Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: PTB on June 21, 2012, 09:45:36 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-social-security_n_1612117.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
-
"He planned to allow citizens under the age of 25 to opt out of the system in order to save their own money for retirement, if elected to the presidency."
This is the way it should be!
He should take the checks, he's had his money taken from him for the last 50 years to be redistributed to people that didn't contribute.
-
"He planned to allow citizens under the age of 25 to opt out of the system in order to save their own money for retirement, if elected to the presidency."
This is the way it should be!
He should take the checks, he's had his money taken from him for the last 50 years to be redistributed to people that didn't contribute.
no it should NOT be this way....do you actually think these guys under 25 are going to actually SAVE THEIR MONEY?????...they will spend it all on drinking and whoring...I know I would.......and then we will be stuck with the bill anyway of supporting them in their old age
-
Who gives a shit? Ron Paul has contributed more via taxation than he has ever taken - he has even refused the government pension system and he pays for his own flights (unlike many Congressmen). Him taking back a tiny portion of his stolen income from government is not inconsistent.
-
Listen to the rest of what he says.... BTW, Ron Paul currently pays more into SS than he gets out. And this concept of taking what is due via government via tax payer money is not new with Ron Paul. He wants to change the system but under the current system has an obligation to take what has been paid for at every opportunity--for both himself and for his constituents. There is nothing new here. This has been his stance from the very start. there is no hypocrisy in this.
-
no it should NOT be this way....
Why not? Why should anyone be forced - at the point of the government's proverbial gun - into financing a one-size fits all plan one may not want?
do you actually think these guys under 25 are going to actually SAVE THEIR MONEY?????
So if people don't want to save their money, they should be forced to? What else do you think the government should force people to do for their own good?
...they will spend it all on drinking and whoring... I know I would.......
Great. So, your argument goes "I was a satyromaniac alcoholic and didn't save money. So everyone else should be forced to save money!" Sounds sensible. ::)
and then we will be stuck with the bill anyway of supporting them in their old age
Why would we be stuck with any bill? Why should the government support anyone?
Who gives a shit? Ron Paul has contributed more via taxation than he has ever taken - he has even refused the government pension system and he pays for his own flights (unlike many Congressmen). Him taking back a tiny portion of his stolen income from government is not inconsistent.
QFT.
-
Yeah SS should be done away with. There are many options for individuals to use for retirement but that should be their decision and not the governments.
As for the people that may not have enough to make ends meet when they retire...I don't know what to do with them. Sure the easy answer is fuck em all but shit happens.
Maybe free soup and a tent is as far as I would go for government handouts.
-
Why not? Why should anyone be forced - at the point of the government's proverbial gun - into financing a one-size fits all plan one may not want?
So if people don't want to save their money, they should be forced to? What else do you think the government should force people to do for their own good?
Great. So, your argument goes "I was a satyromaniac alcoholic and didn't save money. So everyone else should be forced to save money!" Sounds sensible. ::)
Why would we be stuck with any bill? Why should the government support anyone?
QFT.
I know you're a smart poster, and I've agreed with many of your posts, but I don't agree with you here.
You and I both know that most young people are, in fact, not going to save, so the andre is right.
Your argument doesn't take into account that we live in a humane society. Would you really be willing to let older people starve to death?
This is very similar to the health care argument. In the same vein in which you posit, you would also be willing to allow hospitals to refuse emergency medical service to those without insurance.
Also by your logic, I should be able to opt out of paying taxes if I don't agree with certain wars.
In addition, since I have no children, I shouldn't have to pay for any education.
This list goes on and on.
-
You and I both know that most young people are, in fact, not going to save, so the andre is right.
You cannot protect people from their own poor judgement, and trying to do so is a futile endeavor anyways. And even if it wasn't, the simple fact is that forcing people to not make bad decisions at the point of a gun is wrong.
Your argument doesn't take into account that we live in a humane society. Would you really be willing to let older people starve to death?
I am willing to let people be responsible for the choices they made. Besides, to assert that people would face starvation if not for a retirement benefits is a fallacy. It's not an "either-or" thing. Perhaps elder people who can't afford food can move in with their children. Numerous charities could provide food. Will some starve to death? Probably. But how is that different from today anyways?
This is very similar to the health care argument. In the same vein in which you posit, you would also be willing to allow hospitals to refuse emergency medical service to those without insurance.
Yes, I would. I don't think that any provider of services should be required by law to provide services gratis.
Also by your logic, I should be able to opt out of paying taxes if I don't agree with certain wars.
I don't think that follows from my logic at all...
In addition, since I have no children, I shouldn't have to pay for any education.
You shouldn't have to pay taxes for education, because I don't believe that providing an educational system is an appropriate function of government.
This list goes on and on.
It does. But my answers would remain, more or less, the same.
-
You cannot protect people from their own poor judgement, and trying to do so is a futile endeavor anyways. And even if it wasn't, the simple fact is that forcing people to not make bad decisions at the point of a gun is wrong.
I am willing to let people be responsible for the choices they made. Besides, to assert that people would face starvation if not for a retirement benefits is a fallacy. It's not an "either-or" thing. Perhaps elder people who can't afford food can move in with their children. Numerous charities could provide food. Will some starve to death? Probably. But how is that different from today anyways?
Yes, I would. I don't think that any provider of services should be required by law to provide services gratis.
I don't think that follows from my logic at all...
You shouldn't have to pay taxes for education, because I don't believe that providing an educational system is an appropriate function of government.
It does. But my answers would remain, more or less, the same.
If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?
What's the point?
-
If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?
What's the point?
What if someone wants to be free to die on their own terms?
-
What if someone wants to be free to die on their own terms?
Then I support it.
But let's be honest about it. If someone is in a car wreck, they are going to want to go to the hospital 99.999999999999 percent of the time.
If someone is starving, they want something to eat 99.999999999999999999 percent of the time.
Let's be human about it.
And as to educational costs - I'm happy that my taxes go there. I wish a larger percentage would be spent there. That improves the quality of our country as a whole, even though I have no children.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-social-security_n_1612117.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Ron Paul is 76 so the government automatically sends it to him regardless. There's nothing wrong with him taking it if he's using the money to help dismantle it.
I actually agree with Ron on this. Social Security is a complete joke and its going to run out very soon. I would rather get mine cashed out and invest it into a more substainable retirement plan.
-
I understand your political views now!
They're based on your belief that adults aren't responsible enough to be allowed to run their own lives.
-
So if people don't want to save their money, they should be forced to? What else do you think the government should force people to do for their own good?
I'm actually glad he posted that. It highlights the foundation of their (several getbiggers) thought processes.
-
If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?
What's the point?
Military, Police, Fire, Infrastructure.
