| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2008 04:50:53 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Another thing for you to consider: What of these children you seem to despise as the scourge of your pocketbook? Would you simply leave them out in the woods to starve? Drop them off in a dumpster? Just simply ignore them and let them suffer? Not once have I suggested such and it is disengenuious for you to portray my position that way. My personal approach to that delimina is to support community organizations (Rescue Missions, International Red Cross)through donations outside of the Federal/State tax system. Organizations that specifically minister to the needs of women and children including those from abusive homes. For you to define my view as "despising the scourge of my pocketbook" does not quite square with my actions - does it? |
[/quote]
You haven't come right out and said it, but such events are a foregone conclusion. You are virulently opposed to your tax dollars aiding these kids through government programs and it's laughable to think that other organizations would be able to step in and fill the void or that people would step up donations to a level sufficient to fill the gap. Despite the fact that you personally donate to charities, your position of, "I resent paying my money in taxes and having that money going to help poor people." is an entirely self-serving one.
You might be better off just thinking that "your" tax dollars are being used to blow up terrorists.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:50:54 PM · #452 |
0Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. |
That's all fine and dandy. So, this happens and then the same family irresponsibly has another child. They have no extended family. What are you actually proposing to do ? and then they have another child. What now ?
You've described what you think people should do, what should happen when they don't do it ? |
I think they should come live with you. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:57:39 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by Flash:
0Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. |
That's all fine and dandy. So, this happens and then the same family irresponsibly has another child. They have no extended family. What are you actually proposing to do ? and then they have another child. What now ?
You've described what you think people should do, what should happen when they don't do it ? |
I think they should come live with you. |
Glad to see you've thought it all through then. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:58:18 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Your weak claim that liberals, are "pro-abortion" is misleading and simply not true. It's referred to as "pro-choice" for a reason. You would remove that choice. Not at all. You still have choice. You simply cannot take for granted nor be rewarded for making a irresponsible one. Just like the rest of us get penalized when we make irresponsible choices. It is called responsibility and accountability.
|
So, if things were your way, it'd be essentially "Kill your unborn child or lose benefits." How compassionate. |
Or not get pregnant in the first place. How about if we actually try to prevent it to begin with? Is that not socially responsible? If abortion is the issue for you, then avoid that option by using sound prevention practices. |
Again, you're still promoting the legislation of contraception based on class, which leads back to promoting eugenics, Social Darwinism and that whole Nazi thing.
It's one thing to suggest contraception and convince people to decide on their own to use it and another thing entirely to place the force of law behind it. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:59:15 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. |
Originally posted by Gordon:
That's all fine and dandy. So, this happens and then the same family irresponsibly has another child. They have no extended family. What are you actually proposing to do ? and then they have another child. What now ?
You've described what you think people should do, what should happen when they don't do it ? |
Originally posted by Flash:
[I think they should come live with you. |
Wow!
You're a real piece of work!
You have no answers for your ravings, yet you take a shot like that?
I knew there was a reason that I don't hang around threads where you participate.
You argue in circles, you contradict your own meanderings, you're completely clueless, AND.....
Your command of the English language SUCKS!!!
Bye! |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 05:03:41 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Miscellaneous rambling drivel culminating in this: I think they should come live with you. |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Glad to see you've thought it all through then. |
Dude, you're a scream! |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 05:06:30 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again, you're still promoting the legislation of contraception based on class, which leads back to promoting eugenics, Social Darwinism and that whole Nazi thing.
It's one thing to suggest contraception and convince people to decide on their own to use it and another thing entirely to place the force of law behind it. |
Hey, he's going to tell you again that he doesn't know what those things mean therefore they can't be the same.
Also, if he holds his hands over his eyes, and can't see you, then you can't be there.
See how it works? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 07:49:44 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by Flash:
0Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. |
That's all fine and dandy. So, this happens and then the same family irresponsibly has another child. They have no extended family. What are you actually proposing to do ? and then they have another child. What now ?
