You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

[Trajan]

tell it to the 39K gov. workers laid off last month.....cuze you know, the stimulus money ran out..

But isn't that a good thing. After all, you're always saying we need to shrink government.

you have a really short attention span it appears;

here is the post by you that my quote answers, hello;

Wealthy Americans benefited the most from the stimulus.....they always do

get it now?

 

[Big Fitz]

I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and your reply is both a strawman and a guilt by association fallacy. Try again.

Ah, a so-called libertarian....what a Utopian ideal. However, trying to live up to said Utopian ideal and actually doing it are two different things....

There is a reason so-called libertarians live on the periphery of society (well, their ideals do). Talk about strawman....

You do realize nothing you said is a valid argument? It is a guilt by association fallacy used as a cop-out...again.

Libertarians, he incorrectly assumes, are TRYING to build a 'utopia' society, like them. They closest thing to a libertarian 'Utopia' is for people to make a personal one as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's.

No surprise he doesn't get it.

 

[Dr Grump]

I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and your reply is both a strawman and a guilt by association fallacy. Try again.

Ah, a so-called libertarian....what a Utopian ideal. However, trying to live up to said Utopian ideal and actually doing it are two different things....

There is a reason so-called libertarians live on the periphery of society (well, their ideals do). Talk about strawman....

You do realize nothing you said is a valid argument? It is a guilt by association fallacy used as a cop-out...again.

At least I ain't livin' in la-la land.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Ah, a so-called libertarian....what a Utopian ideal. However, trying to live up to said Utopian ideal and actually doing it are two different things....

There is a reason so-called libertarians live on the periphery of society (well, their ideals do). Talk about strawman....

You do realize nothing you said is a valid argument? It is a guilt by association fallacy used as a cop-out...again.

Libertarians, he incorrectly assumes, are TRYING to build a 'utopia' society, like them. They closest thing to a libertarian 'Utopia' is for people to make a personal one as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's.

No surprise he doesn't get it.

Yeah, because human nature being what it is, that's going to happen? I mean it is possible, right?

I get it all right...It is one of the most easiest concepts to get....it's just not possible, which is why it is a Utopian ideal....which is obviously something yourself and Shackled don't get.

But please, carry on with your smarmy asides, "we-live-on-a-higher-plain-and-you-sheeple-suckers-are-the-ones-keeping-us-from-fulfilling-our-potential" clap trap....It suits you.

Name me a couple of libertarian ideals that are possible and, more importantly, probable. Take your time....when you have epically failed, maybe you will start living in the real world....

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, we were all fooled you aren't!

 

[Big Fitz]

You do realize nothing you said is a valid argument? It is a guilt by association fallacy used as a cop-out...again.

Libertarians, he incorrectly assumes, are TRYING to build a 'utopia' society, like them. They closest thing to a libertarian 'Utopia' is for people to make a personal one as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's.

No surprise he doesn't get it.

Yeah, because human nature being what it is, that's going to happen? I mean it is possible, right?

I get it all right...It is one of the most easiest concepts to get....it's just not possible, which is why it is a Utopian ideal....which is obviously something yourself and Shackled don't get.

But please, carry on with your smarmy asides, "we-live-on-a-higher-plain-and-you-sheeple-suckers-are-the-ones-keeping-us-from-fulfilling-our-potential" clap trap....It suits you.

Name me a couple of libertarian ideals that are possible and, more importantly, probable. Take your time....when you have epically failed, maybe you will start living in the real world....

Well, I guess you need to name some liberal ideals that are possible then before I even deign to try to answer yours other than "Get your ******* hand off my wallet!" There's a libertarian ideal for you.

 

[Dr Grump]

Libertarians, he incorrectly assumes, are TRYING to build a 'utopia' society, like them. They closest thing to a libertarian 'Utopia' is for people to make a personal one as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's.

No surprise he doesn't get it.

Yeah, because human nature being what it is, that's going to happen? I mean it is possible, right?

I get it all right...It is one of the most easiest concepts to get....it's just not possible, which is why it is a Utopian ideal....which is obviously something yourself and Shackled don't get.

