Originally posted by wedgehead2Welfare states are never good. Eventually, they collapse under the weight of all the people who want to suck on the teat.
Them living within their means is the same as the wealth of the country they control.
Why should governments limit spending to very low levels? Governments should tax enough and spend wisely to create a good welfare state.
Originally posted by wedgehead2I get "it" every time I pay sales taxes and think about why I'm subsidizing some stupid commuter train that I will never ride on. I get "it" every time I look at my payroll check and see that they've taken 30% to fund F.I.C.A. (which I'll never get back) or some other alphabet soup government agency that I won't utilize. I get "it" every year about this time when my local property tax bill comes due and under duress, I'm told to pony up for the local school, indigent hospital and community college district (which I don't and won't have children attending). No wedgehead2, I get "it" fine, however, I’m not so sure all of these government officials and tax collectors understand that it’s my money, that they’re not entitled to it because they can’t live within a budget, or that I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions about how to spend it or who to give it to
I would give up $176,000 to know that everyone in my country had food and shelter, yes. I could live on $20,000.
Sacrifice for the good of the community- something you don't get.
Tax haven- i just wouldn't be interested.
.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDid you ever ask yourself why the "poor and the weak" as you call them, are in the situation they're in? It's because of bad choices. Where's that single mum's husband? Did she ever marry? Did she even graduate high school? Does she work full time?
Likewise. I'm happy to pay my taxes knowing that it's making sure that a young inner city kid is getting proper nutrition, or that it means that a single mum doesn't have to work three jobs just to pay rent and put food in the refrigerator. I'm happy that the old and the infirm get medical help and meals on wheels.
dsr, Republican poster-boy, see ...[text shortened]... oor and the weak. But then, he's only defending those poor, weak, downtrodden rich people.
Also, why didn't the old and the infirm amass some savings while they worked? Or did they blow it every weekend going on holiday to see Manchester United play? Where is their family in their hour of need?
Certainly there are people that don't have the same advantages as the best off in society, but mollycoddling them and telling them it's not their fault doesn't help anyone. Neither does federalizing charity since there is no expectation for the recipient to change their bad behaviors.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNot everything is about you. The whole is more important than the individual- this is the basis of any government- community over liberty. They do live within a budget- that budget includes your taxes.
I get "it" every time I pay sales taxes and think about why I'm subsidizing some stupid commuter train that I will never ride on. I get "it" every time I look at my payroll check and see that they've taken 30% to fund F.I.C.A. (which I'll never get back) or some other alphabet soup government agency that I won't utilize. I get "it" every year abo ...[text shortened]... capable of making my own decisions about how to spend it or who to give it to
.
You shouldn't make the decisions on who to give your money to- the government is there to work out where that money can best be spent. Also, there are government economies of scale.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt doesn't make any difference is we do or not- even if the whole world apart from america does something, like cutting back military or carbon emissions, without the US theh whole movement is fatally weakened.
Maybe the world should follow our lead?
Originally posted by uzlessThere should be no corporate welfare, nor government subsidies to favored industries. Read "Atlas Shrugged."
I'd be interested to hear if Der Schwarze thinks the billions in corporate welfare funded through US taxpayer money that the US government gives to huge corporations is considered "spending".
Does it matter if it's spent on social services or corporate handouts? After all, its just money paid out by the government.
Any idea how many billions of Taxpayer money is given to the oil industry, telecom, shipping, etc etc etc?
Also, you said, "...Does it matter if it's spent on social services or corporate handouts? After all, its just money paid out by the government."
This assessment is incorrect since governments don't make or create any wealth, they merely redistribute it.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIts not their fault-- people don't start off on a level playing field.
Did you ever ask yourself why the "poor and the weak" as you call them, are in the situation they're in? It's because of bad choices. Where's that single mum's husband? Did she ever marry? Did she even graduate high school? Does she work full time?
Also, why didn't the old and the infirm amass some savings while they worked? Or did they blow ...[text shortened]... charity since there is no expectation for the recipient to change their bad behaviors.
Charity isn't the same as taxes- charity is your choice. Taxes aren't your choice. Live with it.
What is bad behaviour? Being born into a poor family? Being black? Not being an exploitative greedy "True American" such as yourself?
Your comment on the poor and weak shows you up for what you are- a neo fascist.
The weak shouldn't survive- the powerful should rule- survival of the fittest- destroy the undesirables.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIndustries that are nationalized create wealth for the government. It's only in the capatalist system where industry is fully privatized do you find a government that merely redistributes money.
This assessment is incorrect since governments don't make or create any wealth, they merely redistribute it.
Petro Canada (oil company) used to be owned by the Canadian government. Hundreds of companies in Europe, South America etc are owned by their respective governments and they all create wealth for the government.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCapitalism is wage slavery. Communism is about everyone being equal. No masters are worgt, be they capitalist or tyrants hidding their dictatorship by claiming they are communist.
Why not? Could it be because that slavery and servitude to effete and unworthy masters is offensive to every man?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou really are a fool! Welfare states are rarely if ever generous enough to discourage people from doing work so that the whole system collaspes.
Welfare states are never good. Eventually, they collapse under the weight of all the people who want to suck on the teat.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2And this is the inherent problem with communism. Everyone is not equal and as such true communism on a large scale has not been acheived (yes I'm agreeing with you on this point) and never will be acheived because in order to acheive it you must work against human nature and suppress the individual. Thus the end result will always be totalitarianism no matter how good your intentions are from the outset.
Capitalism is wage slavery. Communism is about everyone being equal. No masters are worgt, be they capitalist or tyrants hidding their dictatorship by claiming they are communist.
Originally posted by UllrAny government is a supression on individual's natural instinct to total liberty- apart from anarchy! Communism (in theory) does away with government- although has not and is unlikely to ever happen.
And this is the inherent problem with communism. Everyone is not equal and as such true communism on a large scale has not been acheived (yes I'm agreeing with you on this point) and never will be acheived because in order to acheive it you must work against human nature and suppress the individual. Thus the end result will always be totalitarianism no matter how good your intentions are from the outset.