No. of Recommendations: 141
Liberals don't understand that my money is mine.

This is exactly what the radical right Bush administration is all about: Greed.

Is all the money you earn yours?


Have you ever used a doctor who was educated with public funds?

Have you attended a public school?

Have you enjoyed environmental safety?

Do you use public transportation?

Have you ever flown from an airport built with public funds?

Have you ever used a road or highway built with public funds?

Have you ever purchased food that was transported on a public highway?

Have you ever enjoyed one of our National parks?

Have you ever taken medicine tested by the FDA?

Do you enjoy the protection of our legal system?

Do you feel safe because police are watching over your community?

Is a fire department in your neighborhood?

Have you ever read a book from the public library?

Have you ever voted in an election?

Do you enjoy the protection of our military?

Do you think injured veterans should receive care?

Should areas of natural disaster receive help?

Do you think Homeland security is a good idea?

Should assistance be offered to the poor?

Have your parents or grandparents received Social Security?

Have you invested in a company that requires SEC filings?

Do you think children should go hungry?

Do you support putting criminals in prisons?

Are you reading this over the internet?

Do you know anyone who recieved healthcare?

Do you think our military should be armed with the latest technology?

Have you enjoyed a glass of clean water?

Do you believe we should have help fight disease?

Should we ignore foreign policy?

Have you spent any US currancy today?




No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.

In my book, that's called greed.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.

Actually I don't want all those services, let alone more, nor do I want someone else to pay for them. And those I do want, I am perfectly willing to pay for. And the fact that you are saying that I should pay for government services proves my point. My money is mine. Your money is yours. I am not intested in taking your money, why do you want to take mine?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.

In my book, that's called greed.

AW


The list you have asssembled is a mere speck in the scope of our government. Further, appropriations in many of these items are wasteful or beyond the rightful scope of our government. The biggest problem that I see is that there is no duty shown by our government to make taxation and appropriations a value for value exchange. Tax and appropriations policy is a big game of peddling preference and privilege for votes and political power. The limitations set out in the constitution were intended to prevent this. The currently accepted belief that the only limitations for spending and appropriations are what congress and the president approve has effectively destroyed intended limitations limitations. In short, the problem is that government is out of control. And in my book, demanding respect for the production of individuals is not greed, it is a sense of fairness.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I think part of the conceptual problem is an "us" and "them" attitutude towards the government. "We" are the government. If the government is wasteful, we are wasteful.

When the government spends money, we spend money. We choose, through a rather complicated political process which often creates the yawning cavernous distance between us and those who run the government. It makes most of us -- most of us who can't or don't make huge political contributions to candidates -- feel inconsequential.

Still, every decision the government makes is an expression of our collective will as regulated by our form of democracy.


The biggest problem that I see is that there is no duty shown by our government to make taxation and appropriations a value for value exchange.

I don't see how it could ever be so.


Tax and appropriations policy is a big game of peddling preference and privilege for votes and political power.

Less for votes directly than for money with which to campaign for votes. Look at the biggest political contributors and you'll see who really owns the nation's politicians and in whose interests they generally act.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 36
{{No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.

In my book, that's called greed.}}

So you are saying that poorest people in the US are the greediest? They pay the fewest taxes or rather pay negative income taxes and expect the most services to be paid for by other taxpayers.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So you are saying that poorest people in the US are the greediest? They pay the fewest taxes or rather pay negative income taxes and expect the most services to be paid for by other taxpayers.

Now that's just plain mean spirited. You heartless bastard. :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now that's just plain mean spirited. You heartless bastard. :-)

Yeah, I am pretty poor, don't pay a lot in taxes in whole dollar terms, and you don't see me asking for tons of services from the federal government.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.

First, you offered no link so I don't know whose quote you are referring to. That said, at least from your post, there is absolutely no indication that the person in question does indeed want all of these services provided by the government, let alone wants someone else to pay for them.

Believe it or not, there are quite a few Libertarians out there who don't think the government should be doing the vast majority of the things on your list.

Sure, the original statement you are refuting is a hyperbolic extreme and a strawman.

And your response is no less a hyperbolic extreme and no less a strawman.

I guess we can play the 'my strawman gets more recs than your strawman' game if we want to, but it isn't terribly productive - though I'll admit it does occasionally feel good as it allows us to blow off a little steam. ;-)

Regards,

Eldrehad

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I've said this before and I don't know why it apears to be such a hard principle to grasp.

The vast majority of social spending on "the poor" is intended to help children. It is impossible to do that without also helping their "lazy, no good" parents.