-
Let's be human about it.
Everyone here would agree with that.
That's what Churches, Charities, and other non profit organizations are for.
Imagine what the Salvation Army could achieve with the millions of dollars we give to our government to throw away.
-
If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?
I don't want to deny anyone anything. I just don't think that it's the government's responsibility to tell adults how they should spend their money or to force people to pay for services they do not want or for other people to eat and get medical coverage.
Plus, it's actually a false dichotomy to claim that the only two options are social security or starvation. Perhaps people would save if they knew they wouldn't have social security. Or they could move in with their children. Or perhaps charities could provide meals. It's not "social security or death, doom and destruction!!!"
What's the point?
You honestly think that the point of government is to run a chain of restaurants and hospitals?
-
Did you know that thousands of Americans cannot afford a cell phone? I think the government should get into the cell phone business.
Oh wait...... They did
-
I'm actually glad he posted that. It highlights the foundation of their (several getbiggers) thought processes.
I'm not sure why my post (the one you are quoting) was deleted. You'd imagine that a moderator would at least have the courtesy to send at least a PM to let you know that a post was deleted and, more importantly, why, especially if the post doesn't obviously violate any of the board rules.
-
I'm not sure why my post (the one you are quoting) was deleted. You'd imagine that a moderator would at least have the courtesy to send at least a PM to let you know that a post was deleted and, more importantly, why, especially if the post doesn't obviously violate any of the board rules.
I don't think it was deleted? ???
-
I don't think it was deleted? ???
Hmm... you see that post? I don't, so perhaps it's a caching issue on my side or somesuch.
Or maybe *shifts eyes* they restored it after they were caught red-handed... yes... yes... ;)
-
This thread is just boggling my mind. I'm glad to see you two admit that you feel this way.
andreisdaman, garebear, serious question...
What can adults be trusted to do on their own? Saving our own money, and planing for our future is now unrealistic. What do you care about Education for? Why bother, we have to rely on the government anyway.
This is absolutely the craziest damn thing I've read on here. Financial freedom is out the window now.
Insane
-
Hmm... you see that post? I don't, so perhaps it's a caching issue on my side or somesuch.
Or maybe *shifts eyes* they restored it after they were caught red-handed... yes... yes... ;)
haha.... I see it still. I say we blame this one on Ozmo.
-
This thread is just boggling my mind. I'm glad to see you two admit that you feel this way.
andreisdaman, garebear, serious question...
What can adults be trusted to do on their own? Saving our own money, and planing for our future is now unrealistic. What do you care about Education for? Why bother, we have to rely on the government anyway.
This is absolutely the craziest damn thing I've read on here. Financial freedom is out the window now.
Insane
They are progressive statists what do you expect?
-
Kind of reminds me of Scott Brown who wants to overturn Obama care while at the same time using it to insurance his adult daughter
-
They are progressive statists what do you expect?
I guess it never sunk in. I really take issue here, because I cannot stand the idea of Social Security. I know that I'm giving money away that I could be saving for myself and MY FAMILY. My grandparents and parents paid a shit ton of money into Social Security (money they won't ever recoup) so that people that aren't responsible enough to save money like andreisdaman and his family won't run out of Doritos and cell phone minutes.
MELTDOWN... CONGRATULATIONS >:(
-
What's going to happen to all the people that aren't responsible enough to run their own life when all the people that are stop supporting them? ???
-
Why not? Why should anyone be forced - at the point of the government's proverbial gun - into financing a one-size fits all plan one may not want?
So if people don't want to save their money, they should be forced to? What else do you think the government should force people to do for their own good?
Great. So, your argument goes "I was a satyromaniac alcoholic and didn't save money. So everyone else should be forced to save money!" Sounds sensible. ::)
Why would we be stuck with any bill? Why should the government support anyone?
QFT.
first off its not about getting the same out of social security as you put in....the vast majority of people get more than they put in...its about taking care of each other in this country as Americans...your attitude is whats wrong with this country.....no one wants to do shit for anyone any more..its about me me me ...meanwhile I'm sure you and your parents and your relatives have gotten a lot off the backs off the American taxpayer.....by your attitude we should not have a gov't at all....since no one should be taken care of as you say.....lets just dissolve gov't and fend for ourselves....
-
If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?
What's the point?
good post...these guys on here don't want to do shit for anyone....meanwhile I'm sure their parents are all on Medicare, getting social security,food stamps etc
-
Yeah SS should be done away with. There are many options for individuals to use for retirement but that should be their decision and not the governments.
As for the people that may not have enough to make ends meet when they retire...I don't know what to do with them. Sure the easy answer is fuck em all but shit happens.
Maybe free soup and a tent is as far as I would go for government handouts.
tell this to your mother and father..see what they say
-
first off its not about getting the same out of social security as you put in....the vast majority of people get more than they put in...its about taking care of each other in this country as Americans...your attitude is whats wrong with this country.....no one wants to do shit for anyone any more..its about me me me ...meanwhile I'm sure you and your parents and your relatives have gotten a lot off the backs off the American taxpayer.....by your attitude we should not have a gov't at all....since no one should be taken care of as you say.....lets just dissolve gov't and fend for ourselves....
Correct, if I saw you on the side of the street near death in need of food and water, and i was pushing a cart full of food, I would keep going in a heartbeat.
bbbboooommmmmmm!!!!!
-
I understand your political views now!
They're based on your belief that adults aren't responsible enough to be allowed to run their own lives.
they actually aren't......any time people are left to regulate themselves, trouble happens
-
This thread is just boggling my mind. I'm glad to see you two admit that you feel this way.
andreisdaman, garebear, serious question...
What can adults be trusted to do on their own? Saving our own money, and planing for our future is now unrealistic. What do you care about Education for? Why bother, we have to rely on the government anyway.
This is absolutely the craziest damn thing I've read on here. Financial freedom is out the window now.
Insane
if financial freedom is out the window, then there is definitely more of a need for SS
-
if financial freedom is out the window
That's according to you, I strongly disagree.
-
first off its not about getting the same out of social security as you put in....the vast majority of people get more than they put in...
Right, and that's the problem. One set of people is subsidizing another set of people. And they're subsidizing those other people by force, not by choice.
its about taking care of each other in this country as Americans...
If we want to take care of each other we can do it. We don't need the government to force us to do it at the point of a gun.
your attitude is whats wrong with this country.....
Right, it's my attitude that's the problem. The one that says "I want to be allowed to make my own decisions instead of being told what I must do."
no one wants to do shit for anyone any more..
If only we all worked to make others happy, living simple lives in a gumdrop house, on Lollipop Lane... what a wonderful world that would be! ::)
its about me me me ...
