Let's Have The Poor Pay For Bush's Spending

[No Limit]

What point? I am not going to address it if the point is perpetuated by a biased perspective who misrepresents and disregards facts at every turn.

Address mine:

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

Disregards facts at every turn? I just showed you how all the welfare we 'give out' costs about the same as the war in Iraq; you failed to address that and instead said I didn't know what I was talking about even though my reasoning is pretty simple.

Now, I start to talk about how instead of forcing the poor to pay for Bush's spending Bush can simply raise taxes slightly on the rich. Your reply to that? That rich paid more under Clinton. Do you see how that is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the thread?

So again, let me put this as simply as I can:

This thread is about Bush taking from the poor to pay for his spending. It has nothing to do with who paid what in taxes 10 years ago. I pointed out the tax cut for the rich to show that Bush is taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich and you are yet to address this.

Also, if you reply to this post by saying something along the lines of the rich paying less in Clinton's years I will honestly put a bullet in my head.

 

[burner69]

I think what RZAL is trying to say is:

"Give a man a fish and he will not be hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will never be hungy."

Something along the lines of that, I forget the quote exactly.

Shame there's gonna be education cuts too really. And in practise, if everyone could fish, many people would have the training, but there'd be no fish to catch coz other people had caught them.

If everyone got a degree there wouldn't be enough jobs to go round. There will always be a group of people less well off than the rest of us-and we need to look after them. If you don't think we should, well, I don't think I'll waste anymore time with you.

 

[No Limit]

I think what RZAL is trying to say is:

"Give a man a fish and he will not be hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will never be hungy."

Something along the lines of that, I forget the quote exactly.

But what Republicans are doing is this:

"Take a man's fish and when he complains about being hungry feed him a bunch of crap about personal responsibility".

 

[No Limit]

I'm not saying aid doesn’t have its place, but it should be designed to cure the problem instead of propagating it. You know “cause and effect”, fix the problem instead of covering it with a band-aid.

It looks like your friend is climbing his way out, I wish him all the luck in the world.
Here is a short story about me…. Several years back I went through a period of unemployment. The only jobs available were a minimum wage or a hair over. When all else failed I accepted a job making $6.50 hour, $13520.00 gross annual income, after taxes left approx $11222.00. Out of $11222.00, I paid $6600.00 in child support, $4200.00 rent, which left around $422.00 a year for everything else. Not enough money to live on. Game plan….Took a second job at minimum wage and enrolled as a full time student at the local college. For several years, and I do mean several years I worked two jobs to put myself through college. I had no fun time, no days off, no electricity or warm baths, sometimes days without food (I found a convenient store that sold two hot dogs for a dollar $7.00 week) After all was said and done, I still had it easier than my parents did. Life is not fare and its not easy, every days a struggle. If people want a better life they can achieve it, it feels good to overcome oppression, it feels good to be self sufficient, I have been down that road, tell your friend to hang in there.



The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

Trust me, I have also been down that road; most of us have. Life simply likes to throw its challanges at you. However, I am one that believes that a government can help those people facing those challanges instead of ingoring them espeically since most of these people are good, hard working human beings and helping them will cost about what we are paying to be in Iraq. In your situation it sounds like you should have gotten some help; at least in food stamps. If you didn't want to that is your choice; my parents wanted to to make sure I wasn't hungry and I don't think any less of them for it.

 

[Bodacious]

Do you understand that social security and taxes are different? You take a certain amount from your pay check and pay it in to social security. This is why social security is currently paying out all the benefits without getting in to the reserves. No tax dollars pay for this yet. Are you still with me chief?

You take a certain amount from you pay check and give it to the government (fed w/h). This money goes to pay for the government's expenses, which is welfare and medicare. This is why welfare is being paid for.

No tax dollars pay for this yet.

Do you need me to define what a tax is?

The SS administration even calls it a tax, why can't you?

Social Security payroll taxes are collected under authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The payroll taxes are sometimes even called "FICA taxes."

Please, argue that the SS administration is wrong, pretty please?