You've described what you think people should do, what should happen when they don't do it ? |
I think they should come live with you. |
Flash, you're a crank. If you come up with these wild ideas about what people should do, hint that they should actively be prevented from doing the opposite by some apparatus suspiciously resembling the government, then repeatedly dodge answering the direct question as to exactly it is you are proposing, you've expended any credibility you've had, on this and most other subjects. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 08:08:42 PM · #459 |
It's been a couple of days since I have had time to check in and see the response.
Originally posted by Flash:
Except that the argument by liberals on why we need several million illegals (and support them as well) is due to our having more work than people. |
This is a non sequitur. You proposed divorcing supply and demand for labour and proposing full employment reagardless of what work needs to be done. By introducing "illegals" you are trying to muddy the argument to avoid the point.
Originally posted by Flash:
What? There are unemployed supervisors and managers in nearly every community. We are already paying them - to do nothing. |
What costs more - to hand out a cheque once a week in an automated system with a fortnightly interview, or to supervise and manage a full week's work from a forced labourer? The reality is that the costs of your proposed system are higher than the total cost of welfare (which is why the proposal has been rejected in the UK).
Originally posted by Matthew:
o Having people work (needlessly) means that they have less time to find jobs where they would be more productively employed (harming national GDP). Being forced into inappropriate work could damage their career prospects. Originally posted by Flash:
BS |
|
I don't know what job you do, but being forced to work a menial job would severely diminish my career prospects. This is both in terms of eliminating time I would need for interviews and by taking me out of the environment I need in order to stay "current". Most professional and high tech/high value jobs are the same - as I say, this may not be something that you have to deal with.
Originally posted by Flash:
No one said they had to work a full week. But staying in school might be a good start and earning at least a "C" average would be a good beginning. And have those that are unemployed yet skilled teach those without skills might be beneficial. |
Aha - a new schools building and maintenance program, extended teaching materials, examination system etc all for unwilling students to be taught by the unemplyable and given a chance to fail again at irrelevant academic qualifications. All in the context that in most jobs academic qualifications quickly become irrelevant as work experience is far more relevant. Nice idea.
Originally posted by Matthew:
o Private companies offerring similar services would be unable to compete and driven into bankruptcy (the government would probably in breach of anti-trust law). Originally posted by Flash:
Must be addressed legislatively |
|
It is - it is prohibited for extremely good reasons.
Originally posted by Flash:
What? I have done many jobs that I was over qualified for. So what. I needed the money. |
And if you failed to find a job that you were properly qualified for, then that is to everyone's disadvantage. It is in everyone's advantage for you to earn as much as you can and deliver as much value as you can - it directly impacts on GDP (and levels of taxable revenue).
Originally posted by Matthew:
o At the end of all that, you probably won't get the hardcore work-shy people who work the system to work: there will always be loopholes that people like that will take advantage of (disability, fake interviews etc etc). Originally posted by Flash:
Then they don't receive any benefits. |
] |
I am tempted to delete all the rest of my comments - this is the arch oversimplification that runs riot through your arguments. If you could spot the fakers then none of this would be an issue - I think that it is only them that you are really worried about. You are willing to blow up the entire system to catch that tiny minority of fraudsters.
It all comes down to this: those people are breaking the law at the moment and getting away with it. Your suggestion that we simply "catch them" as a matter of policy is hysterically naieve.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 20:13:03.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 08:47:02 PM · #460 |
PS
One recent thought for Flash - if the application of social policies is so damaging to society, how come the EU Eurozone (with high tax to pay for free healthcare, social security (welfare), maternity and paternity rights, state pensions, limits on working time per week, long holiday culture, broad unionisation and workers' rights) should have a higher GDP than the US where those rights are limited or non-existent?
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 01:10:51 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Glad to see you've thought it all through then. |
Not only have I thought it through, it appears that Obama has as well. From your post and link in the "who you rootin for thread"...
