Welfare & Taxes

[Drivesme]

I'm a navy retiree....1974-1994, surface line....
Sucking off the Govt. teat, but no one else had better get the help they need, right?

Nice.:(

[JIMV]

Its called a defined beneft package, you know...like the unions get. One makes a deal with the government. do what they want for 20 years and they provide a retirement package.

You really need to take econ-101. If you cannot tell the difference between a pension for service rendered and welfare...well!

[Drivesme]

Its called a defined beneft package, you know...like the unions get. One makes a deal with the government. do what they want for 20 years and they provide a retirement package.

You really need to take econ-101. If you cannot tell the difference between a pension for service rendered and welfare...well!
jimmy you lived off the Govt. teat for your entire life, you will be first in line when you blow out your 65 candles but you whine and cry and whine and cry that anyone else should get some help. You afraid your check is going bounce?
Make you look pretty hypocritical, complaining about someone else getting a check from the Govt. while you are standing line to cash your Govt. check.

[Drivesme]

Source junior, source. If your check comes as a result of services provided, you have a pension. If it comes because you breath, you have welfare. That is the basic economic system in the industrial world. That said, I also have a 401K and other savings to tide me over when that SS check is cut, as it will be before I can collect.

I'm just saying jimmy, you suck the Govt. teat and have your entire life.
Yet you cry, endlessly and falsely about anyone else that gets a little help when they need it.
But you are a republican so......

[JIMV]

I'm just saying jimmy, you suck the Govt. teat and have your entire life.
Yet you cry, endlessly and falsely about anyone else that gets a little help when they need it.
But you are a republican so......

I guess the difference beteen the concept of earned and simply wanted is beyond you...not worth the discussion.:rolleyes:

[Drivesme]

I guess the difference beteen the concept of earned and simply wanted is beyond you...not worth the discussion.:rolleyes:
No, I understand it completely, everything you have, every fork full of food you have shoveled into your pie hole was provided by the US Govt.
And you are not worth discussion.

(Pushing your buttons is sooooo much fun)

[Notus Lotus]

No, I understand it completely, everything you have, every fork full of food you have shoveled into your pie hole was provided by the US Govt.
And you are not worth discussion.

(Pushing your buttons is sooooo much fun)

The case can certainly be made that Jim is beholden to us taxpayers just like those other po'folks on welfare.

Speaking of which, Bernard Kerik (Rudy's crooked cop buddy) complained that his $150,500 yearly salary was like being on welfare. Do you suppose this is why his type are so opposed to it? They think other people on welfare have it as good as Bernie did?

[JIMV]

The case can certainly be made that Jim is beholden to us taxpayers just like those other po'folks on welfare.

Speaking of which, Bernard Kerik (Rudy's crooked cop buddy) complained that his $150,500 yearly salary was like being on welfare. Do you suppose this is why his type are so opposed to it? They think other people on welfare have it as good as Bernie did?

The case can be made, but only if one does not make any difference between an earned benefit in a retirement plan and something provided with no thought to service. Is a union pension also welfare? What about teachers pensions? After all, 99% of such work is pretty safe and very well paid, unlike the military.

[Drivesme]

The case can certainly be made that Jim is beholden to us taxpayers just like those other po'folks on welfare.

Speaking of which, Bernard Kerik (Rudy's crooked cop buddy) complained that his $150,500 yearly salary was like being on welfare. Do you suppose this is why his type are so opposed to it? They think other people on welfare have it as good as Bernie did?
Of course the case can be made, jimmy doesn't like it though.

[Drivesme]

The case can be made, but only if one does not make any difference between an earned benefit in a retirement plan and something provided with no thought to service. Is a union pension also welfare? What about teachers pensions? After all, 99% of such work is pretty safe and very well paid, unlike the military.
jimmy you chose to suckle on the Govt. teat and you have done it for your entire life, you will do till you die and then the Govt. will pay for your burial.

You complain about everyone else but never look to your own house.

That is the point jimmy, it's really too bad you can't see that.

[Notus Lotus]

The case can be made, but only if one does not make any difference between an earned benefit in a retirement plan and something provided with no thought to service. Is a union pension also welfare? What about teachers pensions? After all, 99% of such work is pretty safe and very well paid, unlike the military.

My taxes go to support the military, ergo, your pension.

My taxes don't go to support union pensions. Therefore, not a good analogy.

My taxes DO go to support teacher's pensions, and I've yet to see one online complaining about welfare for the needy.

[JIMV]

My taxes go to support the military, ergo, your pension.

My taxes don't go to support union pensions. Therefore, not a good analogy.

My taxes DO go to support teacher's pensions, and I've yet to see one online complaining about welfare for the needy.

Ah, but like a teacher, but more effectively, I was an employee of the public with a specific job to do. I did the job and earned a defined pension. I guess only some employees should get what was promised while others get welfare....

Your view is why the military votes 70% republican.

Actually, your taxes do go to support union pensions, state, local, school, federal employees, why, the list is almost endless.

[Notus Lotus]

Ah, but like a teacher, but more effectively, I was an employee of the public with a specific job to do. I did the job and earned a defined pension. I guess only some employees should get what was promised while others get welfare....

Your view is why the military votes 70% republican.

Actually, your taxes do go to support union pensions, state, local, school, federal employees, why, the list is almost endless. Semantics, Jim. I separated unions from teachers because YOU did.

Ah, I see where your problem lies.

You think that people who require assistance didn't/don't ever do anything, and didn't/don't provide any service to "deserve" any help when they need it. Perhaps this explains why a majority of the military continues to back Republicans. I think it's probably more likely that y'all are worried that your welfare checks will stop if progressives gain power. See, we're likely to put the skids to the military industrial complex of which you seem to be a proud ex-member of. Nice scam, but eventually the people catch on. When they're not being shovel-fed big heapin' helpin's of 24/7 TERROR!!!