Leaving aside whether this or that program is effective or not for a moment, social spending on children is definitely in the collective national interest, since healthy, well-educated children are more likely to be productive members of society and less likely to be a future burden.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The vast majority of social spending on "the poor" is intended to help children.

Are you referring to abortions that many liberals believe should be paid for by the tax-payers?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Leaving aside whether this or that program is effective or not for a moment, social spending on children is definitely in the collective national interest, since healthy, well-educated children are more likely to be productive members of society and less likely to be a future burden.

Leaving aside effectiveness? So we are writing checks to clear our conscience? I agree that there is societal benefit to "helping" poor children with a hand up. I vehemently disagree that anything spawned by the "Great Society" or anything like it have been any help. The multiple generations of people in the same neighborhoods cashing welfare checks pretty clearly points to me that it doesn't work. Just when is it the ghettos will disappear with all this helping we are doing?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've said this before and I don't know why it apears to be such a hard principle to grasp.

The vast majority of social spending on "the poor" is intended to help children.


I take that back. The obvious exception is spending on "the elderly." There are two reasons for that, I think. They vote. The other is: they vote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Are you referring to abortions that many liberals believe should be paid for by the tax-payers?


No.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am not intested in taking your money, why do you want to take mine?

Take yours? Naw. Just trying to get back a little of what you've already benefitted from.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is exactly what the radical right Bush administration is all about: Greed.

snip

No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.
In my book, that's called greed.


I see the, who wants all services, has already been asked so I'll ask a different question. Since you go after the Bush administration in particular, meaning the federal government, who says all these things should be provided by the federal government? Most of us have at least three layers of government between us and the federal government, should a good percentage of that list be taken care of a little closer to home?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Leaving aside effectiveness?

Yes, because whether such social spending is effective or not is a separate issue from whether it should be the government's job or not.

One can argue that the government should provide for the poor, but does it badly. Whether the government does a good job or not at providing for the poor isn't really relevant to the question about whether it should provide for the poor or not.



So we are writing checks to clear our conscience?

No.




I agree that there is societal benefit to "helping" poor children with a hand up. I vehemently disagree that anything spawned by the "Great Society" or anything like it have been any help.

Fine. That's a different argument.


The multiple generations of people in the same neighborhoods cashing welfare checks pretty clearly points to me that it doesn't work.

I don't disagree, except that "it" is a lot more complicated than just welfare checks and food stamps.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Actually I don't want all those services, let alone more, nor do I want someone else to pay for them.

Well, Ray, then you can go live in some polluted cesspool in China.

Erik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
This is exactly what the radical right Bush administration is all about: Greed.

Is all the money you earn yours?


Have you ever used a doctor who was educated with public funds?

Have you attended a public school?

Have you enjoyed environmental safety?

Do you use public transportation?


I'll agree that some level of taxation is necessary. However, how would you respond if you walked into a store you once shopped in only to find that they now sell only rubber dog poo. You begin to exit but the owner grabs you by the arm and takes the money out of your wallet.

"Hey, GIMME BACK MY MONEY!" you say.

"But I'm signing you up for the rubber dog poop of the month club," the owner gleefully responds.

"I don't want, nor need any rubber dog poop. GIMME BACK MY MONEY!" you respond even more agitated than before.

Then to your suprise, the owner calls the cops on you who demand you come back and give the own more of your hard earned dough every year. On the way out, he calls you greedy.

As strange as it may seem. I see quite a bit of rubber dog poop in the Federal Government's Budget. That's not to say that roads, parks, and defense issues do not need to be fully funded and the cost shared jointly by all of us who benefit, but they are examples of things government does well.

What I don't like is the government taking my money to give it to someone else, or to subsidize a dying industry, or to encourage a certain behavior. It's MY MONEY damnit so don't give me no sh... I mean rubber dog poop. ;)

Yes, I've benefitted from quite a few of these programs. A good example is that I took the EIC at one time and currently ride a subsidized train every day. I'd prefer that the train paid for itself but oddly enough, they won't take extra when you pay. :)

Angela
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Well, Ray, then you can go live in some polluted cesspool in China.


The Chinese would take all my money too. Interesting how taking liberalism to it's logical conclusion gets us knee deep into all the problems that liberals claim they are wanting to solve.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Chinese would take all my money too. Interesting how taking liberalism to it's logical conclusion gets us knee deep into all the problems that liberals claim they are wanting to solve.

What problems are those, Raymond?

Erik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
The vast majority of social spending on "the poor" is intended to help children. It is impossible to do that without also helping their "lazy, no good" parents.