But please, carry on with your smarmy asides, "we-live-on-a-higher-plain-and-you-sheeple-suckers-are-the-ones-keeping-us-from-fulfilling-our-potential" clap trap....It suits you.

Name me a couple of libertarian ideals that are possible and, more importantly, probable. Take your time....when you have epically failed, maybe you will start living in the real world....

Well, I guess you need to name some liberal ideals that are possible then before I even deign to try to answer yours other than "Get your ******* hand off my wallet!" There's a libertarian ideal for you.

Possible? They've already happened. You were asleep when you were taught about the emancipation of slaves? Civil rights? Women's suffrage? Conservatives of the time hated those ideas.

My hand isn't in your ******* wallet.

Hey, go find a deserted island somewhere - without running water, electricity, roading, sewage. Use your own money to set it all up. See how long you last. Oh, and try and catch/grow your own food while your at it. That's you libertarian ideal in a nutshell....

 

[asterism]

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

You've read what I wrote there with a jaundiced eye.

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers. And for that reason it is only fair that they return an appropriate share of what they've managed to acquire to the source of their good fortune. And an appropriate share will by no means be ruinous to them. Because for the uber-rich, even if their tax rate is 91% of their income they would still have more and be living better than 98% of the population.

There is nothing complicated or devious about that. It simply proposes a payment of taxes proportionate to that paid by less financially successful citizens.

And if the rich don't think paying a tax on their earnings is justified they have a choice of not earning anything or moving to a nation where the tax rates are lower and trying to do as well there.

You make the assumption that the 'rich' stole from the 'nation' before they were wealthy, thereby making the 'nation' responsible for their wealth which the rich must be obligated to return to the 'nation', for it was never the 'rich's' to begin with?

Is that the line you're tossing out there now?

So, if the rich weren't rich before they became rich, then and they were poor before they became rich, they never stole till they became rich? Or is it if the poor steal the resources from the 'nation' but don't succeed for whatever reason, then they never really stole and should keep the resources they stole from the 'nation'?

So, who is the 'nation'? And what is the demarcation line for which the thief of national resources then must return them to the nation?

It's not that it's complicated or devious... it's ******* moronic to believe like this. The nation does not have a priori ownership of everything, nor does it have right to things you create, build or invent.

But I see we have a small problem comprehending the concept of 'private property', so I'm not surprised, socialist.

That's a very interesting perspective. While I agree that it is the duty of those well off to support the system of freedom that makes such a society possible, the alternative is not at bad for "the rich" as it is for the poor. It's always a balance between what one owes versus what one can be compelled to pay.

What we're seeing now is what happens when people who are being compelled to pay more are willing to do with much less. And since tax rates are almost guaranteed to go up they are saving it up for the next downturn.

So how does this help poor people again? They already (on average) have all their basic needs, courtesy of the existing high tax rates.

 

[oreo]

You've read what I wrote there with a jaundiced eye.

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers. And for that reason it is only fair that they return an appropriate share of what they've managed to acquire to the source of their good fortune. And an appropriate share will by no means be ruinous to them. Because for the uber-rich, even if their tax rate is 91% of their income they would still have more and be living better than 98% of the population.

There is nothing complicated or devious about that. It simply proposes a payment of taxes proportionate to that paid by less financially successful citizens.

And if the rich don't think paying a tax on their earnings is justified they have a choice of not earning anything or moving to a nation where the tax rates are lower and trying to do as well there.

You make the assumption that the 'rich' stole from the 'nation' before they were wealthy, thereby making the 'nation' responsible for their wealth which the rich must be obligated to return to the 'nation', for it was never the 'rich's' to begin with?

Is that the line you're tossing out there now?

So, if the rich weren't rich before they became rich, then and they were poor before they became rich, they never stole till they became rich? Or is it if the poor steal the resources from the 'nation' but don't succeed for whatever reason, then they never really stole and should keep the resources they stole from the 'nation'?

So, who is the 'nation'? And what is the demarcation line for which the thief of national resources then must return them to the nation?