[JIMV]

Ah, I see where your problem lies.

You think that people who require assistance didn't/don't ever do anything, and didn't/don't provide any service to "deserve" any help when they need it. Perhaps this explains why a majority of the military continues to back Republicans. I think it's probably more likely that y'all are worried that your welfare checks will stop if progressives gain power. See, we're likely to put the skids to the military industrial complex of which you seem to be a proud ex-member of. Nice scam, but eventually the people catch on. When they're not being shovel-fed big heapin' helpin's of 24/7 TERROR!!!

No, the key word is 'earn'...they didn't earn it. They may or may not deserve it. There is a fundimental difference between an earned beneft and one simply provided. It is why SS will never comletely go away, no matter how broke it gets. Folk paid for the benefit and will demand it. It is why welfare reform passed. That system was broken and everyone but those getting the largess knew it.

The left seems to have a problem with basic economics. They believe in free money and see no difference in taking moeny earned and giving money not earned. They both work to the lefts political benefit, even if they fail the test of the real world economy pretty quickly.

[Drivesme]

The left seems to have a problem with basic economics. They believe in free money and see no difference in taking moeny earned and giving money not earned. They both work to the lefts political benefit, even if they fail the test of the real world economy pretty quickly.

You fail to provide proof......again.

[Notus Lotus]

No, the key word is 'earn'...they didn't earn it. They may or may not deserve it. There is a fundimental difference between an earned beneft and one simply provided. It is why SS will never comletely go away, no matter how broke it gets. Folk paid for the benefit and will demand it. It is why welfare reform passed. That system was broken and everyone but those getting the largess knew it.

The left seems to have a problem with basic economics. They believe in free money and see no difference in taking moeny earned and giving money not earned. They both work to the lefts political benefit, even if they fail the test of the real world economy pretty quickly.

Jim, I enjoy arguing with you just for the sake of argument. I of course understand your case that you "earned" your pension, thus it's not welfare. Of course, Social Security is based on the wages of the earner. Yet widows and children who've never done anything to "earn" that SS money still qualify for those benefits should the "earner" kick the bucket. Why? Did they do anything to earn that money? Not by your standard, IMO.

The welfare system was reformed because a handout is not the answer to poverty. But dammit, until the impoverished gain the skills and equipment to become self-sufficient, they still need to eat, they need a home, they need clothing, they need a roof over their heads. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life. Unfortunately, the man needs a pole, some bait, a license, and when the fish are all fished out, he'll need some peanut butter and crackers, a tent and some gas in his car to get to the next fishin' hole. That's where we luckier fishermen come in.

It's easy for somebody who's getting a steady check to dismiss the poor as slackers or lazy, or stupid. It's small minded, but easy. It's morally reprehensible, IMO, to whine about having to do your part taxwise to care for the less fortunate.
The left do just as much to contribute to the poor as the right, tax wise, so save your "free money" crapola. Part of the price of your citizenship in this country is to pay your taxes, some of which go to the less fortunate. Your wailing over this fact makes me wonder why you hate your fellow Americans so. I'm humbled to be able to contribute to the least of my brothers, for as the Greeks said, the poor are the ambassadors of the gods.

[Drivesme]

Jim, I enjoy arguing with you just for the sake of argument. I of course understand your case that you "earned" your pension, thus it's not welfare. Of course, Social Security is based on the wages of the earner. Yet widows and children who've never done anything to "earn" that SS money still qualify for those benefits should the "earner" kick the bucket. Why? Did they do anything to earn that money? Not by your standard, IMO.

The welfare system was reformed because a handout is not the answer to poverty. But dammit, until the impoverished gain the skills and equipment to become self-sufficient, they still need to eat, they need a home, they need clothing, they need a roof over their heads. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life. Unfortunately, the man needs a pole, some bait, a license, and when the fish are all fished out, he'll need some peanut butter and crackers, a tent and some gas in his car to get to the next fishin' hole. That's where we luckier fishermen come in.

It's easy for somebody who's getting a steady check to dismiss the poor as slackers or lazy, or stupid. It's small minded, but easy. It's morally reprehensible, IMO, to whine about having to do your part taxwise to care for the less fortunate.
The left do just as much to contribute to the poor as the right, tax wise, so save your "free money" crapola. Part of the price of your citizenship in this country is to pay your taxes, some of which go to the less fortunate. Your wailing over this fact makes me wonder why you hate your fellow Americans so. I'm humbled to be able to contribute to the least of my brothers, for as the Greeks said, the poor are the ambassadors of the gods.
jimmy is blind to reality.

[freewolf46]

Been reading a little here today and although I am totally opposed to much of the right in foreign policy these days, simply because it is designed to achieve a goal that few who support it understand, know, or even want to know, I have to also say the left makes little progress in halting it because their death for the country is no better alternative. I say that because socialism will never, ever, under any circumstances, be able to support itself because as it grows, it destroys the ability to feed itself. It will never create the middle class it desires and it will never lessen the divide between the upper and lower classes.

The more important point though is that the very real concern of some to do good for others, and rightly so, is misplaced in tactics. You can never, ever, under any circumstances satisfy your moral obligations through another man's wallet. It must be done by earning what you get along with the ability to keep it yourself and then you personally applying a percentage of it to aid, based on your personal sense of responsibility. The moral obligation is further satisfied, by personal effort in spreading the truth about each mans personal responsibility as well as education of others in the best means to keep what you earn. The very second you speak for, or actually participate in, the effort to finance moral responsibility from any source outside your very own wallet or earnings, you have sold one part of your soul to satisfy another part.