While it might be impossible, we can do a better job of it than we are doing now. And obviously you are engaging in hyperbole, but the obvious truth is that some of these parents are lazy and no good, and some aren't.

I am reminded of a time when I was living in part of Los Angeles County (grew up in, and have subsequently moved back to, neighboring Orange County). I got called to jury duty, and was assigned to the court in Compton. For those unfamiliar, Compton is a relatively poor city, populated heavily by minorities (especially blacks), and has all of the problems one thinks of that exist in an inner city in the Los Angeles area. Additionally, one can't go more than a few years without hearing of come kind of city scandal, whether it's the Mayor taking bribes, or some other kind of corruption in city government.

Anyway... this maybe 10 years ago. I was sitting in the big jury room, waiting for my name to be called. And a conversation ensued among the people who happened to be sitting at the same table.

They were talking openly, in a courthouse, in a jury room, in front of a complete stranger, about where the best place to buy foodstamps was at a discount. "Yeah, if you go to this grocrey store there's always one person or another out front who will sell them to you for 50 cents on the dollar. It's a great way to save money... a really good deal, I do it whenever I can."

I didn't say anything, but needless to say, I was not pleased.

I think it's pretty obvious that these people were selling food stamps so they could buy things one can't buy with food stamps - probably illegal drugs. Taking food out of the mouths of their children so they could feed their habit. Even if they weren't buying illegal drugs with the money, many will buy cigarettes, or beer, or a number of other things.

What bothered me most wasn't the people selling the food stamps though. I'd heard those stories before. People spending their Social Security disability checks on heroin, etc.

What really bothered me is the people who bought them, and who thought nothing of it. They live in this community. They, and their children, have to live with all of the threats of gangs and governmental corruption. And yet, here they are, contributing to the worst kinds of problems that plague the community that they have to live in, and they think nothing of it.

I certainly don't mean this as an indictment of all people who are on public assistance - it is simply a personal story, a personal experience, that made a big impression on me and one I will never forget.

I can understand why so many are so frustrated and so fed up, "Why help the people in these communities when it is so obvious that they don't even want to help themselves?"

Well, with regard to the few people who were sharing that table with me that day, nothing could be more true. People talk about 'corporate America' or 'heartless conservatives' who don't care about the plight of the people in these communities.

The truth is, at least for these individuals, they care far less about the plight of their own communities than probably anyone else.

Do I know of a solution for this problem? No.

But I know we sure could be doing one heck of a lot better... but I understand the frustration. When people who live in these communities don't seem to care one bit about being part of the solution, and instead choose to contribute to the problem because it saves them money on cereal and bananas, why should the rest of us?

I, for one, do care...

But a great deal of our social welfare spending just simply isn't working.

Regards,

Eldrehad


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ray:The Chinese would take all my money too. Interesting how taking liberalism to it's logical conclusion gets us knee deep into all the problems that liberals claim they are wanting to solve.

Sky>What problems are those, Raymond?

Go over there and call their President and 'unelected moron'. Post a web blog saying how much you want to throw their leaders in jail. Then report back to us on the conditions of Chinese prisons :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
bad water, poverty, overcrowding, enviromental hazards, illiteracy, ignorance, unsafe workplaces, fair wages, prison reform, free elections, freedom of thought, etc. All of which is plentily available in that wonderfully liberal paradise called China.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BTW my name isn't Raymond, Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ray:The Chinese would take all my money too. Interesting how taking liberalism to it's logical conclusion gets us knee deep into all the problems that liberals claim they are wanting to solve.

Sky>What problems are those, Raymond?

Go over there and call their President and 'unelected moron'. Post a web blog saying how much you want to throw their leaders in jail. Then report back to us on the conditions of Chinese prisons :)


I realize that dissent and such is not allowed in China, and that they have a deplorable record on human rights. But I'm still not understanding Ray's point: if we follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, which (I'm guessing) is socialism, does that mean we'll turn INTO China?

Erik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
bad water, poverty, overcrowding, enviromental hazards, illiteracy, ignorance, unsafe workplaces, fair wages, prison reform, free elections, freedom of thought, etc. All of which is plentily available in that wonderfully liberal paradise called China.

Oh, so you support Howard Dean's proposal to require our trade partners to live up to OUR standards, as opposed to us IGNORING those standards and our trade partners' human rights violations, environmental destruction, etc, and trading with them anyway?

Erik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
does that mean we'll turn INTO China?

Well we might be lucky and just turn into Albania.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BTW my name isn't Raymond, Eric

Come on. Everybody loves Raymond. ;-)

Erk (sorry, Ray)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BTW my name isn't Raymond, Eric

BTW, that's Erik with a K.