 

[Bodacious]

Because he's cutting taxes from the rich, resulting in less money going to the government, then filling in the void with money taken from areas needed by the poor.

But we know this is wrong, Because the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues. Again, Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

Keep going on about how the rich pay more taxes, blah, blah, etc wonder why they pay more? Hmm, perhaps because they're making a f**king s*** load of money more than everyone else, of course all this money is made through legitimate means, and involves no third world cheap labour, environmental risk, employee safety corner cutting etc etc.

And where have I argued that the rich should pay less?

Sometimes, some people make me sick with their arguments, defending a capitilist, pro-rich system, that screws over large numbers of poorer people.

Unbelieveable

Forgive me for trying to show you a differnent path besides blindly following liberal propaganda.

 

[Bodacious]

Disregards facts at every turn? I just showed you how all the welfare we 'give out' costs about the same as the war in Iraq; you failed to address that and instead said I didn't know what I was talking about even though my reasoning is pretty simple.

No you didn't. You tried to argue that SS witholding wasn't a tax the government paid out. Which is disregarding facts and twisting them as well.

Now, I start to talk about how instead of forcing the poor to pay for Bush's spending Bush can simply raise taxes slightly on the rich. Your reply to that? That rich paid more under Clinton.

Where did I say the rich paid more under clinton? If did I was wrong. The rich paid less under clinton. That is what all those links I have provided prove.

Do you see how that is completely off topic and has nothing to do with the thread?

And do you see what little weight your argument has when the basis for it is nothing but hatred for Bush?

As I said, your argument is worthless because you don't have an objective point of view. Because of that, why am I supposed to believe anything else you say? You have no credibility.

Also, if you reply to this post by saying something along the lines of the rich paying less in Clinton's years I will honestly put a bullet in my head.

:naughty:

 

[No Limit]

You take a certain amount from you pay check and give it to the government (fed w/h). This money goes to pay for the government's expenses, which is welfare and medicare. This is why welfare is being paid for.

Yes, and I didn't take out welfare of medicare/medicaid from the total.

Do you need me to define what a tax is?

The SS administration even calls it a tax, why can't you?

I won't get in to this as you are trying to move the topic into a completely different direction. Do you know how social security works. Call it whatever you want, the social security you pay on your check goes to pay for social security; federal taxes have nothing to do with it. Social security revenues (the money taken from your check each pay period) pays only for social security. Federal income taxes don't touch social security.

The bottom line, social security and income taxes are 2 completely different things; are you not aware of this?

 

[No Limit]

But we know this is wrong, Because the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues. Again, Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

You are spinning this again. Bottom line is if Bush increases taxes 5% our revenue increases 5%. That is why I brought up taxes; it has nothing to do with who paid what and when.

No you didn't. You tried to argue that SS witholding wasn't a tax the government paid out. Which is disregarding facts and twisting them as well.

Read my latest response to this; if you still don't get it you are ignoring me or you simply can't comprehend this simple system.

I pay $100 in social security and then I pay another $100 in federal income tax. That $100 goes in to social security only and that 100 in federal taxes goes in to everything else except social security. Do you not understand this?

 

[clarky003]

the Bush administration may just decide to fob people off until they secure their lucritive (no middle man) supply of oil from the middle east, thats where their hoping to pick their money up from in the future to stabalise the present military debts, Its pretty obvious.. until they start working that, it would be wise to expect that you'll get the wash over treatment, that kinda makes it look like your getting care and attention, but there just stalling till they start raping the Iraq / Iran oil fields in more direct control of the flow of world energy resources.

 

[Bodacious]

Yes, and I didn't take out welfare of medicare/medicaid from the total.

And you shouldn't have, SS is a government expenditure.

The CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE says it is an expenditure, and I am supposed to take your word for it that it isn't?

 

[No Limit]

And you shouldn't have, SS is a government expenditure.

The CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE says it is an expenditure, and I am supposed to take your word for it that it isn't?

Social security (what I exluded) is not the same as welfare or medicare (what I included). How do you not understand this?

 

[burner69]

But we know this is wrong, Because the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues. Again, Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

And where have I argued that the rich should pay less?