That's my belief and it is based on my belief in a supreme being that gave me not only full control, but full responsibility of my individual soul. The argument can only be relative to those who are in agreement with that basic concept. If you don't believe in that, then it is pointless to argue the position from either side. It's equivalent to coming to agreement on how best to bake the cake when the participants all have as a starting point, completely different ingredients.

[Drivesme]

Been reading a little here today and although I am totally opposed to much of the right in foreign policy these days, simply because it is designed to achieve a goal that few who support it understand, know, or even want to know, I have to also say the left makes little progress in halting it because their death for the country is no better alternative. I say that because socialism will never, ever, under any circumstances, be able to support itself because as it grows, it destroys the ability to feed itself. It will never create the middle class it desires and it will never lessen the divide between the upper and lower classes.
One could say the same about the fascist agenda of the right.
In fact the fascist agenda favored by the right sets out to destroy the middle class and make the divide between the rich and poor as wide as it can.


The more important point though is that the very real concern of some to do good for others, and rightly so, is misplaced in tactics. You can never, ever, under any circumstances satisfy your moral obligations through another man's wallet. It must be done by earning what you get along with the ability to keep it yourself and then you personally applying a percentage of it to aid, based on your personal sense of responsibility. The moral obligation is further satisfied, by personal effort in spreading the truth about each mans personal responsibility as well as education of others in the best means to keep what you earn. The very second you speak for, or actually participate in, the effort to finance moral responsibility from any source outside your very own wallet or earnings, you have sold one part of your soul to satisfy another part.
The fascist do not allow for this at all.

That's my belief and it is based on my belief in a supreme being that gave me not only full control, but full responsibility of my individual soul. The argument can only be relative to those who are in agreement with that basic concept. If you don't believe in that, then it is pointless to argue the position from either side. It's equivalent to coming to agreement on how best to bake the cake when the participants all have as a starting point, completely different ingredients.
Thanks captain obvious.

[Notus Lotus]

Been reading a little here today and although I am totally opposed to much of the right in foreign policy these days, simply because it is designed to achieve a goal that few who support it understand, know, or even want to know, I have to also say the left makes little progress in halting it because their death for the country is no better alternative. I say that because socialism will never, ever, under any circumstances, be able to support itself because as it grows, it destroys the ability to feed itself. It will never create the middle class it desires and it will never lessen the divide between the upper and lower classes.

The more important point though is that the very real concern of some to do good for others, and rightly so, is misplaced in tactics. You can never, ever, under any circumstances satisfy your moral obligations through another man's wallet. It must be done by earning what you get along with the ability to keep it yourself and then you personally applying a percentage of it to aid, based on your personal sense of responsibility. The moral obligation is further satisfied, by personal effort in spreading the truth about each mans personal responsibility as well as education of others in the best means to keep what you earn. The very second you speak for, or actually participate in, the effort to finance moral responsibility from any source outside your very own wallet or earnings, you have sold one part of your soul to satisfy another part.

That's my belief and it is based on my belief in a supreme being that gave me not only full control, but full responsibility of my individual soul. The argument can only be relative to those who are in agreement with that basic concept. If you don't believe in that, then it is pointless to argue the position from either side. It's equivalent to coming to agreement on how best to bake the cake when the participants all have as a starting point, completely different ingredients.

Welcome to America, where people are allowed to have different "starting points". I'm not sure why you posted this on a discussion forum, unless it was to have people in agreement with you pat you on your back and say good job.

There's a reason we have welfare. It's because that moral responsibility you speak of was not cutting it when it came to feeding, clothing and caring for the less fortunate. Somebody had to step in and do something, here in this very rich country, to assure the survival of those having trouble surviving. If you don't believe you have a responsibility to your fellow citizens in the form of taxes, then you should move somewhere that people aren't made to feel guilty when they don't want to contribute to the aged, the ill, the children, the impoverished. Do you know of any places like that?

BTW, we could bake two different cakes, considering we each have different ingredients. Then we could share each other's cake, and both walk away with full bellies and enriched concepts of what exactly it takes to make a cake. I have a hunch you and Jim would balk at that suggestion, since your cake would be yours, all yours, and any attempts by me to share would be greeted with suspicion and hositlity.

[NuclearShadows]

That's my belief and it is based on my belief in a supreme being that gave me not only full control, but full responsibility of my individual soul. The argument can only be relative to those who are in agreement with that basic concept. If you don't believe in that, then it is pointless to argue the position from either side. It's equivalent to coming to agreement on how best to bake the cake when the participants all have as a starting point, completely different ingredients.

You seem to suggest that if one does not believe in a supreme being they cannot understand moral obligation or personal responsibility... Bunk...

[NuclearShadows]

how did a thread about Iran boats turn into talk about welfare and taxes?

[freewolf46]

Welcome to America, where people are allowed to have different "starting points". I'm not sure why you posted this on a discussion forum, unless it was to have people in agreement with you pat you on your back and say good job.

I posted it as an observation because reading through the thread I I see Jim butting heads with some others on solutions when not operating from the same starting point and observe how futile achievement has always been in such cases. He is basically coming from a starting point of personal responsibility while opponents are coming from a starting point of collective responsibility. No reasonable solutions are achieved when coming from two different starting points. You're trying to satisfy two very different animals.

There's a reason we have welfare. It's because that moral responsibility you speak of was not cutting it when it came to feeding, clothing and caring for the less fortunate.

And it does not with your solution either because your solution (besides being from a different starting point as far as moral authority goes), destroys the well from which you draw your water. The resources to sustain your solution dry up under the very system you create to address the problem.

