how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:
1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?
I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.
They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing
But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).
And should the doctor take that same approach when you are drowning?
Also, taxes are not taken by force.
No, one would hope in all the time you're on this island, you realize the benefit the doctor can provide and you provide services to said person, so should the time come, he knows you're "good for it." Or, he can do it of his own free will. Or, he can let you drown. Who would know? The point is, it's his decision, and hopefully you're smart enough to realize that ahead of time. It's called insurance.
And, yes taxes are taken by force. If I don't pay taxes what happens to me?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.
They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing
But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).
... it's not meant to be clever ... it's a response to an absurd analogy with one equally as absurd ...
i do love how you libertarians like to use force to describe taxation ... i get it tho ... you guys only care about yourself and are more than prepared to go it alone ... i have no problem with that philosophy in general ... i would just rather be part of a collective ...
Definitely not libertatian. I love how folks on these threads lable people like that. It's capitalism with a splash of conservatism, thank you. I'm ok with the collective. I'm not against all welfare. But, I am against the kind that ends my point 1 above. And charging more is not necessary if we reduced the welfare rolls to those that absolutely need it.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....
I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.
And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to be by far the best country in the world!!
Definitely not libertatian. I love how folks on these threads lable people like that. It's capitalism with a splash of conservatism, thank you. I'm ok with the collective. I'm not against all welfare. But, I am against the kind that ends my point 1 above. And charging more is not necessary if we reduced the welfare rolls to those that absolutely need it.
i am gonna guess if you took any political compass test - you will fall in line with the category (label if you must) of libertarian ... although capitalism with a splash of conservatism is also a label ... i'm a socialist with a treehugger slant! ... haha
i'm not sure what your point 1 is ... i would also like to know what you think of our OP's analogy ...
I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....
I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.
And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to have by far the best country in the world!!
USA!! USA!! USA!!
Yes. Agree. But, what's going on now is NOT this. And, if I'm a wealthy tax payer and want to wage war... Well, it's my money, why don't I have a greater say? (Can't wait for the responses to that).
So, on that line of thinking - would you be willing to redistibute the value of a vote? The vote of those who pay more in taxes is worth more than those that they are subsidizing? That does seem bizarly fair even though it's against every tenent of our Constitution.
Nobody on the right doesn't want the truly destitute to be helped. It's the bulk of people who take advantage of the system. Look at NYC welfare rolls in the days of David Dinkins and after Rudy Giuliani took over. It didn't get more dangerous because fewer people were taken care of by the city. It got safer because he got them back to work and spent wisely on the police, and very infrastructure you refer to.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Definitely not libertatian. I love how folks on these threads lable people like that. It's capitalism with a splash of conservatism, thank you. I'm ok with the collective. I'm not against all welfare. But, I am against the kind that ends my point 1 above. And charging more is not necessary if we reduced the welfare rolls to those that absolutely need it.
i am gonna guess if you took any political compass test - you will fall in line with the category (label if you must) of libertarian ... although capitalism with a splash of conservatism is also a label ... i'm a socialist with a treehugger slant! ... haha
i'm not sure what your point 1 is ... i would also like to know what you think of our OP's analogy ...
End of my point 1 - if you want to lay about and complain to get anything - you will be taught how to work, not given the goods. Re-read it. It's right there.
As for the analogy - it is just that. I think the opponents on the thread are taking it literally and not the spirit of what is meant. I get what he means. As, I'm sure most of the posters here do. Obviously, taken literally it's ludicrous. But, that's part of the point.
If you want to be obtuse, it's very easy to be..... Try to understand and discuss the substance of what someone else is saying instead of taking the easy way out.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
And should the doctor take that same approach when you are drowning?
Also, taxes are not taken by force.
No, one would hope in all the time you're on this island, you realize the benefit the doctor can provide and you provide services to said person, so should the time come, he knows you're "good for it." Or, he can do it of his own free will. Or, he can let you drown. Who would know? The point is, it's his decision, and hopefully you're smart enough to realize that ahead of time. It's called insurance.
And, yes taxes are taken by force. If I don't pay taxes what happens to me?
Most people would be drowning as soon as they crashed, with no time to kiss the doctor's ass in advance. He will know you're "good for it" when he sees that you are a person who shares, as you would want him to share.
We live within a social contract. You are free to leave said contract. But, as long as you're hear, you're expected to keep up your end.
I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....
I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.
