVEN could my father had been better off in the private sector making more than he did with serving his time in the Air Force....certainly he was paid crapola when he first enlisted and alot more as Chief master sargent when he left....but he got cheap base housing during that period and all health care costs for our entire family that whole time, and pretty good schools on base for my sister and I to go to....and he got his high school and college degrees....both while serving.

Then when he got out, he went to work for the FAA for another 20 years....

A lifetime government employee, active duty and civil service....

My parents are millionaires or close, if you count their property....all their quality healthcare is paid for, there is no medicare gap for them and there never will be...

This is what a lifetime of working for our government brings....and a great deal of being frugal which no doubt, my parents pinched pennies their whole life, so that they could have this great retirement period....but the government benefits were much more than ANYTHING he could have gotten from the private sector....imo, so I disagree that most people serving would have been better off in the private sector....my father is in the same good boat as those that he served with...

Not that I wish my parents had not gotten all that they have gotten for my father's 22 years in the air force, but one does have to question paying retirement for 50 years or 60 years for those 22 years and wonder why are government did not go broke even sooner....?

care

And I disagree with you. One, for some reasons I won't post except to say there is a price for that you have absolutely NO clue what is to pay.

Second, the healthcare is not free.

Third, I would have done as well if not better in the private sector because I would have done what it took to do as well or better. That's an assumption you are not qualified to make.

 

[Tigerlils13]

Here's an interesting thing I've just noticed...
While those of us who are leaning more towards the left keep mentioning the things that taxes can pay for, the conservatives have yet to mention exactly what they'd be giving up if they had to pay more taxes.
Is that just because it sounds terrible to say "Oh, I'd rather have a beautiful home instead of helping another person out with their medical bills,"?
Guess what? I'd LOVE to have a beautiful home. I'd love to have a hundred pairs of shoes. I'd love to wear designer clothing. I'd love to carry a Gucci bag and drive a Jaguar. But... if it meant that someone else is living in poverty... let's just say that I'm with Care.
I have to much of a concience to enjoy the fruits of my labor if I don't share my enjoyment with others.
Just admit it. Those who don't think it's right to share what they have with others are selfish.
Or do we call it fairness now days?

 

[Care4all]

I'd just like to quickly add that career military people in most, if not all cases could have chosen more lucrative careers in the private sector, but made that sacrifice to serve their country. So can we put ALL the bullshit to bed about military service and tax dollars ? Were getting a fucking BARGAIN with our tax dollars for what military folks are paid. thanks ......

My father put over 20 years in the USAF and retired when he was 39 years old from it, then for the rest of his life since he was 39 he has drawn his retirement for his 22 years in the USAF....he is now in his late 70's, almost 40 years and counting...another 20 if his health keeps.....that is 69 years of his life drawing his Millitary retirement because he gave 22 years to them....

In addition to this, he and my mother have had paid for health care their entire lives as a military benefit as well....all the 49 years so far of retirement from the USAF....

And there is NO WAY IN HEAVEN could my father had been better off in the private sector making more than he did with serving his time in the Air Force....certainly he was paid crapola when he first enlisted and alot more as Chief master sargent when he left....but he got cheap base housing during that period and all health care costs for our entire family that whole time, and pretty good schools on base for my sister and I to go to....and he got his high school and college degrees....both while serving.

Then when he got out, he went to work for the FAA for another 20 years....

A lifetime government employee, active duty and civil service....

My parents are millionaires or close, if you count their property....all their quality healthcare is paid for, there is no medicare gap for them and there never will be...

This is what a lifetime of working for our government brings....and a great deal of being frugal which no doubt, my parents pinched pennies their whole life, so that they could have this great retirement period....but the government benefits were much more than ANYTHING he could have gotten from the private sector....imo, so I disagree that most people serving would have been better off in the private sector....my father is in the same good boat as those that he served with...

Not that I wish my parents had not gotten all that they have gotten for my father's 22 years in the air force, but one does have to question paying retirement for 50 years or 60 years for those 22 years and wonder why are government did not go broke even sooner....?

care

And I disagree with you. One, for some reasons I won't post except to say there is a price for that you have absolutely NO clue what is to pay.