Forgive me for trying to show you a differnent path besides blindly following liberal propaganda.

What the hell kind of a link is that? I don't have time to trawl through almost 15 pages of figures. Kindly summarize your point, using data from your link if you wish. Alternatively, explain how cutting taxes from the rich will give the government more money. It's almost as rediculous as the "UK should legalise guns to reduce gun crime" argument I've heard on these forums before.

Where have you argued the rich should pay less? Nowhere. Where have you argued they shouldn't pay more...

The fact that they got a tax cut doesn't matter at all, and is just a liberal scare tactic to think Bush is treating the poor unfairly.

It dosen't matter

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic? After all, I have proven to you that the rich paid more in taxes than the poor.

They paid more... which says to me, you believe they shouldn't have to suffer the inconvienience of more taxation - and therefore you don't mind that the poor are filling the void these tax cuts have created. Or do you have another explaination why the poor are having their services chopped?

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

Why keep on bringing up the idea of scare tactics and avoiding the issue that the poor in the US are having to sacrifice much needed services to fill the gap these cuts have given.

 

[Bodacious]

Social security (what I exluded) is not the same as welfare or medicare (what I included). How do you not understand this?

CBO Considers SS to be an expenditure. Why should I take your word over theirs?

 

[Bodacious]

What the hell kind of a link is that? I don't have time to trawl through almost 15 pages of figures. Kindly summarize your point, using data from your link if you wish. Alternatively, explain how cutting taxes from the rich will give the government more money. It's almost as rediculous as the "UK should legalise guns to reduce gun crime" argument I've heard on these forums before.

Ok, do you know what a table is? Not the kind you rest your bong on, but the kind that displays information?

Look at the title of the table, table 3 specificaly, the one I linked to.

Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2004

Look at the income tax column.

From the table:

2003 793.7
2004 809.0

809 is bigger than 793.7, correct?

I don't have to argue how cutting taxes raised revenue because, hey, guess what! Revenues are up!

They paid more... which says to me, you believe they shouldn't have to suffer the inconvienience of more taxation - and therefore you don't mind that the poor are filling the void these tax cuts have created.

The void doesn't exist.

Why keep on bringing up the idea of scare tactics and avoiding the issue that the poor in the US are having to sacrifice much needed services to fill the gap these cuts have given.

Give me a source of this "gap." Your gap that the poor have had to fill because of the Rich tax cut doesn't exist. No, I am not trying to argue there is no gap between the rich and poor. What I am saying is, the gap hasn't changed.

 

[No Limit]

It is an expenditure but social 'security insurace' is considered revenue meaning they are getting more from social security than they are spending which is why I didn't include it in your total. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

[Bodacious]

It is an expenditure but social 'security insurace' is considered revenue meaning they are getting more from social security than they are spending which is why I didn't include it in your total. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

That makes no sense. It is an expenditure. It is revenue (that they receieve from the taxpayers is what I am assuming you mean here). They are getting more from SS than they are spending. You aren't including that into my total because of those facts. ???

Whatever way you want to twist it this time, The SS admin considers SS witholding a tax, the CBO considers SS payments as an expenditure. The government spends taxpayer dollars no matter where they came from. The gov spends a lot more on the people than they do for war.

 

[No Limit]

That makes no sense. It is an expenditure. It is revenue (that they receieve from the taxpayers is what I am assuming you mean here). They are getting more from SS than they are spending. You aren't including that into my total because of those facts. ???

Whatever way you want to twist it this time, The SS admin considers SS witholding a tax, the CBO considers SS payments as an expenditure. The government spends taxpayer dollars no matter where they came from. The gov spends a lot more on the people than they do for war.

OK, listen, if you want to have a mature debate I am cool with that; if you leave this thread saying I misrepresent facts I will never debate with you again. Look at the CBO report. In there they have social security as revenue; this is NOT taxes. That revenue is around $700 billion. In the expenses they have social security at $400 some billion. That means they are making around $300 billion from social security not losing $400 as you tried to say. This is why I left it out. Do you still not understand this?

 

[Bodacious]

Look at the CBO report. In there they have social security as revenue; this is NOT taxes.