It's not that it's complicated or devious... it's ******* moronic to believe like this. The nation does not have a priori ownership of everything, nor does it have right to things you create, build or invent.

But I see we have a small problem comprehending the concept of 'private property', so I'm not surprised, socialist.

That's a very interesting perspective. While I agree that it is the duty of those well off to support the system of freedom that makes such a society possible, the alternative is not at bad for "the rich" as it is for the poor. It's always a balance between what one owes versus what one can be compelled to pay.

What we're seeing now is what happens when people who are being compelled to pay more are willing to do with much less. And since tax rates are almost guaranteed to go up they are saving it up for the next downturn.

So how does this help poor people again? They already (on average) have all their basic needs, courtesy of the existing high tax rates.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of
prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not firsttake from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the otherhalf is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, this is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

 

[asterism]

Yeah, because human nature being what it is, that's going to happen? I mean it is possible, right?

I get it all right...It is one of the most easiest concepts to get....it's just not possible, which is why it is a Utopian ideal....which is obviously something yourself and Shackled don't get.

But please, carry on with your smarmy asides, "we-live-on-a-higher-plain-and-you-sheeple-suckers-are-the-ones-keeping-us-from-fulfilling-our-potential" clap trap....It suits you.

Name me a couple of libertarian ideals that are possible and, more importantly, probable. Take your time....when you have epically failed, maybe you will start living in the real world....

Well, I guess you need to name some liberal ideals that are possible then before I even deign to try to answer yours other than "Get your ******* hand off my wallet!" There's a libertarian ideal for you.

Possible? They've already happened. You were asleep when you were taught about the emancipation of slaves? Civil rights? Women's suffrage? Conservatives of the time hated those ideas.

My hand isn't in your ******* wallet.

Hey, go find a deserted island somewhere - without running water, electricity, roading, sewage. Use your own money to set it all up. See how long you last. Oh, and try and catch/grow your own food while your at it. That's you libertarian ideal in a nutshell....

You forgot defense. That's the kicker, by the way.

Otherwise what we're dealing with is a structure that by nature has a set of expensive inefficiencies and we just disagree on which ones should go. That said, I don't need government for running water. I am forced to buy their substandard product because they have outlawed private wells for human consumption. It seems they have decided that they can do better but it requires compulsory participation. I need the government for roads and bridges and will gladly pay for it. But if I am paying do I have to agree to pay for a scheduled resurfacing that isn't needed or a wheelchair accessible ramp in an area where nobody in a wheelchair resides?

As for growing my own food, I'd love to do it. Cattle is illegal on my land. No big deal, I knew it when I bought it. But notice how you're now saying I should try to reduce government in my own life while at the same time it's the government that compels me to not grow my own.

 

[asterism]

You make the assumption that the 'rich' stole from the 'nation' before they were wealthy, thereby making the 'nation' responsible for their wealth which the rich must be obligated to return to the 'nation', for it was never the 'rich's' to begin with?

Is that the line you're tossing out there now?

So, if the rich weren't rich before they became rich, then and they were poor before they became rich, they never stole till they became rich? Or is it if the poor steal the resources from the 'nation' but don't succeed for whatever reason, then they never really stole and should keep the resources they stole from the 'nation'?

So, who is the 'nation'? And what is the demarcation line for which the thief of national resources then must return them to the nation?

It's not that it's complicated or devious... it's ******* moronic to believe like this. The nation does not have a priori ownership of everything, nor does it have right to things you create, build or invent.

But I see we have a small problem comprehending the concept of 'private property', so I'm not surprised, socialist.

That's a very interesting perspective. While I agree that it is the duty of those well off to support the system of freedom that makes such a society possible, the alternative is not at bad for "the rich" as it is for the poor. It's always a balance between what one owes versus what one can be compelled to pay.

What we're seeing now is what happens when people who are being compelled to pay more are willing to do with much less. And since tax rates are almost guaranteed to go up they are saving it up for the next downturn.