And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to have by far the best country in the world!!
USA!! USA!! USA!!
Yes. Agree. But, what's going on now is NOT this. And, if I'm a wealthy tax payer and want to wage war... Well, it's my money, why don't I have a greater say? (Can't wait for the responses to that).
So, on that line of thinking - would you be willing to redistibute the value of a vote? The vote of those who pay more in taxes is worth more than those that they are subsidizing? That does seem bizarly fair even though it's against every tenent of our Constitution.
Nobody on the right doesn't want the truly destitute to be helped. It's the bulk of people who take advantage of the system. Look at NYC welfare rolls in the days of David Dinkins and after Rudy Giuliani took over. It didn't get more dangerous because fewer people were taken care of by the city. It got safer because he got them back to work and spent wisely on the police, and very infrastructure you refer to.
If you are rich and wish to spend your money on needless wars...then you are fucking up this world FAR more than any welfare recipient taking in 600$ a month!!!
End of my point 1 - if you want to lay about and complain to get anything - you will be taught how to work, not given the goods. Re-read it. It's right there.
As for the analogy - it is just that. I think the opponents on the thread are taking it literally and not the spirit of what is meant. I get what he means. As, I'm sure most of the posters here do. Obviously, taken literally it's ludicrous. But, that's part of the point.
If you want to be obtuse, it's very easy to be..... Try to understand and discuss the substance of what someone else is saying instead of taking the easy way out.
soo ... you do not like supporting lazy people who expect things given to them ... i hope you know that those people reside in all areas of the wealth spectrum ...
the substance is that he doesn't believe in a redistibution of wealth or taxes or whatever you want to call it ... why not just say that and debate the merits of a low-taxation system? ... if you are going to try and convince people by using a loaded/contrived analogy - these are the responses you get ...
well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...
I think the problem with this whole discussion is what is the definition of rich. Do you really think $250,000 a year for a family is RICH? As one facet - consider that those families have no chance at financial aid for college. I'm not saying give them pity. But, there are add'l expense ALREADY expected, setting aside the add'l tax burden. If you said, well we'll take some obvious amount that nobody even those in the bracket couldn't argue with ($5 million a year?), it might be different.
The problem is, there's not enough money there for the Democrats to do what they want. So, they have to lower the definition (and thus I agree with none of it).
I want to take care of the truly needy. But, I don't want to contribute to those that are irresponsible. Is that an unreasonable request? I shouldn't stand on line behind someone with food stamps that has ice cream on the belt. Yes, I should have a say in that I want your children to only be able to eat fruits and vegetables and not luxuries/sweets/non-essentials. If you don't want that contract, don't take my food stamps.
And I believe there is more than enough money in the revenue base now to accomplish that and then some.
And, I then would have some money to contibute (more) to charity.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
End of my point 1 - if you want to lay about and complain to get anything - you will be taught how to work, not given the goods. Re-read it. It's right there.
As for the analogy - it is just that. I think the opponents on the thread are taking it literally and not the spirit of what is meant. I get what he means. As, I'm sure most of the posters here do. Obviously, taken literally it's ludicrous. But, that's part of the point.
If you want to be obtuse, it's very easy to be..... Try to understand and discuss the substance of what someone else is saying instead of taking the easy way out.
soo ... you do not like supporting lazy people who expect things given to them ... i hope you know that those people reside in all areas of the wealth spectrum ...
the substance is that he doesn't believe in a redistibution of wealth or taxes or whatever you want to call it ... why not just say that and debate the merits of a low-taxation system? ... if you are going to try and convince people by using a loaded/contrived analogy - these are the responses you get ...
Ha, ha, ha. Not my analogy. Follow along. The discussion will make more sense.
And yes, lazy is everywhere. But, if Senior Hilton EARNED his wealth and wants to give it to a bunch of layabout ancestors and not the gov't, that's his decision. He EARNED it.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...
I think the problem with this whole discussion is what is the definition of rich. Do you really think $250,000 a year for a family is RICH? As one facet - consider that those families have no chance at financial aid for college. I'm not saying give them pity. But, there are add'l expense ALREADY expected, setting aside the add'l tax burden. If you said, well we'll take some obvious amount that nobody even those in the bracket couldn't argue with ($5 million a year?), it might be different.
The problem is, there's not enough money there for the Democrats to do what they want. So, they have to lower the definition (and thus I agree with none of it).