Income tax is considered a revenue.

Look, here are all the revenues collected by taxes as stated by the CBO.

not losing $400 as you tried to say. This is why I left it out. Do you still not understand this?

Where have I argued anywhere in this thread the SS is losing money?

You said the gov spends less on it's people than it does for the war in Iraq. I provided proof that the gov spends 1 trillion more on the people than they do on the war in Iraq and you come up with crap that SS and disability payements don't count.

Again, why should I take your word over the CBO's?

 

[burner69]

Ok, do you know what a table is? Not the kind you rest your bong on, but the kind that displays information?

Oh? There's more than one kind of table? I thought there was just the one I rest my bong and f**k your mother on.
Debate like a pr*ck and I'll act like a pr*ck. If you want to discuss my drug use I'll be happy to open a thread where we can discuss the pros and cons of cannabis use, but seeing as each time we do that prohibitionists like yourself resort to BS attempts at debating, and simply opt for repeating second hand drug horror stories and insulting pro-drugs people, I won't bother.

Look at the title of the table, table 3 specificaly, the one I linked to.

Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2004

Look at the income tax column.

From the table:

2003 793.7
2004 809.0

809 is bigger than 793.7, correct?

Yes

I don't have to argue how cutting taxes raised revenue because, hey, guess what! Revenues are up!

Incorrect. There are many ways that revenue can go up without adjustment to taxes. If you can't find a reason behind one figure affecting another then there is no evidence that in amongst the masses of possible causes for a figure to change, that other figure caused the effect.

The void doesn't exist.

Give me a source of this "gap." Your gap that the poor have had to fill because of the Rich tax cut doesn't exist. No, I am not trying to argue there is no gap between the rich and poor. What I am saying is, the gap hasn't changed.

Right... the rich pay taxes, as do the poor. As you mentioned earlier the rich pay a lot of taxes. Let's say, for arguments sake, that the rich pay $100 a year in taxes (just for this example - of course) now, if Bush let's them off 5% they are now only paying $95 in taxes. Yet... America needs this money to fund important things, like food stamps etc. Because Bush can't magic money up, he has to cut food stamps, as shown in the first post, and therefore the poor, are paying for the riche's tax cuts.

See?

 

[RZAL]

Trust me, I have also been down that road; most of us have. Life simply likes to throw its challanges at you. However, I am one that believes that a government can help those people facing those challanges instead of ingoring them espeically since most of these people are good, hard working human beings and helping them will cost about what we are paying to be in Iraq. In your situation it sounds like you should have gotten some help; at least in food stamps. If you didn't want to that is your choice; my parents wanted to to make sure I wasn't hungry and I don't think any less of them for it.

No, I didn’t collect food stamps, They said I didn't qualify because I was an abled bodied person with a good work history. As for school, I went back full time and kept my grades up, which allowed me to get scholarships. I don’t have a problem with helping people who need help. In my opinion this should be a state issue and not a federal issue. See next posting…..







The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[RZAL]

I think what RZAL is trying to say is:

"Give a man a fish and he will not be hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will never be hungy."

Something along the lines of that, I forget the quote exactly.

Exactly, good secondary point. Primary point being, give them an inch and they will take a mile. It all goes back to, if you’re going to live under my roof, you have to follow my rules.

But what Republicans are doing is this:

"Take a man's fish and when he complains about being hungry feed him a bunch of crap about personal responsibility".

Why is it most people feel the government’s only job is to support the poor, or for that matter pacify its people? So what, now the government’s primary responsibility is to be a charitable organization/ tax collector? What happen to the purpose of government is to maintain a safe, well-regulated and stable society?

The way it is now the federal government has its greedy little claws sunk into every aspect of our lives, do we really want to hand over more authority and jurisdiction? And what of the state government, can they no longer govern their people? If not, then I ask you why not abolish it? For that matter lets abolish city and county government as well. How many authorities do we need watching over us, the Fed Govt. needs their tax money just like the state, and local govt. needs theirs. How many masters do we need and how many tax collectors must we pay? For what, for someone else to take responsibility for what we should have done in the first place. I think not its absurd…. simplicity, simplicity, simplicity…Emerson.





