A message for liberals

Watermark said:
The government should pay for them. The government, as the arm of society, has a right to tax, and a right to distribute justice to those who deny society of its rights. Those who attack the people who are merely practicing societies rights shall be justly purged from the Earth. All who corrupt humanity shall be cleansed.
Click to expand...

where does the government and society get it's rights from?
 
apple0154 said:
Taking the same percentage of a poor person's income and a wealthy person's income is not treating everyone the same. The actual dollars left over or lack of dollars left over can adversely affect the poor person.

Should any portion of a poor person's income be used to erect a statue in a park when they can't afford to put food on the table? Should any portion of a poor person's income be used to protect wildlife when they can't afford proper dental care for their children?

From Interstate Highways to sidewalks in a small town do you believe a poor person should contribute to those things while being unable to afford medical care?

An equal percentage is only fair if everyone earned an equal income.
Click to expand...

No, taking an equal AMOUNT from everyone is fair, if everyone earns the same income. Percent means "per hundred" ..for every $100 you earn, the government takes $36 in tax...(36%) it doesn't matter if you earn lots of $100s or few, the amount per hundred is the same. What's unfair about that? If you went to the store to buy a new plasma screen TV, and the cashier asked you what your income was in 2010, so he could determine your price... would THAT be fair? The only thing I see unfair about it is, that's not how we've been doing it, but who says the way we are doing it now is fair? I understand the idea, someone who earns more is probably in better financial shape to help out, so they pay a higher percentage. Now, if we are paying for roads and bridges, teachers and doctors, maybe that's acceptable, but we're paying for research into the mating habits of the red salamander, and to install new windows in a visitor center that has been closed for 10 years. Before you start whining about people who can't afford the doctor, or who are going hungry... maybe we can take some of those billions we're spending to build a turtle tunnel under the interstate... or subsidize cowboy poetry? If someone needs money to go to college, maybe we can divert some of the billions given to the NEA, ACORN, or MediaMatters? But as long as we are wasting money on silly frivilous bullshit, our tax rates are plenty high enough!
 
Dixie said:
No, taking an equal AMOUNT from everyone is fair, if everyone earns the same income. Percent means "per hundred" ..for every $100 you earn, the government takes $36 in tax...(36%) it doesn't matter if you earn lots of $100s or few, the amount per hundred is the same. What's unfair about that? If you went to the store to buy a new plasma screen TV, and the cashier asked you what your income was in 2010, so he could determine your price... would THAT be fair?
Click to expand...

It's the price the rich pay for us allowing them to keep their heads. They should be glad. It's merely survival of the fittest - they pay a price to keep us from selecting them using our collective strength. What is fair about this? As the conservatives say, might makes right. We have the might, we make the right.

Dixie said:
The only thing I see unfair about it is, that's not how we've been doing it, but who says the way we are doing it now is fair? I understand the idea, someone who earns more is probably in better financial shape to help out, so they pay a higher percentage. Now, if we are paying for roads and bridges, teachers and doctors, maybe that's acceptable, but we're paying for research into the mating habits of the red salamander, and to install new windows in a visitor center that has been closed for 10 years. Before you start whining about people who can't afford the doctor, or who are going hungry... maybe we can take some of those billions we're spending to build a turtle tunnel under the interstate... or subsidize cowboy poetry? If someone needs money to go to college, maybe we can divert some of the billions given to the NEA, ACORN, or MediaMatters? But as long as we are wasting money on silly frivilous bullshit, our tax rates are plenty high enough!
Click to expand...

Scientific research is much less than 1% of the budget. More than half the budget goes towards programs for the elderly, half of the rest goes to the military. The rest is mostly taken up by unemployment insurance and various other government programs. The department of transportation (those roads and bridges you were boasting about), for instance, takes in tends of billions of dollars a year, compared to the 5 billion a year allocated to all non-health scientific research.
 
Last edited:
Reagan himself decided to keep the NEA, Dixie. Why do you hate Reagan? IMHO, Reagan should come back from the grave and kill you for your evil. It's evolution baby. We're cleaning the garbage out of the human genetic pool.
 
Dixie said:
No, taking an equal AMOUNT from everyone is fair, if everyone earns the same income. Percent means "per hundred" ..for every $100 you earn, the government takes $36 in tax...(36%) it doesn't matter if you earn lots of $100s or few, the amount per hundred is the same. What's unfair about that? If you went to the store to buy a new plasma screen TV, and the cashier asked you what your income was in 2010, so he could determine your price... would THAT be fair? The only thing I see unfair about it is, that's not how we've been doing it, but who says the way we are doing it now is fair? I understand the idea, someone who earns more is probably in better financial shape to help out, so they pay a higher percentage. Now, if we are paying for roads and bridges, teachers and doctors, maybe that's acceptable, but we're paying for research into the mating habits of the red salamander, and to install new windows in a visitor center that has been closed for 10 years. Before you start whining about people who can't afford the doctor, or who are going hungry... maybe we can take some of those billions we're spending to build a turtle tunnel under the interstate... or subsidize cowboy poetry? If someone needs money to go to college, maybe we can divert some of the billions given to the NEA, ACORN, or MediaMatters? But as long as we are wasting money on silly frivilous bullshit, our tax rates are plenty high enough!
Click to expand...

So it seems the solution is to control what the government spends the taxes on, not simply cutting taxes. The current debate involves cutting social programs when the things on the table should be the funding of turtle tunnels and salamander mating habits.

It took 10 or 20 or 40 years of continually adding to the debt so it's not going to be corrected in a few years. The problems with Medicare and Medicaid and ObamaCare can be solved by having one government health care plan just like other countries have.

Either the needy/disadvantaged are helped or they are not. The problems arise from drafting legislation which is always a compromise between helping and not helping ending up with a convoluted plan which costs more money and involves additional bureaucracy.

The Repub view regarding helping others was never more evident than by Rumsfeld saying the war with Iraq was an option they could afford. How can the country afford an unnecessary war when there were and are citizens unable to pay for a doctor or a dentist or buy a decent pair of shoes?

Even in a worst case scenario surely it's preferable to give the alcoholic or drug addict money for a doctor or rehab than it is to blow up the infrastructure of a foreign country and then spend tax dollars rebuilding it, is it not? Why do the Repubs prefer to waste the money rather than help? It's like they have an aversion to helping.

Why aren't the Tea Party folks who got elected spending their time checking out the legislation involving turtle tunnels and salamander mating habits and the dozens of other non-essential spending before suggesting cutting social programs? Any idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top