It's about being able to make one's own choices. And taking responsibility for those choices.
meanwhile I'm sure you and your parents and your relatives have gotten a lot off the backs off the American taxpayer.....
You may be sure. I, on the other hand, am sure that you would be quite surprised.
by your attitude we should not have a gov't at all....since no one should be taken care of as you say.....lets just dissolve gov't and fend for ourselves....
If it helps you sleep better to pretend that my position means "no government" but your delusions don't have any bearing on reality. The simple fact is that the purpose of government isn't to take care of people because the government isn't a caretaker. There are functions that the government can and must provide - things like a Court system, a police force, and armed forces. And then there are functions that the government cannot and should not provide - things like pensions, health insurance and food.
The government isn't a nurse. The government isn't a doctor. The government isn't a chef. The government isn't a waiter.
-
they actually aren't......any time people are left to regulate themselves, trouble happens
Wow... just wow.
-
I find this interesting. I wonder what would happen if a candidate was anti-abortion, yet encouraged their wife, daughter, mistress, to have an abortion on the grounds that they have "paid" taxes or insurance dues for the service to be administered then they have a right to also use it despite being against it.
-
I find this interesting. I wonder what would happen if a candidate was anti-abortion, yet encouraged their wife, daughter, mistress, to have an abortion on the grounds that they have "paid" taxes or insurance dues for the service to be administered then they have a right to also use it despite being against it.
That is the craziest damn argument I've ever read on here.
-
tell this to your mother and father..see what they say
They would say the same thing. They worked for what they have and were smart enough to save some cash instead of trying to keep up with everyone else going into debt over dumb shit. If you live beyond your basic means when financially you shouldn't then your decisions caused you to be broke. Basically you have 45 years to work and save for retirement. That is plenty of time to have a house paid for and some transportation so when they retire they just need food, utilities and insurance.
-
I find this interesting. I wonder what would happen if a candidate was anti-abortion, yet encouraged their wife, daughter, mistress, to have an abortion on the grounds that they have "paid" taxes or insurance dues for the service to be administered then they have a right to also use it despite being against it.
There's a very large difference - presumably one is anti-abortion because of personal beliefs on questions like "what makes a person a person", "when does an embryo qualify as human" and "do human rights apply to babies in the womb".
None of those questions relate to taxes. So if a candidate who was otherwise anti-abortion encouraged someone to have an abortion on the ground that they've paid taxes and are entitled to a "service" it would be both reasonable and proper to call that person a hypocrite. Not because of their stand on taxes, but because of their stand on abortion.
-
There's a very large difference - presumably one is anti-abortion because of personal beliefs on questions like "what makes a person a person", "when does an embryo qualify as human" and "do human rights apply to babies in the womb".
None of those questions relate to taxes. So if a candidate who was otherwise anti-abortion encouraged someone to have an abortion on the ground that they've paid taxes and are entitled to a "service" it would be both reasonable and proper to call that person a hypocrite. Not because of their stand on taxes, but because of their stand on abortion.
You recently posted something here and I thought that you were goofy. Now I'm agreeing with you. WTF
-
You recently posted something here and I thought that you were goofy. Now I'm agreeing with you. WTF
Perhaps you're goofier than you thought? ;D
-
Correct, if I saw you on the side of the street near death in need of food and water, and i was pushing a cart full of food, I would keep going in a heartbeat.
bbbboooommmmmmm!!!!!
boom???..please....I wouldn't accept help from you.....thats how I feel about you
-
Wow... just wow.
just wow is right
-
Right, and that's the problem. One set of people is subsidizing another set of people. And they're subsidizing those other people by force, not by choice.
If we want to take care of each other we can do it. We don't need the government to force us to do it at the point of a gun.
Right, it's my attitude that's the problem. The one that says "I want to be allowed to make my own decisions instead of being told what I must do."
If only we all worked to make others happy, living simple lives in a gumdrop house, on Lollipop Lane... what a wonderful world that would be! ::)
It's about being able to make one's own choices. And taking responsibility for those choices.
You may be sure. I, on the other hand, am sure that you would be quite surprised.
If it helps you sleep better to pretend that my position means "no government" but your delusions don't have any bearing on reality. The simple fact is that the purpose of government isn't to take care of people because the government isn't a caretaker. There are functions that the government can and must provide - things like a Court system, a police force, and armed forces. And then there are functions that the government cannot and should not provide - things like pensions, health insurance and food.
The government isn't a nurse. The government isn't a doctor. The government isn't a chef. The government isn't a waiter.
What's with your ridiculous 'at the point of a gun' statement? You seem like an intelligent guy and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you keep repeating this.
I guess I had to pay taxes for wars I didn't support 'at the point of a gun'.
I guess I can't shoplift in America 'at the point of a gun'.
Why do I, a person without children, have to pay taxes for education 'at the point of a gun'?
Who is pointing a gun at you?
-
Perhaps you're goofier than you thought? ;D
haha...
I am the goofiest, trust me!!!
-
Right, and that's the problem. One set of people is subsidizing another set of people. And they're subsidizing those other people by force, not by choice.
If we want to take care of each other we can do it. We don't need the government to force us to do it at the point of a gun.
Right, it's my attitude that's the problem. The one that says "I want to be allowed to make my own decisions instead of being told what I must do."
If only we all worked to make others happy, living simple lives in a gumdrop house, on Lollipop Lane... what a wonderful world that would be! ::)
It's about being able to make one's own choices. And taking responsibility for those choices.
You may be sure. I, on the other hand, am sure that you would be quite surprised.
If it helps you sleep better to pretend that my position means "no government" but your delusions don't have any bearing on reality. The simple fact is that the purpose of government isn't to take care of people because the government isn't a caretaker. There are functions that the government can and must provide - things like a Court system, a police force, and armed forces. And then there are functions that the government cannot and should not provide - things like pensions, health insurance and food.
The government isn't a nurse. The government isn't a doctor. The government isn't a chef. The government isn't a waiter.
I knew I liked you. I couldnt put my finger on it, but I just knew.
-
Andre, Gare....
Could I trouble you two to please take this test: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
Just out of curiosity
-
Andre, Gare....
Could I trouble you two to please take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test/
Just out of curiosity
What does this mean? It didnt show me the graph, pic was broken.
Economic Left/Right: 5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18
-
What does this mean? It didnt show me the graph, pic was broken.