Second, the healthcare is not free.

Third, I would have done as well if not better in the private sector because I would have done what it took to do as well or better. That's an assumption you are not qualified to make.

i accept that, with you.... every person's case is different.

I don't accept, that most that enlist in the military and serve their 20 years would have been better off in the private sector with only their high school diploma....not in the LONG run...and this is what was being indicated, and this is what i was responding....

this certainly is coming from my perspective of what i have witnessed and seen....there is no doubt that you may have witnessed it differently than me, and i wholeheartedly accept your version as truth as well gunny....and accept that there are probably many that could have been better off if they had never enlisted....

i really have not had any experience with that....have always felt, that those that chose to enlist,(and i ain't talking officers u know...) usually had no where to go, once out of high school, and/or they loved their country....enlisting was a way out of poverty with learning a trade as well...at least for my dad, my father in law, my husband and my uncle joe and my husband's best friend mike....some became lifers, some served 4 years active duty only....but in my opinion, all of these people that i know, were better people from serving and better off as well....

care

 

[American Horse]

Here's an interesting thing I've just noticed...
While those of us who are leaning more towards the left keep mentioning the things that taxes can pay for, the conservatives have yet to mention exactly what they'd be giving up if they had to pay more taxes.
Is that just because it sounds terrible to say "Oh, I'd rather have a beautiful home instead of helping another person out with their medical bills,"?
Guess what? I'd LOVE to have a beautiful home. I'd love to have a hundred pairs of shoes. I'd love to wear designer clothing. I'd love to carry a Gucci bag and drive a Jaguar. But... if it meant that someone else is living in poverty... let's just say that I'm with Care.
I have to much of a concience to enjoy the fruits of my labor if I don't share my enjoyment with others.
Just admit it. Those who don't think it's right to share what they have with others are selfish.
Or do we call it fairness now days?

Some information about charitable giving:
John Stossel : Who gives to charity? - Townhall.com
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney Too Generous? | Planned Giving Design Center

 

[American Horse]

Just admit it. Those who don't think it's right to share what they have with others are selfish.
Or do we call it fairness now days?

Here's some data that informs us about selfishness:
"Here is a chart of the Bidens’ giving for the years covered by the tax returns:
Adjusted
Gross Income Charity
1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
Total $2,450,042 $3,690

To take Biden’s worst year, 1999, one percent of his adjusted gross income would have been $2,100. One half of one percent would have been $1,050. One quarter of one percent would have been $525. One eighth of one percent would have been $262. And one sixteenth of one percent would have been $131 — still a bit more than the Bidens gave"

"In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent "

Of course when you can by fiat take the earnings of others and give it to the "less fortunate" there's not much guilt in failing to donate directly to charity youself. But we shouldn't forget President Clinton who gave his used under-wear to charity and then deducted the estimated value on his 1040 income tax form to reduce his own tax liability, some of which might've after all gone to the less fortunate .

 

[Meister]

Here's an interesting thing I've just noticed...
While those of us who are leaning more towards the left keep mentioning the things that taxes can pay for, the conservatives have yet to mention exactly what they'd be giving up if they had to pay more taxes.
Is that just because it sounds terrible to say "Oh, I'd rather have a beautiful home instead of helping another person out with their medical bills,"?
Guess what? I'd LOVE to have a beautiful home. I'd love to have a hundred pairs of shoes. I'd love to wear designer clothing. I'd love to carry a Gucci bag and drive a Jaguar. But... if it meant that someone else is living in poverty... let's just say that I'm with Care.
I have to much of a concience to enjoy the fruits of my labor if I don't share my enjoyment with others.
Just admit it. Those who don't think it's right to share what they have with others are selfish.
Or do we call it fairness now days?

What you do in giving to the needy is admirable. You can stand tall in doing such. I give too.The problem I have, now our government is going to say you have to be more charitable??? I don't like the government telling me what to do in matters such as this. It's not the governments place to mandate it. Our society is the most giving society in the world as it stands right now. I wonder if it will be when our government works us over?