Somebody had to step in and do something, here in this very rich country, to assure the survival of those having trouble surviving. If you don't believe you have a responsibility to your fellow citizens in the form of taxes, then you should move somewhere that people aren't made to feel guilty when they don't want to contribute to the aged, the ill, the children, the impoverished. Do you know of any places like that?

No thanks to the offer to move Notus. I was born in such a country and live under a constitution that guarantees me the right to decide what my responsibilities to neighbors are beyond protecting their right to do the same. I would suggest rather that you go somewhere where the collective responsibility is embedded in their governing documents where the fruits of your labor are confiscated for the collective good and you are still inspired to reach beyond your requirements. do you know any places like that? Nope, I won't be leaving anywhere.

BTW, we could bake two different cakes, considering we each have different ingredients. Then we could share each other's cake, and both walk away with full bellies and enriched concepts of what exactly it takes to make a cake. I have a hunch you and Jim would balk at that suggestion, since your cake would be yours, all yours, and any attempts by me to share would be greeted with suspicion and hositlity.

As far as baking two different cakes and sharing, I have no problem. The problem is that YOU want MY resources to bake yours. Form different organizations based on collective concern using the collective resources of the WILLING participants and enjoy your cake. Instead you want my resources, thus preventing me from baking my own cake and then with all the self righteousness of any thief who sees a better need for another's goods, you speak of sharing. How generous.

[freewolf46]

You seem to suggest that if one does not believe in a supreme being they cannot understand moral obligation or personal responsibility... Bunk...


I simply say that some derive their moral authority from a supreme being that demands personal responsibility while others may derive their moral authority from man's collective agreements. Without making an argument for or against either, I merely observe that the source and thus the approach to solutions of common problems must conflict. And they do. Simple observation.

[freewolf46]

how did a thread about Iran boats turn into talk about welfare and taxes?

Drivesme charged Jim's military retirement as being a form of living of the government teat. Jim tried to show the difference between his situation and living off the government teat. And it went from there.

[JIMV]

Jim, I enjoy arguing with you just for the sake of argument. I of course understand your case that you "earned" your pension, thus it's not welfare. Of course, Social Security is based on the wages of the earner. Yet widows and children who've never done anything to "earn" that SS money still qualify for those benefits should the "earner" kick the bucket. Why? Did they do anything to earn that money? Not by your standard, IMO.

earned through their spouses efforts and because the program was designed that way.

The welfare system was reformed because a handout is not the answer to poverty. But dammit, until the impoverished gain the skills and equipment to become self-sufficient, they still need to eat, they need a home, they need clothing, they need a roof over their heads. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life. Unfortunately, the man needs a pole, some bait, a license, and when the fish are all fished out, he'll need some peanut butter and crackers, a tent and some gas in his car to get to the next fishin' hole. That's where we luckier fishermen come in.

True, but the idea comes with an end date...no goodies forever. Despite the loud objections from the left, the programed reform worked. I do not know of anyone who begrudges a step up or help for those in need. I know of many who object to making that charity permanent and intergenerational.

It's easy for somebody who's getting a steady check to dismiss the poor as slackers or lazy, or stupid. It's small minded, but easy. It's morally reprehensible, IMO, to whine about having to do your part taxwise to care for the less fortunate.

It is morally reprehensible to insist our tax dollars go to programs that work or are effective! News to me.

The left do just as much to contribute to the poor as the right, tax wise, so save your "free money" crapola. Part of the price of your citizenship in this country is to pay your taxes, some of which go to the less fortunate. Your wailing over this fact makes me wonder why you hate your fellow Americans so. I'm humbled to be able to contribute to the least of my brothers, for as the Greeks said, the poor are the ambassadors of the gods.

Actually, not true. Study after study reveals that the left contributes far less to voluntary charity than does the right and left prides itself as being the party of the little guy, a fellow who does not pay a whole lot in taxes.

[JIMV]

A pithy comment with all the intelectual heft of a feather in a tornado...

[Notus Lotus]

how did a thread about Iran boats turn into talk about welfare and taxes?

It's the driving force behind everything Jim and Freewolf think...the abject fear that somebody is going to come take their gold away and use it to care for sick babies. Naturally then, all arguments turn into claims that the lefties are trying to rob them.

[Notus Lotus]

earned through their spouses efforts and because the program was designed that way.



True, but the idea comes with an end date...no goodies forever. Despite the loud objections from the left, the programed reform worked. I do not know of anyone who begrudges a step up or help for those in need. I know of many who object to making that charity permanent and intergenerational.



It is morally reprehensible to insist our tax dollars go to programs that work or are effective! News to me.



Actually, not true. Study after study reveals that the left contributes far less to voluntary charity than does the right and left prides itself as being the party of the little guy, a fellow who does not pay a whole lot in taxes.

In your fear of cutting loose with some charity, you miss that I (mostly)approve of the welfare reforms that took place. I say mostly because I believe we are seeing a side effect from the issue of mothers who would have remained home with thier children now having to go to work. This leaves junior high kids at home alone, since day care doesn't usually accept kids over the age of 7, and not all schools have after school programs to take up the slack. I think it may be the reason we're now seeing an increase in gang acitivity and juvenile delinquency. Just my opinion, but one shared by some of those in the field. And we're not speaking of only welfare here to "able-bodied" individuals here. We're speaking of medical assistance, foodstamps, health care, aid to the mentally and physically handicapped, the aged. If you don't begrudge a step up, what the heck is your grudge? Welfare benefits are not permanent, nor are they permanently intergenerational.