Economic Left/Right: 5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18
Sorry, I didn't realize that site was fucked up (it use to be good). I just took this one: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
-
You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 3.68, Libertarian: 3.49
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/27x27.gif)
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/n45.gif)
On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: -0.95
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/c49.gif)
Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -0.25
LOL @ the average score
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/17x23.gif)
-
You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 3.68, Libertarian: 3.49
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/27x27.gif)
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/n45.gif)
On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: -0.95
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/c49.gif)
Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -0.25
LOL @ the average score
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/17x23.gif)
Thanks for taking this my brother from another mother! I guess I'm an extremist.... :o
-
Thanks for taking this my brother from another mother! I guess I'm an extremist.... :o
I think I would have been more to the libertarian side, but Im always in favor of kicking someones ass when they fuck with us, so that may have skewed things a bit, lol.
-
they actually aren't......any time people are left to regulate themselves, trouble happens
That right there pretty much sums up the entire liberal agenda and what it's about.
-
That right there pretty much sums up the entire liberal agenda and what it's about.
Sounds like the 1st step towards fascism to me.
-
You are a center-left social libertarian.
Left: 1.86, Libertarian: 6.56
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/16x33.gif)
My Foreign Policy Views Score: -2.37
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/n38.gif)
My Culture War Stance Score: -3.19
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/c34.gif)
-
Well I took the quiz and, apparently, I am a "right social libertarian" (Right: 5.48, Libertarian: 6.26)
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/32x33.gif)
Foreign Policy Views Score: -0.69
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/n47.gif)
Culture War Stance Score: -3.5
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/c33.gif)
I'm a bit surprised the test finds me to be this far to the right to be honest - if you asked me to classify myself, I'd say "libertian, leaning center right". I think that some of the questions were poorly chosen, leaving some of us with the proverbial Sophie's choice. For example: "A nation's retirement safety net cannot be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market." How am I to answer that? I don't believe that a nation should have a "retirement safety net", so do I choose "Strongly Disagree"? If so, what am I actually disagreeing with? That the safety net can't be trusted to the fluctuations of the stock market; which means I'm implictly agreeing that a nation should have a "retirement safety net".
-
You are a center-right social libertarian.
Right: 1.74, Libertarian: 5.78
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/23x32.gif)
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/n24.gif)
(http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/c36.gif)
-
I am going to take your test later tonight, but read this article about what happens when the gov't doesn't do the job it is supposed to do and leaves it to others
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html?src=me&ref=general
-
I am going to take your test later tonight, but read this article about what happens when the gov't doesn't do the job it is supposed to do and leaves it to others
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html?src=me&ref=general
You post an article by Krugman as your evidence?
Fail bro, fail.
-
I am going to take your test later tonight, but read this article about what happens when the gov't doesn't do the job it is supposed to do and leaves it to others
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html?src=me&ref=general
Thank you, I read the article. My uncle and aunt just read Krugmans new book, you and them would get along. I strongly disagree with his argument here, I don't know the specifics on New Jersey.
Sandy Springs, Georgia privatized everything.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Thank you, I read the article. My uncle and aunt just read Krugmans new book, you and them would get along. I strongly disagree with his argument here, I don't know the specifics on New Jersey.
Check this out if you want, it really interested me. Sandy Springs, Georgia privatized everything (around 7:45)
The only issue I have with "privatizing" everything is the fact that for profit companies are out to do that... make a profit.
In government, you are not supposed to make a profit... I worked for government, especially at the state level for quite some time, and the agency was never allowed to make money... Everything was provided "at cost".
When we moved away from that to a public-private partnership, the companies wanted to make money and the citizens had to pay MORE as a result.
Look up "Commonwealth of Virginia" "Virginia Information Technologies Agency" in regards to what private business can do.
-
When we moved away from that to a public-private partnership, the companies wanted to make money and the citizens had to pay MORE as a result.
First of all, paying more isn't necessarily a bad thing. Attending a state university is pretty cheap since a huge percentage of the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers. The question is where citizens paying the true cost of the service provided before or was the "at cost" figure you mention the amount that legislators said the service would have to cost, or was calculated to cost after government-provided funds covered a percentage of the true cost?
Second, in a free market, competition would limit what any one company could charge - charge enough and competitors will be lured into entering the market to make a profit by charging less and take business away from you. Of course, if you are granted a government-endorsed monopoly, you don't have that problem. Was that, perhaps, an issue in that case?
More generally on privatization. I don't think everything should be privatized. Police and Armed Forces, for example, shouldn't be; plus a few other things here and there. But for the vast majority of government-provided services, privatization just makes more sense. The government should focus on fulfilling the functions of government, not expanding into every nook and cranny of the economy.
[Sidenote: Look up Gibbons v. Ogden if you're interested. The case involved a de jure monopoly granted by New York State to Robert Fulton, which was challenged and went all the way to the Supreme Court which struck the law down.]
-
You post an article by Krugman as your evidence?
Fail bro, fail.
I guess Krugman doesn't tell the truth in your opinion?..yes he might be partisan but is he telling the truth???..I think so...he lays out a compelling case
-
I guess Krugman doesn't tell the truth in your opinion?..yes he might be partisan but is he telling the truth???..I think so...he lays out a compelling case
Krugman is a pathetic shill, a joke, a con man, and an ex enron adviser who cheered on the housing bubble and calls for a fake space alien invasion.
-
Krugman is a pathetic shill, a joke, a con man, and an ex enron adviser who cheered on the housing bubble and calls for a fake space alien invasion.
again this is the problem with America today......people only want to believe their own favorite partisan writers......they won't accept truth from any where else...
-
again this is the problem with America today......people only want to believe their own favorite partisan writers......they won't accept truth from any where else...
Krugman has been wrong about everything and you hacks still rely on him why?
-
I guess Krugman doesn't tell the truth in your opinion?..yes he might be partisan but is he telling the truth???..I think so...he lays out a compelling case
Krugman has been proven wrong on pretty much everything he's ever said. To my knowledge, there is not ONE single idea he's championed, that has worked out. And his excuse is always "Well they didnt it my way enough", and then belittles and mocks anyone who's ideas are different, even though his never work. (He's like a getbig poster - except that he's a professional, and acting like that in the spotlight when his theories always fail makes him look like a bitter moron)
He's a joke man.
At some point, you'd think someone would face the music and admit that maybe, JUST MAYBE, his idea's are just flat out wrong.
-
You and I both know that most young people are, in fact, not going to save, so the andre is right.
Why would they save when the government "saves" for them? Why worry about retirement when the government claims it'll take care of you with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole variety of programs intended for the poor? Do you not realize that the very existence of all of these programs promotes irresponsibility? Do you not realize that a system where people are encouraged to be responsible and save for themselves would be far superior to the current all-encompassing "safety net" since savings can be accumulated and passed down through generations while the retirement benefits in a social pension program such as Social Security cannot?
Do you not realize that the 60+ age group is the wealthiest age group today in America and that YOU are proposing a forceful redistribution of wealth from the young and poor to the old and wealthy?