THE ORIGINAL DEMOCRATES WARNED US

“We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.

lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.

2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house the power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try. We hope gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what matters it who accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine, this plebian house will have little power, and that little be rightly shaped by our house of gentlemen, who will have a very extensive influence-from their being chosen out of the genteeler class ... It is true, every third senatorial seat is to be vacated duennually, but two-thirds of this influential body will remain in office, and be ready to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way, the young members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of our brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their persons to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have framed a privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who trusted them. But we have given out, that this clause was provided, only that the members might be able without interruption, to deliberate on the important business of their country.

We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts-in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."

Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.”
MONTEZUMA Antifederalist No. 9 October 17, 1787



The Patriot “ Freedom is not Free”

 

[No Limit]

Why is it most people feel the government’s only job is to support the poor, or for that matter pacify its people? So what, now the government’s primary responsibility is to be a charitable organization/ tax collector? What happen to the purpose of government is to maintain a safe, well-regulated and stable society?

It is not its only job, it is one of its jobs. By helping these people you are maintaining a safe, well-regulated and stable society. Think about it, who commits crimes? It's not the rich people for the most part. The worse off people are financially the more desperate they will get and the more crime they will commit. If you don't give them something they will take it from you; this would happen to every person if they were put in that situation.

THE ORIGINAL DEMOCRATES WARNED US

You have to keep in mind that the entire concept you posted was before government changed. Before the great depression everything was left up to the community, the federal government provided almost nothing; just security. At this time the government was also only collecting taxes in the form of terrifs; there was no income tax. When the civil war came around we saw the first temporary income tax which was repealed after the civil war and later started again during WWI. After WWI we made more money than we would ever have in terrifs and then I believe they went back to terrifs. Remember, at this time the government had almost no role in anything. However, in the 30s we got the great depression and all this changed. It was now the government's job to protect people from poverty. Thanks to FDR and his social policies (these policies were thanks to the democrats) people were kept alive during this time. When WWII came around we were out of the depression but government had been changed forever and it was changed for the better.

My point for giving that story is that it is indeed the government's job to protect its people from poverty, it has been since the great depression. Thanks to this we don't have health problems like countries in the 3rd world do. And all this doesn't cost us much; a mere 30% of our pay checks. For that we get roads, schools, and so much more. However, part of that money needs to go to help people a lot less fortunate than we are as it did during the Great Depression. Don't you think there were rich business owners in the 30s complaining about all their tax money going to help those poor filthy people on the streets? Obviously it was the right thing to do.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Quit the dramatics... Nothing is being taken from anyone. They're being given less.

Personally I'm sick of welfare and social programs... Good to see them knocked down a bit... GET A JOB!

 

[RZAL]

It is not its only job, it is one of its jobs. By helping these people you are maintaining a safe, well-regulated and stable society. Think about it, who commits crimes? It's not the rich people for the most part. The worse off people are financially the more desperate they will get and the more crime they will commit. If you don't give them something they will take it from you; this would happen to every person if they were put in that situation.

The state cannot provide this service?

You have to keep in mind that the entire concept you posted was before government changed. Before the great depression everything was left up to the community, the federal government provided almost nothing; just security. At this time the government was also only collecting taxes in the form of terrifs; there was no income tax. When the civil war came around we saw the first temporary income tax which was repealed after the civil war and later started again during WWI. After WWI we made more money than we would ever have in terrifs and then I believe they went back to terrifs. Remember, at this time the government had almost no role in anything. However, in the 30s we got the great depression and all this changed. It was now the government's job to protect people from poverty. Thanks to FDR and his social policies (these policies were thanks to the democrats) people were kept alive during this time. When WWII came around we were out of the depression but government had been changed forever and it was changed for the better.

My point for giving that story is that it is indeed the government's job to protect its people from poverty, it has been since the great depression. Thanks to this we don't have health problems like countries in the 3rd world do. And all this doesn't cost us much; a mere 30% of our pay checks. For that we get roads, schools, and so much more. However, part of that money needs to go to help people a lot less fortunate than we are.