I want to take care of the truly needy. But, I don't want to contribute to those that are irresponsible. Is that an unreasonable request? I shouldn't stand on line behind someone with food stamps that has ice cream on the belt. Yes, I should have a say in that I want your children to only be able to eat fruits and vegetables and not luxuries/sweets/non-essentials. If you don't want that contract, don't take my food stamps.
And I believe there is more than enough money in the revenue base now to accomplish that and then some.
And, I then would have some money to contibute (more) to charity.
well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...
I think the problem with this whole discussion is what is the definition of rich. Do you really think $250,000 a year for a family is RICH? As one facet - consider that those families have no chance at financial aid for college. I'm not saying give them pity. But, there are add'l expense ALREADY expected, setting aside the add'l tax burden. If you said, well we'll take some obvious amount that nobody even those in the bracket couldn't argue with ($5 million a year?), it might be different.
The problem is, there's not enough money there for the Democrats to do what they want. So, they have to lower the definition (and thus I agree with none of it).
I want to take care of the truly needy. But, I don't want to contribute to those that are irresponsible. Is that an unreasonable request? I shouldn't stand on line behind someone with food stamps that has ice cream on the belt. Yes, I should have a say in that I want your children to only be able to eat fruits and vegetables and not luxuries/sweets/non-essentials. If you don't want that contract, don't take my food stamps.
And I believe there is more than enough money in the revenue base now to accomplish that and then some.
And, I then would have some money to contibute (more) to charity.
I'm sure you don't eat ice cream. :roll:
I do. But I don't have to in order to live. What's your point?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Ha, ha, ha. Not my analogy. Follow along. The discussion will make more sense.
And yes, lazy is everywhere. But, if Senior Hilton EARNED his wealth and wants to give it to a bunch of layabout ancestors and not the gov't, that's his decision. He EARNED it.
earned is subjective ... there is no constant value for work ...
I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.
They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing
But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).
... it's not meant to be clever ... it's a response to an absurd analogy with one equally as absurd ...
i do love how you libertarians like to use force to describe taxation ... i get it tho ... you guys only care about yourself and are more than prepared to go it alone ... i have no problem with that philosophy in general ... i would just rather be part of a collective ...
Definitely not libertatian. I love how folks on these threads lable people like that. It's capitalism with a splash of conservatism, thank you. I'm ok with the collective. I'm not against all welfare. But, I am against the kind that ends my point 1 above. And charging more is not necessary if we reduced the welfare rolls to those that absolutely need it.
Can someone please define "those that absolutely need" welfare? Can someone also cite how much $ goes into welfare fraud? I've never seen it done in here, but it sure something people cite often.
Can someone please define "those that absolutely need" welfare? Can someone also cite how much $ goes into welfare fraud? I've never seen it done in here, but it sure something people cite often.
I did a very quick search & found data on the prevelance of unemployment fraud. 1.9%
I've heard some absurd analogies, but this one may take the cake. Not going to even validate it with a response.
I really do enjoy the elitist attitude that liberals have when it comes to libertarians. We're selfish because we want freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility. Does it matter that, as a Christian, I do a great deal to help out those in need? Or I am still selfish because I feel I can deliver help to those less fortunate than our bloated, corrupt gov't?
I think the point is that we can all agree that there a folks on welfare that don't need to be there. And in welfare, I'm talking all kinds - not just that which is calle welfare. It's not necessarily fraud. I am sure if unemployment ended before 99 weeks, unemployment would drop b/c folks would accept jobs that paid less than they wanted/expected.
But, as an example, if a proposal was put out to do alcohol and drug testing weekly for welfare reciptients would you say that's an invasion of privacy or a proper tool to ensure that folks taking money from the gov't are on the straight and narrow?
And before we get into why not drug test everyone - the "rich" are not asking anyone else for anything.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Can someone please define "those that absolutely need" welfare? Can someone also cite how much $ goes into welfare fraud? I've never seen it done in here, but it sure something people cite often.
I did a very quick search & found data on the prevelance of unemployment fraud. 1.9%
So narrow. It's not just fraud. And that report would only be for fraud they've found (obviously). It's also about folks that don't do more than token job search and don't accept jobs that are "beneath them" because they have this to fall back on.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I think the point is that we can all agree that there a folks on welfare that don't need to be there. And in welfare, I'm talking all kinds - not just that which is calle welfare. It's not necessarily fraud. I am sure if unemployment ended before 99 weeks, unemployment would drop b/c folks would accept jobs that paid less than they wanted/expected.