It is morally reprehensible for you to claim that the left wants to rob you, when we are asking that you pay your fair share of aiding those less fortunate. Period. When you come up with a better idea for caring for the least of your brothers, we should discuss it.

Study after study reveals that the average leftie pays just as much in taxes as the average rightie, which is what we're discussing. As for charitable contributions, I don't have my VA volunteerism included in any tax write off, thus it doesn't show up on any list of charitable donations. Neither does my monthly foot care for elderly people in my town who can't see/bend over to do their own, and can't afford to pay a podiatrist to trim their nails. And I cheerfully, gladly pay my fair share of taxes without whining about them on internet forums.

[Notus Lotus]

I simply say that some derive their moral authority from a supreme being that demands personal responsibility while others may derive their moral authority from man's collective agreements. Without making an argument for or against either, I merely observe that the source and thus the approach to solutions of common problems must conflict. And they do. Simple observation.

How do the solutions differ? I don't believe I've seen you or Jim offer any solutions.

[Notus Lotus]

As far as baking two different cakes and sharing, I have no problem. The problem is that YOU want MY resources to bake yours. Form different organizations based on collective concern using the collective resources of the WILLING participants and enjoy your cake. Instead you want my resources, thus preventing me from baking my own cake and then with all the self righteousness of any thief who sees a better need for another's goods, you speak of sharing. How generous.

You obviously DO have a problem sharing. And I arrive with my own cake ingredients, thank you, I don't need yours. If you can't spare the resources to help the less fortunate, then that makes you one of the less fortunate. I'll gladly share my resources with you. Yes, I'm generous that way.

Self righteousness? Thief? Harsh words against someone who has yet to see a solution offered by Jim or yourself.

Our country's people have decided through the democratic process (the same one the righties are claiming to be spreading throughout the middle east) that in order to care for our less fortunate citizens, we must pool our resources and collectively do what is morally right for them. You don't like it, you should go to that country where everybody keeps their own goodies and to hell with the indigent and the aged and the infirm, they can rot in the streets for all anyone cares. What was the name of that country that you'd like to hold up as a shining example of success?

[freewolf46]

It's the driving force behind everything Jim and Freewolf think...the abject fear that somebody is going to come take their gold away and use it to care for sick babies. Naturally then, all arguments turn into claims that the lefties are trying to rob them.

Making things up doesn't change reality. The thread took this direction with the question posed in post number 16, but that's ok. It's your credibility and your right to destroy it. Guess you played all your cards already and ran out of rebuttal or you just chose to take the personal attack position. Either way, you have now lost my interest in pursuing either subject with you. Later Notus, Have a good night.

[Notus Lotus]

Making things up doesn't change reality. The thread took this direction with the question posed in post number 16, but that's ok. It's your credibility and your right to destroy it. Guess you played all your cards already and ran out of rebuttal or you just chose to take the personal attack position. Either way, you have now lost my interest in pursuing either subject with you. Later Notus, Have a good night.


It ain't just this thread I'm talking about. For Jim it always comes down to somebody trying to steal his money. You appear to be a member of his club.
As for your having lost interest...in other words, you don't have any examples of this great society you envision, nor do you have any solutions to the problems of the less fortunate. All you have is one long whine, and zero credibility.

Good night to you sir.

[freewolf46]

I don't believe I've seen you or Jim offer any solutions.

Post 41 and 46.

It must be done by earning what you get along with the ability to keep it yourself and then you personally applying a percentage of it to aid, based on your personal sense of responsibility. The moral obligation is further satisfied, by personal effort in spreading the truth about each mans personal responsibility as well as education of others in the best means to keep what you earn.


Form different organizations based on collective concern using the collective resources of the WILLING participants

[JIMV]

It's the driving force behind everything Jim and Freewolf think...the abject fear that somebody is going to come take their gold away and use it to care for sick babies. Naturally then, all arguments turn into claims that the lefties are trying to rob them.

No, our fear is that greedy folk who are unwilling to use their own resources, think nothing of stealing from us for their own pleasure.

When the left uses their own money for their own whims, they will get some respect. Asong as the left believes it is my duty, not theirs, to provide for others, I will both fear and loathe them. They are theives wrapped in a false morality to justify their thefts.

[Erika]

I know of many who give to charities and religion because they believe it is the right thing to do. I have no problem with that until they tell me how it reduces their tax burdens.

Others I know refuse to write off the donations to make the donation a pure gift. You can guess which party most gives without expecting a write-off.
It came from my very informal and personal study.

I don't believe God has anything to do with good any more than the devil has anything to do with the bad. It's all personal choices.

I also believe if you have children you should expect to pay their costs in society rather than giving exemptions to families who have a large amount of children. Many pay no taxes because of their choice to have large families. Take Luna for example, or Thayn.

[freewolf46]

You obviously DO have a problem sharing. And I arrive with my own cake ingredients, thank you, I don't need yours.

So you don't need tax dollars for your solution? Other peoples resources? If you are proposing individual commitment or collective participation by individual choice, then we are in agreement. However if you are proposing to maintain the current trend of contributions by force through taxes, you do indeed need my ingredients as well others to satisfy your personal choice.

Our country's people have decided through the democratic process (the same one the righties are claiming to be spreading throughout the middle east) that in order to care for our less fortunate citizens, we must pool our resources and collectively do what is morally right for them. You don't like it, you should go to that country where everybody keeps their own goodies and to hell with the indigent and the aged and the infirm, they can rot in the streets for all anyone cares. What was the name of that country that you'd like to hold up as a shining example of success?

I don't agree with our foreign policy in the Middle East. I don't support Democracy here or Abroad. Our country was set up to keep democracy (the will of the majority) in check and to protect our citizens from such a failed form of government where the majority rules. We are a Republic that protects the individual from the majority.