Erk
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
Selectively answer some of the questions.

Have you ever read a book from the public library?
Yes. I also donate books and money every year so they can buy more for myself and others to enjoy.

Should assistance be offered to the poor?
Poor, Yes. People that can afford cable, color tv's, $100 shoes, to eat out more than 10 times a month, that have refused jobs offered to them, etc., then No. I also contribute to charities that help the poor. I also volunteer my time to help these charities in their efforts. I think we do a better job than the governement does--atleast we get more for each dollar than they do.

Have your parents or grandparents received Social Security?
Yes. However, they would have preferred savings plans of their own with incentive (tax breaks) to save that money. I would prefer that as well. Also my mother and father died before collecting more than 1 year of SS, so the money that was 'saved' for them stayed with the government instead of going to their heirs.

Have you invested in a company that requires SEC filings?
Several. However, there should be fees applied to the filings to support the cost. The SEC is noly there for business and shareholders, why should other be charged for the services. My brother has never invested, why should he pay for these services?

Do you think children should go hungry?
No. I feed mine. I also contribute over $1000 in cash plus $?? in food to food banks every year to help support the poor and hungry of my community.

Do you support putting criminals in prisons?
Yes. I do not support Cable and pay per movies in those prisons. I do not support multi-million dollar libraries in those prisons. Nor do I support countless other expenses of those prisons.

Do you know anyone who recieved healthcare?
Yes. And I pay for it each and every time.

Do you think our military should be armed with the latest technology?
Yes, now get congress to agree with this.

Have you enjoyed a glass of clean water?
Actually the water I get at home has radiation and other items in it that I have water softeners and filters to remove. I also pay for every gallon of water that comes to my house through fees not taxes. Additionally as they do the work to clear up the radiation, I will pay higher rates per gallon to cover the expense.

Have you spent any US currancy today?
Yes, but not as much as I could have if the government did not take so much of what I have earned. Also the U.S. makes money on each bill it puts into circulation.



So as a summary:
1) Some government spending is necessary and good
2) Some government spending is wasteful and not as good
3) Some government spending is wasteful and does no good, thus is bad
4) Some things are done better by caring citizens than by our government
5) Our Government is too often unable to tell when spending falls into 1,2,3,or 4)
6) Sometimes our government knows the spending is in 2,3,or 4; but will continue spending the money anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
does that mean we'll turn INTO China?

Well we might be lucky and just turn into Albania.

Save your slippery slope arguments for the proletariate masses, Ray.

Erik

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, so you support Howard Dean's proposal to require our trade partners to live up to OUR standards, as opposed to us IGNORING those standards and our trade partners' human rights violations, environmental destruction, etc, and trading with them anyway?

What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about wether or not I have the right to keep my money not trade policy. Isn't Dean yesterday's news anyway?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I see the, who wants all services, has already been asked so I'll ask a different question. Since you go after the Bush administration in particular, meaning the federal government, who says all these things should be provided by the federal government? Most of us have at least three layers of government between us and the federal government, should a good percentage of that list be taken care of a little closer to home?


Yes it should
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.>

No, the problem is that the money is his and he wants some care taken as to how it is spent.

Veloci
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, the problem is that the money is his and he wants some care taken as to how it is spent.

What amazes me is the circular logic of it all. On the one hand, when someone says, "It's my money" some liberals will jump all over them, like they did here, and list all of the programs that most of us think government should spend money on (even if we disagree as to how much and in what manner the money should be spent).

Then they turn around and say, "The government is us."

Well... then... either way, it is the poster's money after all, isn't it?

Regards,

Eldrehad

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would support that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The vast majority of social spending on "the poor" is intended to help children. It is impossible to do that without also helping their "lazy, no good" parents.
---
While it might be impossible, we can do a better job of it than we are doing now.


I wholeheartedly agree. All I was saying was that the efficacy of such programs has little or nothing to do with the question of whether there should be such programs.

And obviously you are engaging in hyperbole, but the obvious truth is that some of these parents are lazy and no good, and some aren't.

Of course. I'd even say that "lazy, no good" parents are the minority. My point is that helping destitute children is definitely in the state's own interest, i.e. our collective interest, whereas helping their destitute parents may or may not be. Short of taking children away from their parents, it is impossible to help the former without also helping the latter.

I think it's an important point. Almost no one begrudges state assistance to young children who need it. Yet, almost everyone rankles at state assistance given to their parents. You just can't separate them.




I can understand why so many are so frustrated and so fed up, "Why help the people in these communities when it is so obvious that they don't even want to help themselves?"