But, as an example, if a proposal was put out to do alcohol and drug testing weekly for welfare reciptients would you say that's an invasion of privacy or a proper tool to ensure that folks taking money from the gov't are on the straight and narrow?
And before we get into why not drug test everyone - the "rich" are not asking anyone else for anything.
see the thread on welfare recipients having to undergo drug testing from a month ago or so. good debate in there.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Oh God... just when I thought I had heard the worst analogies ever... now I've heard everything. :roll:
How is GPA redistribution not similar to wealth redistribution? Helping people out that may not have been given the same advantages in life, or may have issues that make it more difficult for them to succeed in the setting?
The only real differences I see between the two is that 1 is finite (GPA) and it can have large implications for determining other outcomes, such as grad school. Although one could argue that for income too (whether you get invited to a certain country club, getting a certain credit card, investment opportunities, etc.) there are similar implications...
i believe it was bush that redistributed GPAs with the no child left behind
the same bush that decided against wealth redistribution
And before we get into why not drug test everyone - the "rich" are not asking anyone else for anything.
what about corporations that lobby gov'ts for policies aimed at benefiting them? ... what about corporate welfare? ...
Been over this in another thread (and I can't believe we have 2 parallel threads going on right now). We should review those. If they provide more economic good than what the gov't is providing, they should continue (and this also means the simple job creation to the actual extra tax dollars produced). If not, then they should be reconsidered. But, it's not as simple as EXXON made $14 billion and got $4 billion in subisidy. There's more to the 2nd part of the equation.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Can someone please define "those that absolutely need" welfare? Can someone also cite how much $ goes into welfare fraud? I've never seen it done in here, but it sure something people cite often.
I did a very quick search & found data on the prevelance of unemployment fraud. 1.9%
well, 1.9% of the 22.9 billion spent in California last year is about 435 million dollars. Sure adds to the perspective in my mind...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Been over this in another thread (and I can't believe we have 2 parallel threads going on right now). We should review those. If they provide more economic good than what the gov't is providing, they should continue (and this also means the simple job creation to the actual extra tax dollars produced). If not, then they should be reconsidered. But, it's not as simple as EXXON made $14 billion and got $4 billion in subisidy. There's more to the 2nd part of the equation.
ahhh ... well ... that's where it becomes all grey doesn't it? ... "good" ... how do you define it? ... or measure it? ... does the fact exxon still hasn't paid the people who's lives they destroyed in alaska get factored in? ... does the fact it continues to use money to spread lies about global warming factor in? ... and why is only economic good considered? ... why not social good?
I know a guy who's a genius. He could easily have schooled his own teachers, BUT, because he's such a bad people person (or ass kisser ) He barely gets by working in retail, and strangely enjoys his job..
On the other hand you can have people without college educations steal and cheat their way to the top (Bill Gates).
This is why capitalism is fucked.
I don't care how hard you are working, if you are making 10x more than the lazy ass, that's still too much. Like a minimal wage there should be a maximum wage. If you are only being successul for the money and not the craft then you don't deserve it and I'm sure we can find better doctors and atheletes and so on who care more about what they do than numbers they make.
I really don't think any human being is worth more than a few hundred thousand a year to society, or less than a few dozen thousand..
If you want to work hard, you make twice as much as the guy who doesn't work hard. Not millions more.
Been over this in another thread (and I can't believe we have 2 parallel threads going on right now). We should review those. If they provide more economic good than what the gov't is providing, they should continue (and this also means the simple job creation to the actual extra tax dollars produced). If not, then they should be reconsidered. But, it's not as simple as EXXON made $14 billion and got $4 billion in subisidy. There's more to the 2nd part of the equation.
ahhh ... well ... that's where it becomes all grey doesn't it? ... "good" ... how do you define it? ... or measure it? ... does the fact exxon still hasn't paid the people who's lives they destroyed in alaska get factored in? ... does the fact it continues to use money to spread lies about global warming factor in? ... and why is only economic good considered? ... why not social good?
Ahh. Well, it's quite simple. It's actually not grey. The subsidy comes with strings attached (usually employment, location, certain other commitments). Measure the amount of employment should they not be where they are now located due to the subsidy. Calculated taxes collected there. Calculate the rent paid on the location and the taxes paid as a result of that. It does get messier, but there are economists that can measure fairly accurately what the further benefit is from there (businesses and other jobs created because THOSE people have jobs, etc.). So, you can actually do a financial analysis as your base.