Obama race speech
applicable excerpts: Bold emphasis is mine.
"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
"a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. "
"Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition."
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."
"It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."
edit to add summary;
"a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
"middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives,"
"And it means taking full responsibility for [our] own lives "
"education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 13:21:12. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 01:18:09 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Glad to see you've thought it all through then. |
Not only have I thought it through, it appears that Obama has as well. From your post and link in the "who you rootin for thread"...
Obama race speech
applicable excerpts: Bold emphasis is mine.
"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
"a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. "
"Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition."
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."
"It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper." |
However I didn't read anything in his speech that endorses Eugenics as you have. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 01:25:34 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
However I didn't read anything in his speech that endorses Eugenics as you have. |
I guess it depends on how one defines responsibility to their families and offspring. My point was be responsible. Make responsible decisions. That was his point as well.
I am through discussing this particular tract with you. I have allowed you many options in which to be responsible and you continue to argue for irresponsibility. Either you don't get it or you do not want to. Either way this particular tract of discussion is over with me. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 01:38:59 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am through discussing this particular tract with you. I have allowed you many options in which to be responsible and you continue to argue for irresponsibility. |
This response is about as meaningful as forcefully insisting beyond all other considerations that you are arguing for concentration camps, legislated sterilization or abortion for those that make less than $8,000/year, and the removal of children from the homes of the poor. In other words, completely disingenuous. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 01:40:09 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
However I didn't read anything in his speech that endorses Eugenics as you have. |
I guess it depends on how one defines responsibility to their families and offspring. My point was be responsible. Make responsible decisions. That was his point as well.
I am through discussing this particular tract with you. I have allowed you many options in which to be responsible and you continue to argue for irresponsibility. Either you don't get it or you do not want to. Either way this particular tract of discussion is over with me. |
I'm all for encouraging responsibility through positive means.
I'm not for "responsibility" gained through coercion, nor can I endorse any "solution" which involves legislating the right to reproduce nor one that will leave innocent, but poor, children to suffer more than they already do. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 02:20:15 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not for "responsibility" gained through coercion, ... |
except when that coercion is in the form of higher taxes on corporations to be more enviornmentally "responsible". You are "for" coercion, you simply wish to make exceptions - depending on subject matter. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 02:34:31 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not for "responsibility" gained through coercion, ... |
except when that coercion is in the form of higher taxes on corporations to be more enviornmentally "responsible". You are "for" coercion, you simply wish to make exceptions - depending on subject matter. |
That has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with the government's role in promoting what's good for society.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 02:42:19 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not for "responsibility" gained through coercion, ... |
except when that coercion is in the form of higher taxes on corporations to be more enviornmentally "responsible". You are "for" coercion, you simply wish to make exceptions - depending on subject matter. |
That has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with the government's role in promoting what's good for society. |
I should have edited to add "corporation or individual". Coercing individuals to refrain from driving certain vehicles through increasing gas taxes (as Rep Dingle wants to do here with an additional $.50/gal tax), or coercing their product selection by a "penalty tax", certainly falls under coercion as it applies to a defined "responsibility". You do favor coercion (specifically financial coercion) - even for individuals.