The federal government provided almost nothing because that was the original plan, what I posted was a warning demonstrating the dangers in having a strong federal gov. They saw it coming and tried to warn the people. The civil war came around because the people finally realized the states had lost their sovereignties. Their was a good reason why the federal government had almost no role in anything. Lets see the Great Depression, didn’t it have something to do with the rich running the country into the ground? FDR social policies solved America’s problems at that time, after we recovered we went along our merry capitalistic way. It’s only a matter of time before a similar event occurs again. Most people dismiss Marx’s theory about the poor rising up against the rich as nonsense, how ever as you pointed out “If you don't give them something they will take it from you”. Sounds like govt. intervention, or if you will an insurance plan. Perhapes he wasn’t too far from the truth, instead of fixing the problem the govt. simply put a band aid on it, after all who would bite the hand that feeds them?

I may be wrong but the last time I checked America had the highest Infant immortality rate of all the modern countries. 30% of our paychecks to take care of something the State should be taking care of, federal law allows up to 60% of your income to be garnishes or collected and guess what they make the rules.

I’m trying to get you to think outside of the box, not that your view is wrong or anything. Just unplug from the program long enough to un-indoctrinate yourself, view all sides of the argument and think for yourself.


The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[GhostFox]

I take it none of the people upset over the tax cuts have probably never heard of Adam Smith and think that trickle down economics is something out of a foriegn language.

Not that I agree with the TDE theories completely, but I understand the idea behind it and that it is intended to help the poor, not hurt them. I get the impression that a lot of posters here are about 13 and their ignorance comes from age, not malice. However I encourage everyone to study some basic economic theories before trying to make it seem like Bush just wants to save his rich buddies money.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

You guys don't have to have the Govt. collect and divert your hard earned money to pathetic causes... You can simply paypal them and keep the Govt. out of the loop.

Click

 

[RZAL]

You guys don't have to have the Govt. collect and divert your hard earned money to pathetic causes... You can simply paypal them and keep the Govt. out of the loop.

Click

If it were so simple....lol








The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[burner69]

You guys don't have to have the Govt. collect and divert your hard earned money to pathetic causes... You can simply paypal them and keep the Govt. out of the loop.

Click

Supporting pregnant mothers who are unable to work

Helping maintain those essential things known as food, shelter, running water to somebody unable to find work.

Keeping an income coming in for somebody sick off work.

You get the idea... pathetic causes? Sme people might abuse the right, but you won't be laughing if your current employee cuts you loose, and despite having some qualifications, can find no jobs going.

 

[RZAL]

Supporting pregnant mothers who are unable to work

Helping maintain those essential things known as food, shelter, running water to somebody unable to find work.

Keeping an income coming in for somebody sick off work.

You get the idea... pathetic causes? Sme people might abuse the right, but you won't be laughing if your current employee cuts you loose, and despite having some qualifications, can find no jobs going.

Don't pay attention to him, he's just trying to get cha all worked up. Did you check out the link he posted? He's just not right............I'm tell ya..



The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[burner69]

EDIT: Ah I see... hmmm

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Supporting pregnant mothers who are unable to work

Pregnant women can work up to a point.. My mother and my wife did. They can also keep their legs closed unless they can afford to procreate. Which my mohter and my wife did.

Helping maintain those essential things known as food, shelter, running water to somebody unable to find work.

WORK and earn a living! Save. Don't get loans or deal with credit cards. Don't ask your neighbor to pay your bills.

Keeping an income coming in for somebody sick off work.

Go to work sic or get a job that allows sic days. In my line of work if you're sic you're sic at work.

You get the idea... pathetic causes? Sme people might abuse the right, but you won't be laughing if your current employee cuts you loose, and despite having some qualifications, can find no jobs going.

EXTREMELY PATHETIC causes! Take care of yourselves you freakin losers.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

If it were so simple....lol








The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

Why do you think it's supposed to be simple? Have you been raised to think everything is supposed to be handed to you?

It's not... It's called (New concept coming) WORK.

Work is not simple. It's hard.