Then it does get grey - what's the (non-financial) benefit of those jobs? That building in that city/town being occupied instead of empty. So on and so forth. There are actually economists who measure that, as well.
Exxon and other companies do donate to charities, etc. So, that can be measured, as well. If we wanted, we could add social measures to those subsidy agreements. However, remember you can't have it all. There are trade offs and the more you require, the more subsidy you're going to have to give or they are going to say nevermind, not worth it.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
No, one would hope in all the time you're on this island, you realize the benefit the doctor can provide and you provide services to said person, so should the time come, he knows you're "good for it." Or, he can do it of his own free will. Or, he can let you drown. Who would know?
And, yes taxes are taken by force. If I don't pay taxes what happens to me?
Definitely not libertatian. I love how folks on these threads lable people like that. It's capitalism with a splash of conservatism, thank you. I'm ok with the collective. I'm not against all welfare. But, I am against the kind that ends my point 1 above. And charging more is not necessary if we reduced the welfare rolls to those that absolutely need it.
I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.
And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to be by far the best country in the world!!
USA!! USA!! USA!!
i am gonna guess if you took any political compass test - you will fall in line with the category (label if you must) of libertarian ... although capitalism with a splash of conservatism is also a label ... i'm a socialist with a treehugger slant! ... haha
i'm not sure what your point 1 is ... i would also like to know what you think of our OP's analogy ...
Yes. Agree. But, what's going on now is NOT this. And, if I'm a wealthy tax payer and want to wage war... Well, it's my money, why don't I have a greater say? (Can't wait for the responses to that).
So, on that line of thinking - would you be willing to redistibute the value of a vote? The vote of those who pay more in taxes is worth more than those that they are subsidizing? That does seem bizarly fair even though it's against every tenent of our Constitution.
Nobody on the right doesn't want the truly destitute to be helped. It's the bulk of people who take advantage of the system. Look at NYC welfare rolls in the days of David Dinkins and after Rudy Giuliani took over. It didn't get more dangerous because fewer people were taken care of by the city. It got safer because he got them back to work and spent wisely on the police, and very infrastructure you refer to.
End of my point 1 - if you want to lay about and complain to get anything - you will be taught how to work, not given the goods. Re-read it. It's right there.
As for the analogy - it is just that. I think the opponents on the thread are taking it literally and not the spirit of what is meant. I get what he means. As, I'm sure most of the posters here do. Obviously, taken literally it's ludicrous. But, that's part of the point.
If you want to be obtuse, it's very easy to be..... Try to understand and discuss the substance of what someone else is saying instead of taking the easy way out.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Most people would be drowning as soon as they crashed, with no time to kiss the doctor's ass in advance. He will know you're "good for it" when he sees that you are a person who shares, as you would want him to share.
We live within a social contract. You are free to leave said contract. But, as long as you're hear, you're expected to keep up your end.
If you are rich and wish to spend your money on needless wars...then you are fucking up this world FAR more than any welfare recipient taking in 600$ a month!!!
soo ... you do not like supporting lazy people who expect things given to them ... i hope you know that those people reside in all areas of the wealth spectrum ...
the substance is that he doesn't believe in a redistibution of wealth or taxes or whatever you want to call it ... why not just say that and debate the merits of a low-taxation system? ... if you are going to try and convince people by using a loaded/contrived analogy - these are the responses you get ...
I think the problem with this whole discussion is what is the definition of rich. Do you really think $250,000 a year for a family is RICH? As one facet - consider that those families have no chance at financial aid for college. I'm not saying give them pity. But, there are add'l expense ALREADY expected, setting aside the add'l tax burden. If you said, well we'll take some obvious amount that nobody even those in the bracket couldn't argue with ($5 million a year?), it might be different.
The problem is, there's not enough money there for the Democrats to do what they want. So, they have to lower the definition (and thus I agree with none of it).
I want to take care of the truly needy. But, I don't want to contribute to those that are irresponsible. Is that an unreasonable request? I shouldn't stand on line behind someone with food stamps that has ice cream on the belt. Yes, I should have a say in that I want your children to only be able to eat fruits and vegetables and not luxuries/sweets/non-essentials. If you don't want that contract, don't take my food stamps.
And I believe there is more than enough money in the revenue base now to accomplish that and then some.