So how does this help poor people again? They already (on average) have all their basic needs, courtesy of the existing high tax rates.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of
prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not firsttake from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the otherhalf is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, this is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

It's not the "Socialism" I have a problem with, because that's such a very undefinable term. It can be argued that the VA is "Socialism." The problem is that a government which intrudes into the marketplace beyond the role of sustaining a free society cuts off the source of its own existence.

The Progressives need to think this through a bit. In times of prosperity they want to control more resources by fiat in the interest of "social justice." In hard times they want to control more resources by fiat in the interest of "stimulus."

The social safety net has become a hammock. I'd be all for it if it worked.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, I guess you need to name some liberal ideals that are possible then before I even deign to try to answer yours other than "Get your ******* hand off my wallet!" There's a libertarian ideal for you.

Possible? They've already happened. You were asleep when you were taught about the emancipation of slaves? Civil rights? Women's suffrage? Conservatives of the time hated those ideas.

My hand isn't in your ******* wallet.

Hey, go find a deserted island somewhere - without running water, electricity, roading, sewage. Use your own money to set it all up. See how long you last. Oh, and try and catch/grow your own food while your at it. That's you libertarian ideal in a nutshell....

You forgot defense. That's the kicker, by the way.

Otherwise what we're dealing with is a structure that by nature has a set of expensive inefficiencies and we just disagree on which ones should go. That said, I don't need government for running water. I am forced to buy their substandard product because they have outlawed private wells for human consumption. It seems they have decided that they can do better but it requires compulsory participation. I need the government for roads and bridges and will gladly pay for it. But if I am paying do I have to agree to pay for a scheduled resurfacing that isn't needed or a wheelchair accessible ramp in an area where nobody in a wheelchair resides?

As for growing my own food, I'd love to do it. Cattle is illegal on my land. No big deal, I knew it when I bought it. But notice how you're now saying I should try to reduce government in my own life while at the same time it's the government that compels me to not grow my own.

I don't have a problem with taxation, what I have a problem with is how the money is spent. A libertarian wants little or no govt or little or no taxes in the belief that most humans want to be the masters of their own destinies. Most do - to a degree.

The vast majority of us like living in communities - whether it be a massive conurbation like NY, or some small village in the middle of nowhere. In order to live an a conducive environment we all have to get along, and also have to band together to get certain things done.

Remember, the ideal of communism isn't a BAD thing - everybody helping each other out so they have all the good things in life. But the reality is in stark contrast to what is written on paper, which is why libertarianism is doomed to failure. Nice idea, sure. Practicality? Pfffttt.....

 

[asterism]

Possible? They've already happened. You were asleep when you were taught about the emancipation of slaves? Civil rights? Women's suffrage? Conservatives of the time hated those ideas.

My hand isn't in your ******* wallet.

Hey, go find a deserted island somewhere - without running water, electricity, roading, sewage. Use your own money to set it all up. See how long you last. Oh, and try and catch/grow your own food while your at it. That's you libertarian ideal in a nutshell....

You forgot defense. That's the kicker, by the way.

Otherwise what we're dealing with is a structure that by nature has a set of expensive inefficiencies and we just disagree on which ones should go. That said, I don't need government for running water. I am forced to buy their substandard product because they have outlawed private wells for human consumption. It seems they have decided that they can do better but it requires compulsory participation. I need the government for roads and bridges and will gladly pay for it. But if I am paying do I have to agree to pay for a scheduled resurfacing that isn't needed or a wheelchair accessible ramp in an area where nobody in a wheelchair resides?

As for growing my own food, I'd love to do it. Cattle is illegal on my land. No big deal, I knew it when I bought it. But notice how you're now saying I should try to reduce government in my own life while at the same time it's the government that compels me to not grow my own.

I don't have a problem with taxation, what I have a problem with is how the money is spent. A libertarian wants little or no govt or little or no taxes in the belief that most humans want to be the masters of their own destinies. Most do - to a degree.

The vast majority of us like living in communities - whether it be a massive conurbation like NY, or some small village in the middle of nowhere. In order to live an a conducive environment we all have to get along, and also have to band together to get certain things done.

