Money/Time

know1

Blockhead wrote:

With many people barley able to feed/cloth/care for their own children

Here's your problem. First of all, I don't think it's "many people", but if it is why are they having children?

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

Maintaning one's money to support their family does not?
The continual force of taking ones money to give to other people is taking away options of the original family.
Instead of being able to get the best/healthiest foods for ones family, some families like mine are not able to get these foods that provide the best nutrients to strengthen our immune system, so now I am more susceptible to disease, passing along viruses and will need additional medical service.
So now by taking my money and giving it to someone else, you are now taking my health (best possibilities), which you just alluded to is a great contributor to our society.
So you support one and not the other?
Also, taking my money and giving it to someone else, turns my money management to focus on needs, and lets face it a gym membership is a privliage is not a need. With all this money being taken away, I now do not have the funds to get a gym membership for the family. So now again you are taking away options to maintain my health. It looks like that by taking my money you have now turned me into a burden to taxpayers right?
I would probably hold on to your views to if I viewed society as 10 people with no resources...

first of all - people who go to gyms are taxed ... they are taxed in their membership fees and in the stuff they buy to participate (workout clothes) ... secondly, the US is one of the lowest taxed countries in the world ... yet your economy sucks, the social infrastructure is weak, the prosperity gap is that of a third world dictatorship ... how much less do you want to be taxed? ... and how do you propose schools get built? police get paid, roads repaired, etc?? ... why do you continue to focus on welfare and not the military?

keeponrockin

I would MUCH rather my tax dollars go to helping the family on the other side of town than bombing the shit out of one on the other side of the world.

I'm sure helping one family costs a whole lot less than bombing one too.

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Maintaning one's money to support their family does not?
The continual force of taking ones money to give to other people is taking away options of the original family.
Instead of being able to get the best/healthiest foods for ones family, some families like mine are not able to get these foods that provide the best nutrients to strengthen our immune system, so now I am more susceptible to disease, passing along viruses and will need additional medical service.
So now by taking my money and giving it to someone else, you are now taking my health (best possibilities), which you just alluded to is a great contributor to our society.
So you support one and not the other?
Also, taking my money and giving it to someone else, turns my money management to focus on needs, and lets face it a gym membership is a privliage is not a need. With all this money being taken away, I now do not have the funds to get a gym membership for the family. So now again you are taking away options to maintain my health. It looks like that by taking my money you have now turned me into a burden to taxpayers right?
I would probably hold on to your views to if I viewed society as 10 people with no resources...

first of all - people who go to gyms are taxed ... they are taxed in their membership fees and in the stuff they buy to participate (workout clothes) ... secondly, the US is one of the lowest taxed countries in the world ... yet your economy sucks, the social infrastructure is weak, the prosperity gap is that of a third world dictatorship ... how much less do you want to be taxed? ... and how do you propose schools get built? police get paid, roads repaired, etc?? ... why do you continue to focus on welfare and not the military?

maybe everyone could "adopt a highway" and abopt a mile of road to clean, maintain, fill potholes, etc. then the gubmint would not have to pay that part of the infrastructure. maybe the police and fire depts should be volunteer only and have to raise money to house and maintain firetrucks and maybe we can just build a shed to house criminals?

what people who are for lower taxes also forget is it is the TAXPAYERS who pay to prosecute criminals. casey anthony? paid for by the people of florida. OJ? california...if revenue gets too low, how do people propose we pay for prosecuting criminal cases?

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

maintaining one's health contributes greatly to society ... it means that person is less likely to get sick and require medical services (burden to tax payers) ... that person also is less likely to pass on viruses as well ... having said that - the difference between this act and the ones you would like to compare it to is that the act of going to the gym doesn't require anyone else to be impacted, generally speaking of course ...

again - similar to all the other threads you start with this logic ... i ask ... if you are stranded on a deserted island with 10 other people ... do you want to try and survive on your own or work together with your fellow stranded people?