I can understand the frustration as well. The conundrum is how to provide assistance in such a way that doesn't reinforce the behavior that makes rendering assistance necessary in the first place. The other conundrum is how to do that without punishing children for the faults of their parents.



But a great deal of our social welfare spending just simply isn't working.

No doubt, but to that I say: we need to fix it, not eliminate it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"No, the problem isn't that it's your money. The problem is that you want all these services (and many more) and you want someone else to pay for them.

In my book, that's called greed."


Take someone else's money, force them to use services that they were forced to pay for, make the decisions on who how and where for them. Then call them greedy, how liberal of you
.
I want many less of these service not many more. These services feed off themselves to create a need for more, and the more you create the greater the need.

Of the services I want more of, I would rather pay for them directly than through a second/third/fourth... party. The ones it makes no sense to pay for seperately I will gladly pool my funds with everyone else.

Why are you taking my money for education? Then not even letting me decide how to do the educating?

Why do I pay for my water?

I would much rather look for the Good Drugkeeping seal on the perscription I use than fund and FDA.

If I wish to belong to a library, why should the governmnet be running it? Don't you libs worry about censorship?

Why do I need most of the service the government provides, mostly not in a state of the art way.

Why can't I drive my own garbage to the dump? Or pay for it to be taken away directly? Couldn't it just be a crime to leave garbage out and my buisness how to take care of it?

Why should national parks not pay for themselves? If we don't like them enough why do we have them?

Get rid of environmental protection altogether. Make poluting a criminal offense, put folks in jail, enforce it with the police I do gladly pay for.

Why is the government in charge of airports? The ones in my area are terrible, and if they were in fact private and making a buck there would be more of them.

Why do I pay to have any two entities enforce a contract between them?

Why isn't the gas tax paying for all our roads? Hell, with our new technology why are we not using e-zpass to pay by the mile?

Why are not all usage related expenses pretty damn obvious?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"While it might be impossible, we can do a better job of it than we are doing now.

I wholeheartedly agree. All I was saying was that the efficacy of such programs has little or nothing to do with the question of whether there should be such programs.



------------

I just read the response to the line and was simply awed. The efficacy of any program should certainly have a bearing of whether there should be a program.
No matter how well intentioned, a program that does not work should be stopped. In particular programs that have led to multigenerational poverty probably should be stopped, and there should be no such programs. Good intentions are simply not a good enough reason to maintain a program. This is why we are in the fix we are in.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you are saying that poorest people in the US are the greediest? They pay the fewest taxes or rather pay negative income taxes and expect the most services to be paid for by other taxpayers.


But they still pay taxes, and if you add up total taxes they pay close to the same percentage of their income in taxes as the wealthiest taxpayers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But they still pay taxes, and if you add up total taxes they pay close to the same percentage of their income in taxes as the wealthiest taxpayers.

Sorry but I was once one of these people and your statement simply isn't true. If you add up the income tax I paid up until last year, it is a negative number. How can that be the same percentage as the wealthiest taxpayers? On the other hand, a person who earns 300k can pay up to 40% (especially if they are self-employed) on income taxes. It isn't even a contest.

Angela
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wholeheartedly agree. All I was saying was that the efficacy of such programs has little or nothing to do with the question of whether there should be such programs.
---
I just read the response to the line and was simply awed.


I can understand why. I worded it very poorly.

What I meant was: The efficacy of a particular social spending program has little or nothing to do with whether there should be social spending programs in general.

You can argue that there should not be, but the efficacy of one or another program doesn't really support such an argument. It just shows that one or another program in particular is a bad one or that they are badly run.

Here's an example: Let's posit that the food stamp program is inefficient and subject to abuse. That doesn't necessarily mean there should not be a food stamp program. It could mean that the food stamp program needs to be run better. And it certainly doesn't mean that all government programs designed to address hunger are invalid.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But they still pay taxes,

Don't they deserve a tax cut?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I realize that dissent and such is not allowed in China, and that they have a deplorable record on human rights. But I'm still not understanding Ray's point: if we follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, which (I'm guessing) is socialism, does that mean we'll turn INTO China?

Erik


i would refer you to freidrich hayeks "the road to serfdom" first published about 50 years ago, which, far more eloquently than i ever could, makes exactly that argument. once you start down the well-intentioned road of state control, the inevitable destination is the hell of totalitarianism. and believe it or not, that is something that those who oppose socialism as a matter of principle take more seriously than you seem to imagine.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
First, though I'm sure you and I would probably disagree over how best to fix the system, at least in principle there is much upon which we do agree. That said, and this may stir up some controversy, there is one line in your post I'd like to draw some additional attention to.