You people make me sic. (But I still gotta go to work tommorrow.)

 

[CptStern]

Pregnant women can work up to a point.. My mother and my wife did. They can also keep their legs closed unless they can afford to procreate.

damn shellback you're a cold sob. For someone who claims to be serving the public you seem out of touch with reality ...glad you dont police my jurisdiction.

WORK and earn a living! Go to work sic or get a job that allows sic days

EXTREMELY PATHETIC causes! Take care of yourselves you freakin losers.

again I really dont think you have a grasp on poverty and homelessness ...which is curious because if you were a police officer you'd see it on a daily basis


btw:

"More than two-thirds of all poor families with children included one or more individuals who worked in 2003. .........The U.S. Census Bureau defines poor families as those with cash incomes of less than $14,680 a year for a family of three – or $18,810 for a family of four. In 2003, the average poor family had an income of $8,858, or $738.00 per month."


source

are they all "EXTREMELY PATHETIC ...Losers" as you put it?

 

[clarky003]

ake care of yourselves you freakin losers.

yay Sgt Shellback thats clever stuff :/

anyway I cant stand the idea of not having a system that doesnt cater for your needs if you really desperately need it, its a wicked idea to maybe just have a local state money pot , network some hospitals.. services, and the money you put away goes towards yours or others health, education, if needed, like a fund raiser for the needy.... I honestly dont see how anyone can complain , your petrol is the cheapest in the world, 'UK'ers' pay through the nose, but we still keep on giving, but we know it helps us all. I dont know, compromise sounds good.

 

[Korgoth]

Why do you think it's supposed to be simple? Have you been raised to think everything is supposed to be handed to you?

It's not... It's called (New concept coming) WORK.

Work is not simple. It's hard.

You people make me sic. (But I still gotta go to work tommorrow.)

Hey shellback, where is your trademark racist comment? Pfft, like anyone takes you serious, let alone cares what you think anyway.
I work, my whole family works, we still struggle...

I've seen poverty, and people I know either work or try to work, but they still can get their head above water so to speak. You obviously have no experience in this area.

And even though people like me make you sick, I'll still go to work tonight. You're no better than anyone else, your shit stinks just as bad as everyone elses', and your not special, get over yourself.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Hey shellback, where is your trademark racist comment? Pfft, like anyone takes you serious, let alone cares what you think anyway.
I work, my whole family works, we still struggle...

I've seen poverty, and people I know either work or try to work, but they still can get their head above water so to speak. You obviously have no experience in this area.

And even though people like me make you sick, I'll still go to work tonight. You're no better than anyone else, your shit stinks just as bad as everyone elses', and your not special, get over yourself.

Dude... Feel free to take the TAX money you saved in the GW cuts and throw it into the closest trailer park on your way to work.

You don't need to have the Govt. dispersing your funds if you want to help the people who don't work. You can do it yourself.

Take photo's and post em.

Or did you just want everyone else to give to the poor (But not you)?

 

[bliink]

Stop fighting Shellback, innervision.

 

[clarky003]

bliink ... this is a serious question, theres alot of grief in this particular forum, we all get immature now and then, but theres too many cat fights, and childish bitter remarks, and it ruins almost all of the threads.

anyway the question.. do we really need an official politics forum. anymore I enjoy discussing stuff and all, but its .. well repetitive, sure the subjects can be different , but the subject matter shows us all up for teenager's.. (even though im 20 ), im saying if need be, youve got my vote to imply harsher rules, or close it down, and we can discuss gadgets.. and new misc technology and science instead .

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

bliink ... this is a serious question, theres alot of grief in this particular forum, we all get immature now and then, but theres too many cat fights, and childish bitter remarks, and it ruins almost all of the threads.

anyway the question.. do we really need an official politics forum. anymore I enjoy discussing stuff and all, but its .. well repetitive, sure the subjects can be different , but the subject matter shows us all up for teenager's.. (even though im 20), im saying if need be, youve got my vote to imply harsher rules, or close it down, and we can discuss gadgets.. and new misc technology and science instead .

PM? Or were you thinking out loud?