 

[Agnapostate]

I find it amusing that so many free marketers object to government intervention in the economy so strongly, considering that the state has traditionally acted as the major stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy. Moreover, state intervention often has the effect of promoting more expansive market competition, as we can gather from the infant industries argument, for instance.

 

[Tigerlils13]

To American Horse:

Your first website didn’t provide enough evidence to prove your point. The testing conditions between the two towns wasn’t provided, except that both of the boxes were set up in busy sectors. It didn’t say whether there was advertising or what not. As a girl living in a small town, I can already tell you that word gets around very quickly when bottle drives and whatnot are being sponsored. Unless they wish to be given a stigma, everyone participates in these things. In a big city, particularly the busy sector where all of these big business people are probably working, it’s not as big a deal to not participate in giving to charity.
This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
Another thing- your first website didn’t exactly discriminate between religious sects. We all know that a majority of Catholics lean towards liberalism while more fundamentalist sects are generally more Conservative. Your website didn’t discriminate.
Your website was also, quite frankly, not neutral. It’s generally recommended that if you wish to prove a point, you shouldn’t used biased material.
However, please do understand that I am not, under any circumstances, saying that your website was wrong. What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

To Meister:

The most hackneyed argument used by conservatives is that they don’t want to give up their money to the government.
You say that our society is the most giving one in the world and yet... there is so much more we can give that we don't. Can we truly be the most giving society in the world? Somehow, I would think a place like Britain or Canada more helpfull towards the people who need help.
There’s only one substantiated argument I can come up with as for why Conservatives are unwilling to give up more money in taxes, and that’s that the Government is not efficient with how they spend taxpayers money. If that’s the case (and this case can really be the only unselfish argument) then it’s our job as American citizens to make Government spend our money more effectively.
On another note, I cannot allow you to think that I've actually contributed to charity. As of yet, I do not make my own money to do so. Until that time, however, I shall continue to participate in other ways that help the needy.

 

[Meister]

To American Horse:

Your first website didn’t provide enough evidence to prove your point. The testing conditions between the two towns wasn’t provided, except that both of the boxes were set up in busy sectors. It didn’t say whether there was advertising or what not. As a girl living in a small town, I can already tell you that word gets around very quickly when bottle drives and whatnot are being sponsored. Unless they wish to be given a stigma, everyone participates in these things. In a big city, particularly the busy sector where all of these big business people are probably working, it’s not as big a deal to not participate in giving to charity.
This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
Another thing- your first website didn’t exactly discriminate between religious sects. We all know that a majority of Catholics lean towards liberalism while more fundamentalist sects are generally more Conservative. Your website didn’t discriminate.
Your website was also, quite frankly, not neutral. It’s generally recommended that if you wish to prove a point, you shouldn’t used biased material.
However, please do understand that I am not, under any circumstances, saying that your website was wrong. What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

To Meister:

The most hackneyed argument used by conservatives is that they don’t want to give up their money to the government.
You say that our society is the most giving one in the world and yet... there is so much more we can give that we don't. Can we truly be the most giving society in the world? Somehow, I would think a place like Britain or Canada more helpfull towards the people who need help.
There’s only one substantiated argument I can come up with as for why Conservatives are unwilling to give up more money in taxes, and that’s that the Government is not efficient with how they spend taxpayers money. If that’s the case (and this case can really be the only unselfish argument) then it’s our job as American citizens to make Government spend our money more effectively.
On another note, I cannot allow you to think that I've actually contributed to charity. As of yet, I do not make my own money to do so. Until that time, however, I shall continue to participate in other ways that help the needy.

I stand corrected about your giving. Aparently, you just want other people to give their money to the needy. I find it quite offensive that you mistake the generosity of our country with the socialism of Canada, and Britain. Make no mistake, that is a big leap that you made. It really does lead me to believe that you are a socialist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Conservatives, and liberals both pay enough taxes to our government. Our government was set up to protect us from invasion, to build the infrastructure of this Great Nation, and to protect the constitution. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. This is what the foundation of our country stood for. Not all of this mandated redistribution of wealth, that was never part of the constitution.