Short of taking children away from their parents, it is impossible to help the former without also helping the latter.

We should do this far more often than we do it now in my view.

My wife and I were watching an episode of 'Cops' not too long ago. The police answered a call involving abandoned children. When they arrived, the home was filthy, the children were filty, there was no electricity, no food in the house, one of the childrens' arms was in a cast that was filthy and obviously she hadn't had the follow-up visits she should have (just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not implying that this injury was from physical abuse, there was no way of telling from the information in the episode), and the oldest child in the home... the 'babysitter', was four years old (there were three in total). No adult was in the home.

Not too long after the police arrived, the mother came home. Of course, the police were taking the children out of the home because it was unfit. The woman stated that she was a recovering addict, but that she was 'clean'. She looked sober, so I am inclined to believe her, as were, apparently, the police. What was also true, however, was that she had a live-in boyfriend (also not home at the time) who was still an active addict. Her social welfare checks went to fund his habit. Money that should have gone to the care and feeding of those children, this woman was giving to her 'boyfriend', and she always ran out mid-month (hence the lack of electricity).

Now, on Cops, you never see the follow-up, so I have no way of knowing what court actions ensued or what the results of them were... but I would not have a problem if this woman's parental rights were terminated, permanently.

The foster system is no panacea, but we sure can and should improve that as well. And while there may well be social workers following up with the children if they are in foster care or if they are placed back with this woman, at least in foster care there isn't a known history of this kind of abuse/neglect in the home.

If this mother were these children's foster parent, no more foster children would be or should ever be placed back in her care, ever. Why then would we ever place them in their mother's care in the future? If the state (rightfully) deems that a foster parent found to be this neglectful simply isn't worth the future risk, no matter how much she might appear to improve her situation, why assume the same future risk with a biological parent?

Yes, I know, removing children from biological parents is traumatic. I'm sure I'll get flamed for somehow being callous, for not being forgiving, for not giving this woman even a chance to turn her life around - but I'm sorry, there is just no way any children should ever be placed in this woman's care again... hers or anyone else's.

This isn't an unemployed woman who met hard times. This isn't someone who is generally responsible who made a mistake. This is a woman who put her own desires to 'keep a man' above the needs of her children to the point of leaving them completely unsupervised in a home without food, electricity, and in absolute squalor. This kind of situation doesn't arise in a generally stable home undergoing an unusually difficult situation, it is the result of a very long pattern of behavior. It is not an isolated incident of neglect, it is the result of repeated neglect... over, and over, and over again.

Convicted felons have their right to vote terminated... one strike, you're out. What this woman was inflicting on her children was far, far worse than any number of felonies.

And yet, in many states, in many counties, she would be given the opportunity to harm her children this way again, and again, and again.

Regards,

Eldrehad

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"And the fact that you are saying that I should pay for government services proves my point. My money is mine. Your money is yours. I am not intested in taking your money, why do you want to take mine?"

Could you then please mail me a check for my portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we used in Iraq? I didn't support the invasion and you did, yet somehow I still have to pay for it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I know I wrote one reply, but I re-read your post and want to make one more comment. By the way, I want to say that I very much enjoyed your response and I am very happy with the way this thread is going so far... no namecalling yet. :-)

I think it's an important point. Almost no one begrudges state assistance to young children who need it. Yet, almost everyone rankles at state assistance given to their parents. You just can't separate them.

Again, it is often difficult to separate them, and our present system does a pretty poor job of it. I think, though, that this touches on a fundamental difference between different conservative and liberal approaches.

Again, we have limited dollars with which to try to solve this problem, so the trick is to use those dollars as effectively as we can - of course the battle ensues over which methods are most effective.

As a conservative, my solution is to try to create an environment that eliminates poverty in the first place, rather than trying to treat the symptoms with government funds in the form of social welfare checks.

One of the reasons I supported the dividend tax cut, for example, is that I believe it will help solve this problem, and will be more effective than using the equivalent sum of money to increase social welfare benefits.

The key to avoiding poverty is jobs. The key to increasing jobs is economic growth. The key to economic growth is business expansion. The key to business expansion is capital formation. The key to capital formation is to lower the cost of capital. One way of lowering the cost of capital is to reduce taxes on capital.

That's why it rankles me so much when people throw around words like 'heartless conservative', 'greedy capitalist who doesn't care about the poor'.

Frankly, it is out of caring for the poor that I hold the positions that I do. Disagree over whether you think my perspective is the most effective way of accomplishing the objective, that's fair - but challenging my motives isn't.