The country to hold up as a shinning example? Pre-welfare United States of America.

[Notus Lotus]

I don't agree with our foreign policy in the Middle East. I don't support Democracy here or Abroad. Our country was set up to keep democracy (the will of the majority) in check and to protect our citizens from such a failed form of government where the majority rules. We are a Republic that protects the individual from the majority.

The country to hold up as a shinning example? Pre-welfare United States of America.

Ah yes, pre-welfare United States. Utopian days when men committed suicide rather than face the realization that they needed assistance from the state. Lazy hazy days when kids were expected to put in their 12 hours at the sweat shop. The good old days when widows gave their children to orphanages so they would have food to eat. Happy days. Good times.

Your solutions are not solutions. They are "should be's" and do not at all address "what ares". "Form different organizations..." we already do that. It doesn't nearly cover the needs. Our collective taxes cover the gaps.

[JIMV]

It is morally reprehensible for you to claim that the left wants to rob you, when we are asking that you pay your fair share of aiding those less fortunate. Period. When you come up with a better idea for caring for the least of your brothers, we should discuss it.

As long as the left gets to define that 'fair share' and cleverly manages to insure only folk with money pay that fair share while those who vote dem don't, I will rejecgt the concept.

Study after study reveals that the average leftie pays just as much in taxes as the average rightie, which is what we're discussing. As for charitable contributions, I don't have my VA volunteerism included in any tax write off, thus it doesn't show up on any list of charitable donations. Neither does my monthly foot care for elderly people in my town who can't see/bend over to do their own, and can't afford to pay a podiatrist to trim their nails. And I cheerfully, gladly pay my fair share of taxes without whining about them on internet forums.

not true...

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html

Who pays taxes:

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/95-4.gif

Note the numbers for income groups. Under $50,000 democrats dominate. As the top 10% pay most of the total taxes, your base must not pay 'their fair share' based on their numbers.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

Unless you are pretending that the base of the democrat party is paying more taxes than they are, way more, then their fair share is a joke. The only 'fair share' they are associated with is their share of the benefits others pay for.

Of course, none of this is proof, to Drivesme, because, well the PEW trust is only a noted leftist organization and cannot be trusted.:D

[JIMV]

Ah yes, pre-welfare United States. Utopian days when men committed suicide rather than face the realization that they needed assistance from the state. Lazy hazy days when kids were expected to put in their 12 hours at the sweat shop. The good old days when widows gave their children to orphanages so they would have food to eat. Happy days. Good times.

Your solutions are not solutions. They are "should be's" and do not at all address "what ares". "Form different organizations..." we already do that. It doesn't nearly cover the needs. Our collective taxes cover the gaps.

But also days that made the country the great country it is today where the left gets to ride on the backs of the right.:rolleyes:

[Notus Lotus]

No, our fear is that greedy folk who are unwilling to use their own resources, think nothing of stealing from us for their own pleasure.

When the left uses their own money for their own whims, they will get some respect. Asong as the left believes it is my duty, not theirs, to provide for others, I will both fear and loathe them. They are theives wrapped in a false morality to justify their thefts.

Which part of "I pay taxes just like you" do you disagree with? I believe I have as much duty as you do to provide for the needs of the less fortunate. We decided as a nation that the more fortunate should help the less fortunate. Some of us understand that responsibility. Some wish to shirk it.

The need to have a nourished, educated, safe citizenry is not a whim.

[Notus Lotus]

But also days that made the country the great country it is today where the left gets to ride on the backs of the right.:rolleyes:
Yes, thank you Mr. Roosevelt for helping us out of that terrible time.

[JIMV]

Yes, thank you Mr. Roosevelt for helping us out of that terrible time.

I assume you mean Teddy:D

[Notus Lotus]

As long as the left gets to define that 'fair share' and cleverly manages to insure only folk with money pay that fair share while those who vote dem don't, I will rejecgt the concept.



not true...



http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html

Who pays taxes:

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/95-4.gif

Note the numbers for income groups. Under $50,000 democrats dominate. As the top 10% pay most of the total taxes, your base must not pay 'their fair share' based on their numbers.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

Unless you are pretending that the base of the democrat party is paying more taxes than they are, way more, then their fair share is a joke.

Of course, none of this is proof, to Drivesme, because, well the PEW trust is only a noted leftist organization and cannot be trusted.:D

We give what we have to give without bitching about it. That's what I mean by fair share. You have lots more than me, you can afford to make your fair share larger than mine. We vote for the people who will ensure the best life for the citizens of our country. I don't take any of your taxes for my own enjoyment. I am fully employed, fully insured and totally cognizant that a twist of fate could change any and all of that. Are you?

[Notus Lotus]

I know of many who give to charities and religion because they believe it is the right thing to do. I have no problem with that until they tell me how it reduces their tax burdens.

Others I know refuse to write off the donations to make the donation a pure gift. You can guess which party most gives without expecting a write-off.
It came from my very informal and personal study.

I don't believe God has anything to do with good any more than the devil has anything to do with the bad. It's all personal choices.

I also believe if you have children you should expect to pay their costs in society rather than giving exemptions to families who have a large amount of children. Many pay no taxes because of their choice to have large families. Take Luna for example, or Thayn.

Good points, all.

[Erika]

programs of the government? The "government" is taking our money and spreading it out to faith based organizations and religious philosophies such as abstinance. Why aren't many stating government shouldn't be taking taxes from its citizens to give to private religious organizations and programs?

Where's the outrage? Why are church properties tax exempt? Our fire and police protect them. Why should the churches not pay their fair share?