Your argument doesn't take into account that we live in a humane society.
A humane society where people aren't robbed of their income via taxation? A humane society where the individual has the right to do with his life what he pleases as long as he does not violate the rights of others? A humane society where 51% of the population cannot deprive the other 49% of life, liberty, or property?
Would you really be willing to let older people starve to death?
Would you really be willing to live in a society where the government regulates, restricts, subsidizes, and taxes every little activity in the name of safety? Would you really be willing to live in a society where individual liberty and personal responsibility are legislated away and everyone becomes dependent on handouts, all in the name of safety?
This is very similar to the health care argument. In the same vein in which you posit, you would also be willing to allow hospitals to refuse emergency medical service to those without insurance.
And you would be willing to force doctors, nurses, and health care administrators to provide a service free of charge? Isn't that the height of tyranny - slavery?
Also by your logic, I should be able to opt out of paying taxes if I don't agree with certain wars.
In addition, since I have no children, I shouldn't have to pay for any education.
This list goes on and on.
The list does go on and on. It is a quite simple matter: taxation is theft. You have to ask yourself: by what right does someone forcefully take your property in order to use it in a way they see fit?
-
If you are willing to let people starve to death and die due to a denial of medicine, then why be part of a country at all?
What's the point?
Are you seriously claiming that society has no benefits unless there is force involved? That there is no benefit to voluntarily interacting with other individuals? That society is pointless unless someone's rights are being violated?
Jeeeeez... That really does explain a lot about your political philosophy.
-
Thank you howardroark, much appreciated!
-
Are you seriously claiming that society has no benefits unless there is force involved? That there is no benefit to voluntarily interacting with other individuals? That society is pointless unless someone's rights are being violated?
Jeeeeez... That really does explain a lot about your political philosophy.
Spot-on.
-
First of all, paying more isn't necessarily a bad thing. Attending a state university is pretty cheap since a huge percentage of the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers. The question is where citizens paying the true cost of the service provided before or was the "at cost" figure you mention the amount that legislators said the service would have to cost, or was calculated to cost after government-provided funds covered a percentage of the true cost?
Second, in a free market, competition would limit what any one company could charge - charge enough and competitors will be lured into entering the market to make a profit by charging less and take business away from you. Of course, if you are granted a government-endorsed monopoly, you don't have that problem. Was that, perhaps, an issue in that case?
More generally on privatization. I don't think everything should be privatized. Police and Armed Forces, for example, shouldn't be; plus a few other things here and there. But for the vast majority of government-provided services, privatization just makes more sense. The government should focus on fulfilling the functions of government, not expanding into every nook and cranny of the economy.
[Sidenote: Look up Gibbons v. Ogden if you're interested. The case involved a de jure monopoly granted by New York State to Robert Fulton, which was challenged and went all the way to the Supreme Court which struck the law down.]
You're right. Free market breeds competition and in turn better prices.
The problem with these partnerships is that there is no competition really.
When one company gets the contract, they have effectively been granted a monopoly in that area.
It's very difficult to switch companies when one company has put out a ton of cash for infrastructure. They own that stuff and it can't be easily removed.
-
Why would they save when the government "saves" for them? Why worry about retirement when the government claims it'll take care of you with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole variety of programs intended for the poor? Do you not realize that the very existence of all of these programs promotes irresponsibility? Do you not realize that a system where people are encouraged to be responsible and save for themselves would be far superior to the current all-encompassing "safety net" since savings can be accumulated and passed down through generations while the retirement benefits in a social pension program such as Social Security cannot?
Do you not realize that the 60+ age group is the wealthiest age group today in America and that YOU are proposing a forceful redistribution of wealth from the young and poor to the old and wealthy?
A humane society where people aren't robbed of their income via taxation? A humane society where the individual has the right to do with his life what he pleases as long as "he does not violate the rights of others? A humane society where 51% of the population cannot deprive the other 49% of life, liberty, or property?
Would you really be willing to live in a society where the government regulates, restricts, subsidizes, and taxes every little activity in the name of safety? Would you really be willing to live in a society where individual liberty and personal responsibility are legislated away and everyone becomes dependent on handouts, all in the name of safety?
And you would be willing to force doctors, nurses, and health care administrators to provide a service free of charge? Isn't that the height of tyranny - slavery?
The list does go on and on. It is a quite simple matter: taxation is theft. You have to ask yourself: by what right does someone forcefully take your property in order to use it in a way they see fit?
Are you unfamiliar with Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan? You are a part of a nation so that people do not exist in a state of constant war.
This means that certain concessions must be made. In return, you are living in a system that benefits you in many ways. For instance, you have the rule of law to protect your property. How is that enforcement to be paid? If we were to base it on your half-baked rant, it is only because the government is "stealing" your money to pay for it.
Hey, if you are so anti-government, why are you even living in a nation-state as you write this? Why not go off in the woods somewhere, make a fortune(with no one around to do business with) and then you can keep one hundred percent of everything? Of course, that could never happen because you have to be integrated, at least to some extent, with rules and laws and order.
The door's always open and you can leave anytime you like.
-
no it should NOT be this way....do you actually think these guys under 25 are going to actually SAVE THEIR MONEY?????...they will spend it all on drinking and whoring...I know I would.......and then we will be stuck with the bill anyway of supporting them in their old age
So it's the governments (and by extension, tax paying citizens) job to to coddle and support those who don't save their money?
And if you support that idea then you should have no problem with bailing out banks, trading institutions and corporations regardless of the decisions they have made, correct?
I'll pass on that.
-
'No stealing without representation' was actually the founding fathers' call.
Then, we all became slaves.
The end.
-
That is the craziest damn argument I've ever read on here.
No it's not. It's about a principals. If Ron Paul has an anti-social security principal then collects SS, that is the exact same type of hypocrisy i mentioned above. Ron Paul is suppose to be all about his core beliefs and principals, that's what makes him so appealing. His message is the same. Except when it's time to collect his cheque, then he's gonna line up like everyone else.
Typical politician really. It's a shame you Paultards try to elevate him to saintly status when in reality he's just another snakeoil salesman in office. Telling you one thing, then doing another.
-
What's with your ridiculous 'at the point of a gun' statement? You seem like an intelligent guy and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you keep repeating this.
It's a figure of speech, meant to indicate I am being forced to act against my better judgement.
I guess I had to pay taxes for wars I didn't support 'at the point of a gun'.
Whether you support the particular wars is irrelevant imo. National defense is a proper function of government, one we should pay taxes for. You can argue that the wars weren't in the interest of national defense and a whole host of other issues, but whether you, specifically, supported them or not is irrelevant.
I guess I can't shoplift in America 'at the point of a gun'.