edit to add: I could have a field day with this..."and everything to do with the government's role in promoting what's good for society." But I won't accuse you of some of the vagrancies that you have levied against me. Suffice to say, that any government can over-reach their bounds when they use "for the good of society" as the rationale.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 14:50:52. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 02:56:22 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I should have edited to add "corporation or individual". Coercing individuals to refrain from driving certain vehicles through increasing gas taxes (as Rep Dingle wants to do here with an additional $.50/gal tax), or coercing their product selection by a "penalty tax", certainly falls under coercion as it applies to a defined "responsibility". You do favor coercion (specifically financial coercion) - even for individuals. |
I'm lost, yet again. I thought you were all for paying usage taxes ? Surely the more gas you use, the more you get taxed under this scheme ? Or is it only on other things that that sort of use tax makes sense ? |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:01:03 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
I should have edited to add "corporation or individual". Coercing individuals to refrain from driving certain vehicles through increasing gas taxes (as Rep Dingle wants to do here with an additional $.50/gal tax), or coercing their product selection by a "penalty tax", certainly falls under coercion as it applies to a defined "responsibility". You do favor coercion (specifically financial coercion) - even for individuals. |
I'm lost, yet again. I thought you were all for paying usage taxes ? Surely the more gas you use, the more you get taxed under this scheme ? Or is it only on other things that that sort of use tax makes sense ? |
Yes you are. The discussion above between Spazmo99 and I is specifically dealing with coercing a "responsible" action. My use of that example is to demonstrate to him that he does in fact support coercive actions, even financial ones. That is a completely separate discussion from the one regarding "alternatives" to current or proposed tax systems. Separate trains of thought. Separate arguments for separate problems. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:01:11 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not for "responsibility" gained through coercion, ... |
except when that coercion is in the form of higher taxes on corporations to be more enviornmentally "responsible". |
You perpetuate the moral fallacy, first promulgated via a clerk's addendum to a Supreme Court decision back in the 1800's, that coporations have the same rights as citizens/human beings.
Read the Constitution -- I can't find any mention of corporations at all, much less any enumeration of their so-called "rights." The only thing I can find which might seem to pertain to corporate activity would be the beginning of
Article I
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; (editor's note: this was probably a bad idea)
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Etc.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 15:02:19. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:03:14 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not for "responsibility" gained through coercion, ... |
except when that coercion is in the form of higher taxes on corporations to be more enviornmentally "responsible". You are "for" coercion, you simply wish to make exceptions - depending on subject matter. |
That has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with the government's role in promoting what's good for society. |
I should have edited to add "corporation or individual". Coercing individuals to refrain from driving certain vehicles through increasing gas taxes (as Rep Dingle wants to do here with an additional $.50/gal tax), or coercing their product selection by a "penalty tax", certainly falls under coercion as it applies to a defined "responsibility". You do favor coercion (specifically financial coercion) - even for individuals.
edit to add: I could have a field day with this..."and everything to do with the government's role in promoting what's good for society." But I won't accuse you of some of the vagrancies that you have levied against me. Suffice to say, that any government can over-reach their bounds when they use "for the good of society" as the rationale. |
No, I favor government taxation as a means for the government to raise funds to spend for the good of society as it sees fit. If, to you, that means coercion, so be it.
To imply that I favor Rep. Dingleberry's $.50/gal tax as a disincentive to consumption of fuel is incorrect. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:13:18 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, I favor government taxation as a means for the government to raise funds to spend for the good of society as it sees fit. If, to you, that means coercion, so be it. |
Our difference then appears to lie in my preference for the local society (community) to solicit funds (as in donations) to address its social needs, with governments role for taxes being used for more national interest like Defense, border security, etc.
Again the basic difference between liberal big government vs conservative small government. Although of late, there are plenty of exceptions to conservative core principles.
I do call behavior modification (as in penalizing those who would otherwise choose a particular product) through punitive financial action (tax penalties), as a form of coercion.
edit to clarify; that is coercion as you have applied it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 15:18:55. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:15:58 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am through discussing this particular tract with you....Either way this particular tract of discussion is over with me. |
I love it when people say this, because they invariably reverse themselves by their actions moments later. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:22:44 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am through discussing this particular tract with you....Either way this particular tract of discussion is over with me. |
I love it when people say this, because they invariably reverse themselves by their actions moments later. |
Louis - Please read my post and more specifically the individual words of my post, before you lay yet another untrue claim.
You are wrong here. I would encourage you to place the words into context for a clearer understanding. Please note the subject of the post you have quoted from.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 15:30:38. |
|