Remember, the ideal of communism isn't a BAD thing - everybody helping each other out so they have all the good things in life. But the reality is in stark contrast to what is written on paper, which is why libertarianism is doomed to failure. Nice idea, sure. Practicality? Pfffttt.....

The difference is where to draw the line between "community" and "sovereignty." My community is free to dictate what they want. If I'm on the losing end of that I have a choice to move. That which protects the USA as a sovereign nation is different. It's when federal standards dictate community standards there is a problem. Why can't I drink my own clean water from the ground? Federal regulations. It seems that the federal government has gone from protecting us from foreign enemies to protecting us from ourselves.

How's that working out?

 

[bripat9643]

That's a very interesting perspective. While I agree that it is the duty of those well off to support the system of freedom that makes such a society possible, the alternative is not at bad for "the rich" as it is for the poor. It's always a balance between what one owes versus what one can be compelled to pay.

What we're seeing now is what happens when people who are being compelled to pay more are willing to do with much less. And since tax rates are almost guaranteed to go up they are saving it up for the next downturn.

So how does this help poor people again? They already (on average) have all their basic needs, courtesy of the existing high tax rates.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of
prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not firsttake from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the otherhalf is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, this is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

It's not the "Socialism" I have a problem with, because that's such a very undefinable term. It can be argued that the VA is "Socialism." The problem is that a government which intrudes into the marketplace beyond the role of sustaining a free society cuts off the source of its own existence.

Socialism is easily defined, although leftists will demagogue the matter to death because they want to obscure the meaning of the term.

The VA is indeed socialism. I don't know why anyone would claim it isn't.

You'll find very few veterans who are satisfied with the treatment they receive from the VA.

 

[editec]

[/B]
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

It's not the "Socialism" I have a problem with, because that's such a very undefinable term. It can be argued that the VA is "Socialism." The problem is that a government which intrudes into the marketplace beyond the role of sustaining a free society cuts off the source of its own existence.

Socialism is easily defined, although will demagogue the matter to death because they want to obscure the meaning of the term.

The VA is indeed socialism. I don't know why anyone would claim it isn't.

You'll find very few veterans who are satisfied with the treatment they receive from the VA.

Nonsense

VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service</H3>
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2006 – Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.


For VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, the news is affirmation of what he called "the greatest story never told," that the VA offers top-quality care for its patients.

VA medical services received high marks during the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which has ranked customer satisfaction with various federal programs and private-sector industries and major companies since 1994.
Veterans who recently used VA services and were interviewed for the 2005 ACSI survey gave the VA's inpatient care a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale -- compared to a 73 rating for the private-sector health care industry. Veterans gave the VA a rating of 80 for outpatient care, five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and 9 percent higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then there needs to be a discussion on the legal and moral purpose AND responsibility of government and it's power in our lives. Somewhere near 'none' and far far away from 'all' I think is the most amenable point of balance.

 

[Neotrotsky]

so true...

 

[Wiseacre]

Then there needs to be a discussion on the legal and moral purpose AND responsibility of government and it's power in our lives. Somewhere near 'none' and far far away from 'all' I think is the most amenable point of balance.

AND a discussion about which functions oughta be handled at the state and local levels.

 

[Dr Grump]

Then there needs to be a discussion on the legal and moral purpose AND responsibility of government and it's power in our lives. Somewhere near 'none' and far far away from 'all' I think is the most amenable point of balance.

Again, a Utopian, unobtainable ideal.

If humans could be trusted to do the right thing, sure...they aren't. There has to be a balance somewhere, which is why we have elections....

 

[ShackledNation]

Then there needs to be a discussion on the legal and moral purpose AND responsibility of government and it's power in our lives. Somewhere near 'none' and far far away from 'all' I think is the most amenable point of balance.

Again, a Utopian, unobtainable ideal.

If humans could be trusted to do the right thing, sure...they aren't. There has to be a balance somewhere, which is why we have elections....

So humans in government can be better trusted to do the right thing????