When you shoplift, you are doing it at the point of a gun - a gun that you're holding. You are using force to deprive other people of their property. You cannot steal except through the use of force.
Why do I, a person without children, have to pay taxes for education 'at the point of a gun'?
You shouldn't have to. But you are forced, by the government, whether in the form of property taxes ("pay this or we take your house") or in the form of income taxes ("pay this or we take you to Court") or any of the other forms of taxation.
Who is pointing a gun at you?
Anyone who is forcing me to act against my will and against my better judgement. I'm being forced to contribute to social security - a service I do not want or need - at the point of the government's proverbial gun: I work, and so the law compels me to contribute. I'm being forced to pay for the government to subsidize telephone service for those who are poor or live in rural areas - something I have no desire to do - at the point of the government's proverbial gun: they add mandatory fees to services I do want. The list goes on.
No it's not. It's about a principals. If Ron Paul has an anti-social security principal then collects SS, that is the exact same type of hypocrisy i mentioned above. Ron Paul is suppose to be all about his core beliefs and principals, that's what makes him so appealing. His message is the same. Except when it's time to collect his cheque, then he's gonna line up like everyone else.
It is about principle. Ron Paul's principle is that you should get to keep your own money. If he can recover some of the money taken from him, then to not recover it would be the hypocrisy. It's neither inconsistent nor dishonest.
Typical politician really. It's a shame you Paultards try to elevate him to saintly status when in reality he's just another snakeoil salesman in office. Telling you one thing, then doing another.
I don't think Ron Paul is some kind of of Saint. But I see nothing problematic with his actions here.
-
It's a figure of speech, meant to indicate I am being forced to act against my better judgement.
Whether you support the particular wars is irrelevant imo. National defense is a proper function of government, one we should pay taxes for. You can argue that the wars weren't in the interest of national defense and a whole host of other issues, but whether you, specifically, supported them or not is irrelevant.
When you shoplift, you are doing it at the point of a gun - a gun that you're holding. You are using force to deprive other people of their property. You cannot steal except through the use of force.
You shouldn't have to. But you are forced, by the government, whether in the form of property taxes ("pay this or we take your house") or in the form of income taxes ("pay this or we take you to Court") or any of the other forms of taxation.
Anyone who is forcing me to act against my will and against my better judgement. I'm being forced to contribute to social security - a service I do not want or need - at the point of the government's proverbial gun: I work, and so the law compels me to contribute. I'm being forced to pay for the government to subsidize telephone service for those who are poor or live in rural areas - something I have no desire to do - at the point of the government's proverbial gun: they add mandatory fees to services I do want. The list goes on.
It is about principle. Ron Paul's principle is that you should get to keep your own money. If he can recover some of the money taken from him, then to not recover it would be the hypocrisy. It's neither inconsistent nor dishonest.
I don't think Ron Paul is some kind of of Saint. But I see nothing problematic with his actions here.
Garebare won't recover.
-
So it's the governments (and by extension, tax paying citizens) job to to coddle and support those who don't save their money?
And if you support that idea then you should have no problem with bailing out banks, trading institutions and corporations regardless of the decisions they have made, correct?
I'll pass on that.
Dude..what planet are you living on???...When you make posts like these you disappoint me because I KNOW you are smarter than this.....you and I both know that A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION CANNOT SAVE MONEY OR CANNOT SAVE ENOUGH TO CARRY THEM THROUGH OLD AGE.....many people simply do not make enough money to do so ..simple as that...especially those with children..a guy making $30,000 a year or minimum wages cannot save money unless they are living with their mother like 3333..not to mention at least those on SS actually paid something into their retirement
and you already know this.......and you compare taking care of people in their old age to giving bailouts to millionaires and billionaires....come on!..lets at least be intellectually honest here
-
So your solution for people not making enough money to save is to take the money from them by force? Sounds reasonable!
-
So your solution for people not making enough money to save is to take the money from them by force? Sounds reasonable!
no one is taking anything by force...don't be a jerk-off with your rhetoric.....I don't see IRS agents with guns knocking down people's door and forcing taxes from people at gunpoint....a gov't must take care of all, not just those who can rely on themselves...the nation cannot stand united and defend itself if large portions of the population are hungry, sick, broke, without shelter, etc...
-
no one is taking anything by force...don't be a jerk-off with your rhetoric.....I don't see IRS agents with guns knocking down people's door and forcing taxes from people at gunpoint....a gov't must take care of all, not just those who can rely on themselves...the nation cannot stand united and defend itself if large portions of the population are hungry, sick, broke, without shelter, etc...
When people are sent to prison due to "Tax Evasion", how the hell is that not done at the barrel of a gun?
That's crazy talk man... CRAZY.
You absolutely have ALWAYS paid your taxes in your lifetime at the end of a gun barrel... ALWAYS.
-
no one is taking anything by force...don't be a jerk-off with your rhetoric.....I don't see IRS agents with guns knocking down people's door and forcing taxes from people at gunpoint....a gov't must take care of all, not just those who can rely on themselves...the nation cannot stand united and defend itself if large portions of the population are hungry, sick, broke, without shelter, etc...
Its not the governments responsibility to make sure the citizens have enough money for retirement. That responsibility belongs to no one but the citizen.
Oh, and when they deduct the money straight out of your paycheck, Id say that's considered "taking by force"
-
When people are sent to prison due to "Tax Evasion", how the hell is that not done at the barrel of a gun?
That's crazy talk man... CRAZY.
You absolutely have ALWAYS paid your taxes in your lifetime at the end of a gun barrel... ALWAYS.
people voluntarily pay because they are fair-minded and want to pay their share.....but I realize arguing with a neophyte serves no purpose..so lets move on
-
people voluntarily pay because they are fair-minded and want to pay their share.....but I realize arguing with a neophyte serves no purpose..so lets move on
-
Its not the governments responsibility to make sure the citizens have enough money for retirement. That responsibility belongs to no one but the citizen.
Oh, and when they deduct the money straight out of your paycheck, Id say that's considered "taking by force"
all I can say is....ssssiiiigggghhhh.. ........................ ....................lets move on
-
people voluntarily pay because they are fair-minded and want to pay their share.....but I realize arguing with a neophyte serves no purpose..so lets move on
Now I know you're just trolling... That's just ridiculous.
You pay taxes because you WANT to?
I don't usually have a problem people having their opinions, but if you TRULY believe this, then all that shit that 333333333.2934283467264 says about you may be accurate.
This is crazy talk and I can no longer take you serious AT ALL.
-
Now I know you're just trolling... That's just ridiculous.
You pay taxes because you WANT to?
I don't usually have a problem people having their opinions, but if you TRULY believe this, then all that shit that 333333333.2934283467264 says about you may be accurate.