Now back to the little Iranian speed boats threatening our naval ships.

[Erika]

After all, he believes giving should be a voluntary option by citizens. Maybe he will give us his email address where he will join us in denouncing the usurption of our taxes for faith based charities. Or maybe we'll wake up tomorrow and see there are no lava rocks at the Craters of the Moon.

[Old Round Guy]

Sucking off the Govt. teat, but no one else had better get the help they need, right?

Nice.:(


Drivesme, I find this post and several of your subsequent posts demeaning and highly offensive.

This post was also the start of an exchange between you and jimv that hijacked my thread so far off topic I don't recognize it any more.

I sent an IM to Moderator asking to have any of my posts on this thread deleted, indeed, maybe to delete the entire thread. It does appear though, that moderation on the board has apparently slacked off considerably.

This, of course, is not the only thread the two of you have hijacked by your nonsensical exchanges. Between the two of you the board is hardly worth reading any more.

To emulate Freewolf's response elsewhere, since neither of the two of you can act like adults, I will ask that neither of you respond in any manner to any thread I originate.

Old Round Guy / USN Ret.

[Drivesme]

Drivesme charged Jim's military retirement as being a form of living of the government teat. Jim tried to show the difference between his situation and living off the government teat. And it went from there.

Well not quite, jimmy made the same claim he always makes, and the one you are also making but with more words.

I merely pointed out that he makes his living off the Govt. and will continue to do so.
Nothing more, I did not say that was bad, he thought that on his own.
Since this is the right favorite topic, it went from there.

[Drivesme]

Drivesme, I find this post and several of your subsequent posts demeaning and highly offensive.
If you think that ORG I am sorry, if you read my comments you will see that I made no reference what so ever to anything being good, or bad they are merely statements of fact.
If you find the facts 'demeaning and highly offensive' there is little I can do about that.

I was pushing jimmys buttons, because I knew he would take it the same way apparently, you did, I figured most everyone could see that, I was wrong.
You have known me long enough to know that I think highly of every single person that has served in the military.

This post was also the start of an exchange between you and jimv that hijacked my thread so far off topic I don't recognize it any more.
That is bound to happen with every thread.

I sent an IM to Moderator asking to have any of my posts on this thread deleted, indeed, maybe to delete the entire thread. It does appear though, that moderation on the board has apparently slacked off considerably.
This, of course, is not the only thread the two of you have hijacked by your nonsensical exchanges. Between the two of you the board is hardly worth reading any more.

To emulate Freewolf's response elsewhere, since neither of the two of you can act like adults, I will ask that neither of you respond in any manner to any thread I originate.

Old Round Guy / USN Ret.

I have to ask just when did you buy this forum?
I have always liked you ORG but you have always taken this far too seriously.
This is the internet, you do not own any part of it.
If you don't like what I post, you are more than free to not read it.

[Drivesme]

No, our fear is that greedy folk who are unwilling to use their own resources, think nothing of stealing from us for their own pleasure.

When the left uses their own money for their own whims, they will get some respect. Asong as the left believes it is my duty, not theirs, to provide for others, I will both fear and loathe them. They are theives wrapped in a false morality to justify their thefts.
You just proved Lotus's point jimmy.

[Drivesme]

As long as the left gets to define that 'fair share' and cleverly manages to insure only folk with money pay that fair share while those who vote dem don't, I will rejecgt the concept.



not true...



http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html

Who pays taxes:

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/95-4.gif

Note the numbers for income groups. Under $50,000 democrats dominate. As the top 10% pay most of the total taxes, your base must not pay 'their fair share' based on their numbers.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

Unless you are pretending that the base of the democrat party is paying more taxes than they are, way more, then their fair share is a joke. The only 'fair share' they are associated with is their share of the benefits others pay for.

Of course, none of this is proof, to Drivesme, because, well the PEW trust is only a noted leftist organization and cannot be trusted.:D
What it is jimmy is proof of nothing other than our tax system.

You keep harping on this 'fair share' thing yet you can not show where anyone other than you and the other righties are saying it.

You keep whining that the top 10% pay all the taxes, but you can't explain why you think that is bad.

You also made the claim that "dems don't pay taxes' yet on your little chart here, very first line by the way, shows they pay MORE in taxes.

But as I said this is proof of nothing, again you are proving the sky is blue.
You bring up something that no one questions, then prove it, then pat yourself on the back for doing it.

[Drivesme]

Which part of "I pay taxes just like you" do you disagree with? I believe I have as much duty as you do to provide for the needs of the less fortunate. We decided as a nation that the more fortunate should help the less fortunate. Some of us understand that responsibility. Some wish to shirk it.

The need to have a nourished, educated, safe citizenry is not a whim.

If you do not agree with jimmy, you are lazy, have no job, you're on welfare, and always have been on welfare, pay no taxes, and your vote has been bought and paid for.

[Old Round Guy]

[QUOTE=Drivesme;29953]If you think that ORG I am sorry, if you read my comments you will see that I made no reference what so ever to anything being good, or bad they are merely statements of fact.
If you find the facts 'demeaning and highly offensive' there is little I can do about that.

I was pushing jimmys buttons, because I knew he would take it the same way apparently, you did, I figured most everyone could see that, I was wrong.
You have known me long enough to know that I think highly of every single person that has served in the military.

Well Drivesme, you could have fooled me by the post I cited and several that followed. Personally, it sounded to me like you're another of the draft-dodgers who don't give a damn about much at all.


That is bound to happen with every thread.


NO Drivesme, it isn't bound to happen with every thead unless people like YOU AND JIMV make it happen.