 

[Agnapostate]

Another day, another misuse of the term "socialist."

 

[American Horse]

This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

I don't think you are wrong on that but the "utility" that I see is a simple one. People give to charity because they understand being vulnerable, and hope that should they become vulnerable, there will will be charity for them. the same applies to compassion, forgiveness, generous offers of help, a welcoming smile.

But regardless of what you make of the two "communities" the people most likely to give at Sioux Falls made somewhat less than $35,000, which fits my thought above, and even though they are not at all "rich" they are more likely to be conservative than liberals. They don't resent people with wealth, because to some degree they hold out a hope that at some point in their lives they will be among those who are wealthy.

The operative rule that applies here, is one of the first those who attend church take to heart: The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while many follow the crude mantra "Do unto others before they can do it to you". Which of those two communities would you think had the greater number of "good Samaritans"? Being a good Samaritan requires one to be less stingy with their time, be more generous, and to willingly attend to the needs of others.

 

[Meister]

Another day, another misuse of the term "socialist."

Whatever, Prostate When those countries pay close to 50% in taxes, and a gallon of gas is 3 X's as much as ours...yes i would interpret that as socialism. You don't...I do, as do most people. So go start a riot, or something.

 

[Agnapostate]

Whatever, Prostate When those countries pay close to 50% in taxes, and a gallon of gas is 3 X's as much as ours...yes i would interpret that as socialism. You don't...I do, as do most people. So go start a riot, or something.

Then you're just misinformed, Heinster. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production, a condition not satisfied in a capitalist economy that utilizes progressive taxation. (A mere affirmation of the principle of the diminishing rate of marginal utility.) If you think otherwise, why don't you show up at my socialism thread?

 

[Meister]

Whatever, Prostate When those countries pay close to 50% in taxes, and a gallon of gas is 3 X's as much as ours...yes i would interpret that as socialism. You don't...I do, as do most people. So go start a riot, or something.

Then you're just misinformed, Heinster. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production, a condition not satisfied in a capitalist economy that utilizes progressive taxation. (A mere affirmation of the principle of the diminishing rate of marginal utility.) If you think otherwise, why don't you show up at my socialism thread?

I would show up...but i don't give a shit....

 

[Agnapostate]

I would show up...but i don't give a shit....

And you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about; don't forget that.

 

[Meister]

I would show up...but i don't give a shit....

And you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about; don't forget that.

Like I said Prostate
I don't give a shit....deal with it

 

[Agnapostate]

O NOEZ! He said Prostate!

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Meister]

O NOEZ! He said Prostate!

Oh, the humanity!

Don't you have a social
function to go to??

 

[Gunny]

Here's an interesting thing I've just noticed...
While those of us who are leaning more towards the left keep mentioning the things that taxes can pay for, the conservatives have yet to mention exactly what they'd be giving up if they had to pay more taxes.
Is that just because it sounds terrible to say "Oh, I'd rather have a beautiful home instead of helping another person out with their medical bills,"?
Guess what? I'd LOVE to have a beautiful home. I'd love to have a hundred pairs of shoes. I'd love to wear designer clothing. I'd love to carry a Gucci bag and drive a Jaguar. But... if it meant that someone else is living in poverty... let's just say that I'm with Care.
I have to much of a concience to enjoy the fruits of my labor if I don't share my enjoyment with others.
Just admit it. Those who don't think it's right to share what they have with others are selfish.
Or do we call it fairness now days?

Doesn't matter what I "would be giving up," does it? I already stated what I CURRENTLY give up ... a day and a half of income that I earn.

Another attempt to play on emotion. That the only game you have? And once again, you want to use extreme examples.

What IS relevant here is that I DO pay my taxes and I have less because of it. It doesn't matter what "less" is. Since I don't have it, how would you expect me to define it?

And again, save your emotional manipulation and guilt trips for someone they'll work on. I was raised by a master at them and see them for what they are.

Try again. So far, you aren't doing very well.