Regards,

Eldrehad





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But they still pay taxes, and if you add up total taxes they pay close to the same percentage of their income in taxes as the wealthiest taxpayers.

Angela wrote:
Sorry but I was once one of these people and your statement simply isn't true. If you add up the income tax I paid up until last year, it is a negative number. How can that be the same percentage as the wealthiest taxpayers? On the other hand, a person who earns 300k can pay up to 40% (especially if they are self-employed) on income taxes. It isn't even a contest.

Note I said "total taxes." Even though you didn't pay income tax, you still paid FICA taxes (social security and medicare). Since you didn't make a lot of money, you probably spent most of it. What percentage of your income went back to the government in the form of sales tax? Did you register a vehicle and pay excise taxes? How about gasoline tax?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Is all the money you earn yours?


Have you ever used a doctor who was educated with public funds?

Have you attended a public school?

Have you enjoyed environmental safety?

Do you use public transportation?

Have you ever flown from an airport built with public funds?

Have you ever used a road or highway built with public funds?

Have you ever purchased food that was transported on a public highway?

Have you ever enjoyed one of our National parks?

Have you ever taken medicine tested by the FDA?

Do you enjoy the protection of our legal system?

Do you feel safe because police are watching over your community?

Is a fire department in your neighborhood?

Have you ever read a book from the public library?

Have you ever voted in an election?

Do you enjoy the protection of our military?

Do you think injured veterans should receive care?

Should areas of natural disaster receive help?

Do you think Homeland security is a good idea?

Should assistance be offered to the poor?

Have your parents or grandparents received Social Security?

Have you invested in a company that requires SEC filings?

Do you think children should go hungry?

Do you support putting criminals in prisons?

Are you reading this over the internet?

Do you know anyone who recieved healthcare?

Do you think our military should be armed with the latest technology?

Have you enjoyed a glass of clean water?

Do you believe we should have help fight disease?

Should we ignore foreign policy?

Have you spent any US currancy today?


Yes, to all your questions.

But what's your point?

Is it that because a mugger once dropped a dime in a blind man's tin cup, I should not object to being mugged for the support of blind men?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<Liberals don't understand that my money is mine.>

Then why do you conservatives steal my money to give to some meaningless war in Iraq?

Conservatives don't understand that my money is mine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then why do you conservatives steal my money to give to some meaningless war in Iraq?

So I can count on your support for more tax cuts?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Note I said "total taxes." Even though you didn't pay income tax, you still paid FICA taxes (social security and medicare). Since you didn't make a lot of money, you probably spent most of it. What percentage of your income went back to the government in the form of sales tax? Did you register a vehicle and pay excise taxes? How about gasoline tax?

Even so, those taxes couldn't add up to more than 10-15% of my income. Again, considering the proportion of their income that wealthy people pay... and after adding in their sales tax, gas tax, etc. (wealthy people are GREAT consumers) then you have a much, much, much larger proportional share of their income taxed than mine.

Angela
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ghdude says

I'll agree that some level of taxation is necessary. However, how would you respond if you walked into a store you once shopped in only to find that they now sell only rubber dog poo. You begin to exit but the owner grabs you by the arm and takes the money out of your wallet.

Sounds just like me paying for the Vietnam War, the Contras, the invasion of Grenada, the bombing and invasion of Panama, the mass murder of Indonesians, the oppression of East Timor, the thanatocracy in El Salvador, the restoration of the Sabah dynasty in Kuwait, and the invasion of Iraq. Cry me a river.

crassfool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi, Crassfool
You left out the overthrow of the elected government (Allende) in Chile. Can you (or anyone else) remember who was POTUS at that time?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nixon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Actually I don't want all those services, let alone more, nor do I want someone else to pay for them. And those I do want, I am perfectly willing to pay for. And the fact that you are saying that I should pay for government services proves my point. My money is mine. Your money is yours. I am not intested in taking your money, why do you want to take mine?"

ramsfanray

Ray, I am with you on this, but don't go there!

Do you really think that if the Iraq war had been presented to the public in the form of a funding referendum, like a state deciding whether to issue bonds to pay for a horseracing track, that anyone would have said "Yes, this war is an excellent investment! Tax my brains out to pay for it and draft my son while you are at it!"

That's how they kept the Vietnam war going so long. The payed it forward and used disempowered people to fight it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I grew up in the south.
Many times I would hear the ignorant of the community come on television
and spout their mantra.
The mantra went something like,"dems dat got dat money gots ta give it ta dems dat don't got it."
In truth "dems that got it" don't have to give a damn dime if they don't want to.