Maintaning one's money to support their family does not?
The continual force of taking ones money to give to other people is taking away options of the original family.
Instead of being able to get the best/healthiest foods for ones family, some families like mine are not able to get these foods that provide the best nutrients to strengthen our immune system, so now I am more susceptible to disease, passing along viruses and will need additional medical service.
So now by taking my money and giving it to someone else, you are now taking my health (best possibilities), which you just alluded to is a great contributor to our society.
So you support one and not the other?
Also, taking my money and giving it to someone else, turns my money management to focus on needs, and lets face it a gym membership is a privliage is not a need. With all this money being taken away, I now do not have the funds to get a gym membership for the family. So now again you are taking away options to maintain my health. It looks like that by taking my money you have now turned me into a burden to taxpayers right?
I would probably hold on to your views to if I viewed society as 10 people with no resources...

For your own health, you may just want to start telling yourself it was never your money to begin with. All the gyms and all the working out in the world might not save you from the coronary you're giving yourself over your money being stolen!

_

know1 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

With many people barley able to feed/cloth/care for their own children

Here's your problem. First of all, I don't think it's "many people", but if it is why are they having children?

Because poor people don't have sufficient access to contraception in this country.

81

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what people who are for lower taxes also forget is it is the TAXPAYERS who pay to prosecute criminals. casey anthony? paid for by the people of florida. OJ? california...if revenue gets too low, how do people propose we pay for prosecuting criminal cases?

or the billions that are sent to countries/people that hate us.

or the billions spent on a military that cruises the world looking for trouble

or the billions spent on propping up companies "too big to fail"

or the billions lost in government fraud

or the billions spent on in intrest to pay for yesterday's expense

and now to take a shot at citizens

the billions that are lost to fraud such as medicare fake billings

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

With many people barley able to feed/cloth/care for their own children

Here's your problem. First of all, I don't think it's "many people", but if it is why are they having children?

1) Because we insist on teaching "abstinence only" sex education. Which is about as effective as telling kids "eat your vegetables" and then serving nothing but junk food in the school cafeteria.

2) Because we refuse to teach teenagers how to prevent pregnancy, refuse them access to contraception and and don't teach them things like "birth control." All while dressing 5 year-old girls in bikinis and teaching them that "sex is power" from the time they're 8.

3) Because we force pregnant women to wait a few days to end pregnancies and force them to look at ultrasounds of their rapists fetuses, force them to go through Christianazi anti-abortion misinformation lessons and stigmatize them as "girls who wanted to have fun and now have to pay the price."




OH... but once that baby we force them to have is born... fuck her, we're not going to like.. help. I mean, that's not very American, is it?

shadowcast

Blockhead wrote:

During my lunch break, I drove by a nice comercial gym with hundreds of people flowing in and out.
Now that I am beging to turn my views around I though to myself, what good does this selfish act of taking care of ones self/body do for society?
With many people barley able to feed/cloth/care for their own children I think our time should be best served not focusing on our self but on others that are not as fortunate enough to have the "time" some people have. As we know many unfortunate/disadvantaged are working many jobs and don't have the "time" to take care of themselves let alone their family. So I propose a "time" tax if you will.
I think we should have the Gov. mandate the ammount of free time we have and "force" us to use our time to benefit society insead of our own selves/families.
What do my socialist friends think about this?
Why should we stop at Money, if our money that we work for can be taxed, why not our free-time, that we also create for ourselves?
Who's with me? If not, why?

We get taxed when using the gym so they can use the tax money to help out the more unfortunate. If you are using your passive aggressive argument then this example stinks on ice. If you are complaining about taxes then you are either middle class or poor because those are the ones getting screwed. All that was proposed was to bring taxes back to what they were before Bush had at'em. Whets wrong with helping out your fellow man a little?

keeponrockin

And Blockhead, why is it better to spend money bombing the shit out of people on the other side of the world than it is to help somebody down the street.

The way I see it, if we help a guy down the street, he might put money back into the economy, and buy goods and service.

If we bomb someone on the other side of the world, his brother could become a terrorist.

What's the better outcome?

know1

I think helping people is a great thing. In fact, I do quite a bit of it.

But...I could do a lot more if the government wasn't taking such a large part of my money and irresponsibly wasting it on almost everything they touch.

Godfather.

you'll love this !

Godfather.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/201 ... ?hpt=hp_c2