This is crazy talk and I can no longer take you serious AT ALL.
dude....do me a favor..THINK......do I have to spell everything out for you?...are you that retarded????....Americans have been conditioned to accept paying taxes as a way to take care of the country and provide services.....Americans willingly pay taxes in the sense that every goddamn year HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS fill out forms, place it in the mail, and send out their returns without any one having to actually make then do so ......I have never seen a guy with a gun walking someone to the mailbox to make them send out their returns..HAVE YOU>>???? yes there is consciousness in the back of their minds that they could get in trouble if they don't, but they do comply..
just like your mother complied with sending you to school....it wasn't at the barrel for a gun but she did it because she knew it was ultimately the right thing to so....and again..millions of people comply with this as well...or do you think the gov't is wrong to compel kids to go to school too????
-
dude....do me a favor..THINK......do I have to spell everything out for you?...are you that retarded????....Americans have been conditioned to accept paying taxes as a way to take care of the country and provide services.....Americans willingly pay taxes in the sense that every goddamn year HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS fill out forms, place it in the mail, and send out their returns without any one having to actually make then do so ......I have never seen a guy with a gun walking someone to the mailbox to make them send out their returns..HAVE YOU>>???? yes there is consciousness in the back of their minds that they could get in trouble if they don't, but they do comply..
just like your mother complied with sending you to school....it wasn't at the barrel for a gun but she did it because she knew it was ultimately the right thing to so....and again..millions of people comply with this as well...or do you think the gov't is wrong to compel kids to go to school too????
I think you are delusional.
I send my kids to school because I want them to be intelligent and have a better life than their fucking neighbors... It's for them to SUCCEED.
No one wants to pay taxes... NO ONE.
We do it because:
1. It's necessary
2. It's required.
But to say anyone WANTS to do it is just goddam idiotic.
Seriously... You have lost your fucking mind.
-
no one is taking anything by force...
Right. I totally don't forcibly have taxes withheld with every paycheck I get. I give up over $1,500 a month totally by choice.
don't be a jerk-off with your rhetoric.....I don't see IRS agents with guns knocking down people's door and forcing taxes from people at gunpoint...
No. They take the money out of people's paychecks directly. Much more efficient. And
a gov't must take care of all, not just those who can rely on themselves...
If people can't rely on themselves, they can only rely on the kindness of others. Not the government. It's not the government's job to take care of anyone. The government is not your nanny or your caretaker.
the nation cannot stand united and defend itself if large portions of the population are hungry, sick, broke, without shelter, etc...
So you want the government to provide food, healthcare, money and housing... How are you going to provide these things if people like me, who are productive, stop giving you a blank check?
-
people voluntarily pay
Right... that's why the government mandates that taxes are withheld from paychecks and why many people are in jail for not paying their taxes. Because people voluntarily pay. ::)
because they are fair-minded and want to pay their share.....
People would voluntarily pay taxes IF the services the government provided them were services they genuinely wanted and thought the government should provide.
-
I think you are delusional.
I send my kids to school because I want them to be intelligent and have a better life than their fucking neighbors... It's for them to SUCCEED.
No one wants to pay taxes... NO ONE.
We do it because:
1. It's necessary
2. It's required.
But to say anyone WANTS to do it is just goddam idiotic.
Seriously... You have lost your fucking mind.
sigh.......I don't blame you for your idiotic post.....months upon months of reading 3333's posts have warped your mind...I never said Americans want to pay taxes..just that they voluntarily do so and accept the premise as to why....
-
sigh.......I don't blame you for your idiotic post.....months upon months of reading 3333's posts have warped your mind...I never said Americans want to pay taxes..just that they voluntarily do so and accept the premise as to why....
So they don't want to pay taxes, but they pay voluntarily? ??? How does that compute? And if they voluntarily pay them, why is there a law that mandates that taxes be withheld from paychecks?
-
So they don't want to pay taxes, but they pay voluntarily? ??? How does that compute? And if they voluntarily pay them, why is there a law that mandates that taxes be withheld from paychecks?
like I said..lets move on..why go on and on in circles ?????
-
So they don't want to pay taxes, but they pay voluntarily? ??? How does that compute? And if they voluntarily pay them, why is there a law that mandates that taxes be withheld from paychecks?
Basically it comes down to this - Andre is a welfarist and a statist. He knows that given the choice most of us would not pay a dime given how badly the govt squanders tax money.
-
like I said..lets move on..why go on and on in circles ?????
The point - is that the choice between paying taxes, or going to jail, isnt a choice.
You seem to think people dont have to pay their taxes if they choose not to file - but the alternative is jail time.
Its an illusion of choice - but there really is no choice.
If someone put a gun to your head, and said "gimme your wallet or I blow your brains out", you really dont have a choice, do you?
-
sigh.......I don't blame you for your idiotic post.....months upon months of reading 3333's posts have warped your mind...I never said Americans want to pay taxes..just that they voluntarily do so and accept the premise as to why....
Dude, I'm responding to what YOU wrote...
No one does so voluntarily... people are FORCED to do it... and if everyone "accepted" the premise, then why is there such a ruckus over our spending every year?
Obviously people understand taxes are a necessary evil, but that in and of itself shows that people would much rather not pay them and every year people spend as much money as possible to have to pay as little as possible.
vol·un·tar·y (vln-tr)
adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary host
WRONG.
We do not do it of our own free will, we are forced to do it and we certainly expect some contraint.
-
Basically it comes down to this - Andre is a welfarist and a statist. He knows that given the choice most of us would not pay a dime given how badly the govt squanders tax money.
sigh.......lets move on
-
Dude, I'm responding to what YOU wrote...
No one does so voluntarily... people are FORCED to do it... and if everyone "accepted" the premise, then why is there such a ruckus over our spending every year?
Obviously people understand taxes are a necessary evil, but that in and of itself shows that people would much rather not pay them and every year people spend as much money as possible to have to pay as little as possible.
vol·un·tar·y (vln-tr)
adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary host
WRONG.
We do not do it of our own free will, we are forced to do it and we certainly expect some contraint.
okay...I'll give you the last word....lets move on..this is pointless
-
sigh.......lets move on
Let's not. See, I get you. You, like the other welfarists dread the notion that one day your forced redistribution schemes like the income tax will end since most welfarists and leftists look at social assistance and welfare and govt programs as the reperations they never got.
Give the choice -most of us would not give anyone but all the most helpness and needy anything at all.
Most of us are sick of paying for this shit.
-
Let's not. See, I get you. You, like the other welfarists dread the notion that one day your forced redistribution schemes like the income tax will end since most welfarists and leftists look at social assistance and welfare and govt programs as the reperations they never got.