There is a growing number of folks in this country that feel very strongly about things in general. Their "bottom line" is if they have what they need in all aspects of their lives and you do not-tough.

Like it or leave it. This is the way it is.

Don't blame me. Water seeks it's own level.

am4u

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"dems dat got dat money gots ta give it ta dems dat don't got it."

Holy Stepinfetchit, Batman!

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sounds just like me paying for the Vietnam War, the Contras, the invasion of Grenada, the bombing and invasion of Panama, the mass murder of Indonesians, the oppression of East Timor, the thanatocracy in El Salvador, the restoration of the Sabah dynasty in Kuwait, and the invasion of Iraq. Cry me a river.

Huh?

Angela
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As a conservative, my solution is to try to create an environment that eliminates poverty in the first place...

This is a noble idea, and one of the reasons I sincerely respect your posts.

I'm not very knowledgeable about economics, but I think it's very suspicious that creating this poverty free environment, for conservatives, always starts with helping out wealthy people. How convenient.

If conservatives were of the opinion that we can START by raising the standards of the poor, which will ultimately help the wealthy, I'd be far less skeptical.

But we have a name for people who apply that logic, Liberal.

Of course, there are all of these anecdotes about folks who are don't care about their communities, or who neglect their kids. So I understand why helping the poor isn't really an option. Helping the poor would involve helping some people who are selfish lazy jerks or drug addicts. We don't want to help any selfish lazy jerks or drug addicts.

Clearly there are not any selfish lazy jerks or drug addicts among the wealthy who are helped by conservative policies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm not very knowledgeable about economics, but I think it's very suspicious that creating this poverty free environment, for conservatives, always starts with helping out wealthy people. How convenient.

It's the people with money that create jobs. Without new jobs, there is no way for people to escape poverty.

If conservatives were of the opinion that we can START by raising the standards of the poor, which will ultimately help the wealthy, I'd be far less skeptical.

By creating jobs, they indirectly raise the standards of the poor interested in improving their position.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sounds just like me paying for the Vietnam War, the Contras, the invasion of Grenada, the bombing and invasion of Panama, the mass murder of Indonesians, the oppression of East Timor, the thanatocracy in El Salvador, the restoration of the Sabah dynasty in Kuwait, and the invasion of Iraq. Cry me a river.

Huh?

Angela


Allow me to explain. You see sometimes, the government spends money in ways that liberals don't approve of, like on the military. So they feel that since money they pay in taxes is spent on things they don't like they should be able to spend as much money as they want on things they do like. After all, your tax money is their credit card.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think it's very suspicious that creating this poverty free environment, for conservatives, always starts with helping out wealthy people.

I would be suspicious of that too. Thankfully though, that isn't what conservatives believe. Conservatives want to do things which help everyone. Like accross the board tax cuts. If there were only 10 people in the world a coservative would give all of them a tax cut. A liberal would only let certain people that met certain criteria get a tax cut. Some of those ten would get no help at all. And some may even be penalized. And the liberal gets to decide who. That's why liberals love the complicated tax system that we have. It it a way to have power over other people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's the people with money that create jobs. Without new jobs, there is no way for people to escape poverty.
**************************************************

People with money (the wealthy) don't create jobs. The middle classes create jobs by creating a demand. The rich person can open a widget factory and without demand (the middle class) that rich person will soon be without factory, money, or jobs. There is no wealth creation in this society without the help of the middle class.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The rich person can open a widget factory and without demand (the middle class) that rich person will soon be without factory, money, or jobs. There is no wealth creation in this society without the help of the middle class.

True, but the widgets have to exist before they can be demanded. Nobody was interested in a Toyota Pirus in 1846.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If conservatives were of the opinion that we can START by raising the standards of the poor, which will ultimately help the wealthy, I'd be far less skeptical.

But we have a name for people who apply that logic, Liberal."

"Raising standards for the poor"? Liberal do not raise standards for the poor nor have they ever believed in that, at least not from what I have seen. They have given them more money, tried to ease their poverty, but at every turn have lowered standards whenever possible.

As a New Yorker, perhaps this was more evident, as the City University system was completely trashed by lowering standards, the public schools trashed by the same disease. Children graduating without 3 grade reading levels(I have a dyslexic friend who graduated at a far lower level than that. Job training requirement and welfare requirement that for decades made work less than feasable.

Don't flatter your idealogy with raising standards, it never happened and the consequences are a disaster, so let's lower them some more, and if any tries to measure results they must be evil.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Latinus says

You left out the overthrow of the elected government (Allende) in Chile. Can you (or anyone else) remember who was POTUS at that time?

Nixon.

crassfool
Print the post Back To Top