And, I then would have some money to contibute (more) to charity.
Ha, ha, ha. Not my analogy. Follow along. The discussion will make more sense.
And yes, lazy is everywhere. But, if Senior Hilton EARNED his wealth and wants to give it to a bunch of layabout ancestors and not the gov't, that's his decision. He EARNED it.
I'm sure you don't eat ice cream. :roll:
I do. But I don't have to in order to live. What's your point?
earned is subjective ... there is no constant value for work ...
Can someone please define "those that absolutely need" welfare? Can someone also cite how much $ goes into welfare fraud? I've never seen it done in here, but it sure something people cite often.
I did a very quick search & found data on the prevelance of unemployment fraud. 1.9%
I really do enjoy the elitist attitude that liberals have when it comes to libertarians. We're selfish because we want freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility. Does it matter that, as a Christian, I do a great deal to help out those in need? Or I am still selfish because I feel I can deliver help to those less fortunate than our bloated, corrupt gov't?
But, as an example, if a proposal was put out to do alcohol and drug testing weekly for welfare reciptients would you say that's an invasion of privacy or a proper tool to ensure that folks taking money from the gov't are on the straight and narrow?
And before we get into why not drug test everyone - the "rich" are not asking anyone else for anything.
it is just a hollow buzz phrase, as are so many coming from the tea party.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So narrow. It's not just fraud. And that report would only be for fraud they've found (obviously). It's also about folks that don't do more than token job search and don't accept jobs that are "beneath them" because they have this to fall back on.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
what about corporations that lobby gov'ts for policies aimed at benefiting them? ... what about corporate welfare? ...
i believe it was bush that redistributed GPAs with the no child left behind
the same bush that decided against wealth redistribution
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
Been over this in another thread (and I can't believe we have 2 parallel threads going on right now). We should review those. If they provide more economic good than what the gov't is providing, they should continue (and this also means the simple job creation to the actual extra tax dollars produced). If not, then they should be reconsidered. But, it's not as simple as EXXON made $14 billion and got $4 billion in subisidy. There's more to the 2nd part of the equation.
well, 1.9% of the 22.9 billion spent in California last year is about 435 million dollars. Sure adds to the perspective in my mind...
http://napavalleyregister.com/business/article_da110e36-38bf-11e0-aa9b-001cc4c03286.html
I realize this is rudimentary application, but 1.9% of billions is a lot of money, and I guarantee you that it is higher than that in actuality...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
ahhh ... well ... that's where it becomes all grey doesn't it? ... "good" ... how do you define it? ... or measure it? ... does the fact exxon still hasn't paid the people who's lives they destroyed in alaska get factored in? ... does the fact it continues to use money to spread lies about global warming factor in? ... and why is only economic good considered? ... why not social good?
Is it fair to redistribute the ability to spell?
I know a guy who's a genius. He could easily have schooled his own teachers, BUT, because he's such a bad people person (or ass kisser
On the other hand you can have people without college educations steal and cheat their way to the top (Bill Gates).
This is why capitalism is fucked.
I don't care how hard you are working, if you are making 10x more than the lazy ass, that's still too much. Like a minimal wage there should be a maximum wage. If you are only being successul for the money and not the craft then you don't deserve it and I'm sure we can find better doctors and atheletes and so on who care more about what they do than numbers they make.
I really don't think any human being is worth more than a few hundred thousand a year to society, or less than a few dozen thousand..
If you want to work hard, you make twice as much as the guy who doesn't work hard. Not millions more.
Ahh. Well, it's quite simple. It's actually not grey. The subsidy comes with strings attached (usually employment, location, certain other commitments). Measure the amount of employment should they not be where they are now located due to the subsidy. Calculated taxes collected there. Calculate the rent paid on the location and the taxes paid as a result of that. It does get messier, but there are economists that can measure fairly accurately what the further benefit is from there (businesses and other jobs created because THOSE people have jobs, etc.). So, you can actually do a financial analysis as your base.
Then it does get grey - what's the (non-financial) benefit of those jobs? That building in that city/town being occupied instead of empty. So on and so forth. There are actually economists who measure that, as well.
Exxon and other companies do donate to charities, etc. So, that can be measured, as well. If we wanted, we could add social measures to those subsidy agreements. However, remember you can't have it all. There are trade offs and the more you require, the more subsidy you're going to have to give or they are going to say nevermind, not worth it.