I have to ask just when did you buy this forum?
I have always liked you ORG but you have always taken this far too seriously.
This is the internet, you do not own any part of it.
If you don't like what I post, you are more than free to not read it.


You're right drivesme, I don't own the forum or any part of the internet.

Maybe I do take some things too seriously, but on a forum such as this I like to be able to read through it with having to wade through a bunch of crap like you and jimv .

I will excercise the same option that I took right at the beginning of the last forum when all this crap started happening between you, jimv and alias, I shall simply leave the forum. I will miss the forum and I will miss the people here, except for you and jimv.

[JIMV]

Been a lot posted by our rapacious left on a few threads about everyones necessity to pay a 'fair share'. Found this by a great economist on the subject:

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, fir it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law---which may be an isolated case---is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply and develope into a system."

Frederic Bastiat, The Law. a classic blueprint for a just society.

What we need to have a real discussion so for smeone to define this bromide. To the left, what is a 'fair share'? Do folk less well off have any responsibility themselves for their own welfare or the welfare of others, or is the 'fair share' only applicable to folk who pay most of the taxes?

A poster on another forum defied it this way:

fair, adj., a quality arising from the wishes of the envious

[JIMV]

If you do not agree with jimmy, you are lazy, have no job, you're on welfare, and always have been on welfare, pay no taxes, and your vote has been bought and paid for.

On the contrary, I know nothing of your personal condition. You are only wrong on the issue.

It is possible for you to be wrong.

[Notus Lotus]

Been a lot posted by our rapacious left on a few threads about everyones necessity to pay a 'fair share'. Found this by a great economist on the subject:



Frederic Bastiat, The Law. a classic blueprint for a just society.

What we need to have a real discussion so for smeone to define this bromide. To the left, what is a 'fair share'? Do folk less well off have any responsibility themselves for their own welfare or the welfare of others, or is the 'fair share' only applicable to folk who pay most of the taxes?

A poster on another forum defied it this way:

Bastiat...another fine example of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps. After inheriting the family estate and businesses.

A poster on another forum described it this way: It's easy for a wealthy man to tell the poor how good they've got it.

I think a fair share is a percentage based on what you have, over and above what you need. But because what you "need" is so subjective, we have income tax based on earnings. Out of those taxes comes the money to construct/repair our infrastructure, provide education for our citizens, care for the poor, the infirm, the aged, the veterans,etc. "Need" is not so subjective that we cannot agree at least to ensure that the least of our brothers have a chance at food, shelter and education.
Folks less well off do not have any less responsibility for their own welfare or the welfare of others. The amount they can afford to contribute will be necessarily less than someone who has more than enough. But is it fair? Of course it is. A poor man cannot give what he doesn't have.

I am thrilled to be able to pay my own way. I don't envy anyone a palatial estate, a Bentley, a private jet, a summer home. I think that's lovely if that's where you derive your satisfaction. But why do these sort so often pay attorneys to wriggle through every conceivable tax loophole in order to end up paying little or no taxes? Seems really sleazy to me.

[Drivesme]

Been a lot posted by our rapacious left on a few threads about everyones necessity to pay a 'fair share'. Found this by a great economist on the subject:
Are you now saying that not everyone should pay their 'fair share'??





What we need to have a real discussion so for smeone to define this bromide.
To the left, what is a 'fair share'? Do folk less well off have any responsibility themselves for their own welfare or the welfare of others, or is the 'fair share' only applicable to folk who pay most of the taxes?

A poster on another forum defied it this way:
Jimmy, you are operating on the assumption that all taxes go to welfare, they don't.
You are also operating on the assumption that taxes, once paid, are gone, you have even used the term 'rat hole' and I also believe 'black hole'.
This is also not true.
In oder for this discussion to move forward you will have to cut the GOP crap, (the left, goodies, buying votes, etc, etc.) and discuss things like a rational adult.

Do you agree??

[JIMV]

Bastiat...another fine example of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps. After inheriting the family estate and businesses.

A poster on another forum described it this way: It's easy for a wealthy man to tell the poor how good they've got it.

I think a fair share is a percentage based on what you have, over and above what you need. But because what you "need" is so subjective, we have income tax based on earnings.

Well put. It is the subjectivity that is the issue. It is like that old line about two wolves and a lamb getting together to discuss lunch. That is how the system works. We have folk on the getting end deciding what the fair share is of those doing the paying.

It is neither fair nor good economics.

Out of those taxes comes the money to construct/repair our infrastructure, provide education for our citizens, care for the poor, the infirm, the aged, the veterans,etc. "Need" is not so subjective that we cannot agree at least to ensure that the least of our brothers have a chance at food, shelter and education.

I also have little problem with this except in its application. Need keeps getting defined up while that 'fair share' keeps growing. Eventually you reach a point when it becomes impossible to stop that upward creep and the economy takes a giant and permanant hit.

Folks less well off do not have any less responsibility for their own welfare or the welfare of others. The amount they can afford to contribute will be necessarily less than someone who has more than enough. But is it fair? Of course it is. A poor man cannot give what he doesn't have.

So he gets to have the deciding say in how much someone else contributes?

I am thrilled to be able to pay my own way. I don't envy anyone a palatial estate, a Bentley, a private jet, a summer home. I think that's lovely if that's where you derive your satisfaction. But why do these sort so often pay attorneys to wriggle through every conceivable tax loophole in order to end up paying little or no taxes? Seems really sleazy to me.

That is how the rich deal with beng politically outnumbered. As Alexander Tyler noted (cite in question)

From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.

Those corporate lawyers are the current defense against this observation. Is it more sleazy for the rich to use their lawyers to pretect their money than it is for the poor to use their politicians to get it?