Give the choice -most of us would not give anyone but all the most helpness and needy anything at all.
Most of us are sick of paying for this shit.
I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.
I am all about helping people better themselves so they can provide for themselves and their families and in turn, help others.
That's not just giving people a blank check every year.
-
When people are sent to prison due to "Tax Evasion", how the hell is that not done at the barrel of a gun?
That's crazy talk man... CRAZY.
You absolutely have ALWAYS paid your taxes in your lifetime at the end of a gun barrel... ALWAYS.
Exactly. The man with the gun shows up when you fail to comply. Not before.
That said, I think we need certain taxation, but Social Security is not one.
-
Exactly. The man with the gun shows up when you fail to comply. Not before.
The proverbial gun is aimed at your head always. "Pay, or else..." That someone doesn't show up to arrest you until after you've failed to comply with an order or a requirement doesn't alter the calculus here.
That said, I think we need certain taxation, but Social Security is not one.
Right. We do - there are certain appropriate functions of government that we should fund.
-
The proverbial gun is aimed at your head always. "Pay, or else..." That someone doesn't show up to arrest you until after you've failed to comply with an order or a requirement doesn't alter the calculus here.
Right. We do - there are certain appropriate functions of government that we should fund.
I favor a national sales tax and nothing else.
-
Are you unfamiliar with Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan?
No.
You are a part of a nation so that people do not exist in a state of constant war.
First of all, that isn't even Hobbes's argument. You're conflating the term "nation" with the term "state"
Secondly, Hobbes's claim is a completely unsubstantiated; it is nothing more than a baseless assertion made by Hobbes and all of his circle-jerking faux political philosopher followers.
This means that certain concessions must be made. In return, you are living in a system that benefits you in many ways. For instance, you have the rule of law to protect your property. How is that enforcement to be paid?
Let's think about that for a second. How does McDonald's pay you for the services they provide you? Surely, they wouldn't be able to cook burgers and fries and all the other jolly shit they do without forcefully extracting money from someone?
Every business operating in a free market pays for the goods it provides via user fees and other voluntary arrangements. There is no reason why government wouldn't be able to do the same. For example, a user fee on contracts would net more than enough money for the proper functions of government.
If we were to base it on your half-baked rant, it is only because the government is "stealing" your money to pay for it.
Do you know how I know my rant wasn't half-baked? Because you had no argument against it besides calling it "half-baked." Go back to the drawing board.
Hey, if you are so anti-government, why are you even living in a nation-state as you write this? Why not go off in the woods somewhere, make a fortune(with no one around to do business with) and then you can keep one hundred percent of everything?
You do realize that I am the one arguing that society has benefits because of its voluntary aspects whereas you are not, correct? You do realize that you are the one arguing that society only has benefits when everyone is having their rights violated by an unconstrained and thus all-powerful government, right?
And the fact that you equate three very different terms with each other - "government," "nation-state," and society - is so ignorant that it's literally laughable.
Of course, that could never happen because you have to be integrated, at least to some extent, with rules and laws and order.
I've been arguing for "rules and laws and order" this entire time, while you have been attacking it. Civilized society can only exist when everyone's rights are being enforced. You are arguing for an institution (all-powerful government) that legitimizes the initiation of aggression and thus the violation of everyone's rights.
-
Checkmate? ???
-
Let's not. See, I get you. You, like the other welfarists dread the notion that one day your forced redistribution schemes like the income tax will end since most welfarists and leftists look at social assistance and welfare and govt programs as the reperations they never got.
Give the choice -most of us would not give anyone but all the most helpness and needy anything at all.
Most of us are sick of paying for this shit.
Calling Andre a welfarist? I have no idea if he is but its pretty funny coming from a guy who lives on this board.
And the Keneysian/leftist is you 333... You use most of your life to complain about the government and wanting them to fix everything yet you call yourself conservative LOL Ron Paul would cry if he heard you called yourself a RP supporter
You are irony personified
-
avxo and I disagree on most of the Religion board threads.
But in this thread, I agree with avxo.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=193222.0;attach=344316;image) ? ???
-
no it should NOT be this way....do you actually think these guys under 25 are going to actually SAVE THEIR MONEY?????...they will spend it all on drinking and whoring...I know I would.......and then we will be stuck with the bill anyway of supporting them in their old age
they actually aren't......any time people are left to regulate themselves, trouble happens
The government's job is to protect you from others. It is NOT the government's job to protect you from yourself.
-
Ron Paul is destroying the SCOTUS decision.
-
Let's not. See, I get you. You, like the other welfarists dread the notion that one day your forced redistribution schemes like the income tax will end since most welfarists and leftists look at social assistance and welfare and govt programs as the reperations they never got.
Give the choice -most of us would not give anyone but all the most helpness and needy anything at all.
Most of us are sick of paying for this shit.
we are already caught in a massive re-distribution scheme..the siphoning of monies form the middle class to the very rich...funny that you guys totally ignore that and want to concentrate on the (black) guy who gets $22.50 and some food stamps every two weeks from welfare
-
we are already caught in a massive re-distribution scheme..the siphoning of monies form the middle class to the very rich...funny that you guys totally ignore that and want to concentrate on the (black) guy who gets $22.50 and some food stamps every two weeks from welfare
Andre - seek help.
-
Andre - seek help.
sigh..,admit it for a change...its true and you know it
-
we are already caught in a massive re-distribution scheme..the siphoning of monies form the middle class to the very rich...
How, exactly, does this "massive re-distribution scheme..the siphoning of monies from the middle class to the very rich" operate?
funny that you guys totally ignore that and want to concentrate on the (black) guy who gets $22.50 and some food stamps every two weeks from welfare
I don't concentrate on anything specific - I want to audit all programs that the government has, to ensure that they're appropriate for the government to run and that they're being run properly.
-
we are already caught in a massive re-distribution scheme..the siphoning of monies form the middle class to the very rich...funny that you guys totally ignore that and want to concentrate on the (black) guy who gets $22.50 and some food stamps every two weeks from welfare
+1
Everything to get focus away from the income disparity we share with 3rd world countries
-
Ron Paul is destroying the SCOTUS decision.
Too bad his own people don't even like him.
Let's make sure we understand this... The Republicans who voted in Romey... A guy who built almost an identical healthcare bill in Massachusetts, who hate Ron Paul, who is the only one who is actually walking the walk on his issues.
What a disaster.
-
Too bad his own people don't even like him.
Let's make sure we understand this... The Republicans who voted in Romey... A guy who built almost an identical healthcare bill in Massachusetts, who hate Ron Paul, who is the only one who is actually walking the walk on his issues.
What a disaster.
Repub voters does what FOX tells them too. They are sheeps