Have I? I don't see anything being done I would call making it fairer, do you? Maybe a flat tax would make more Americans take an interest in how government spends money. If it were based on taxes paid and not on just income, would it? Cut taxes for the rich and they would lose rather than gain votes. Increase taxes on the middle class and they might gain a vote. My ideas are aimed at decreasing power across the board. Power of the wealthy, and power of the government are too great.
@ Individual Have you ever seen a child suffering from illness or injury? Have you ever seen starvation in action? Have you ever had to stand by and watch someone die because they could not afford medical care, or something as simple as enough food to eat? Have you ever had to tell your own child that you could not buy them a pair of shoes to replace the ones that were hurting their growing feet. Have you ever had to send your own children off to school in rags knowing they would be teased and taunted by the other kids. Have you ever held a sick or dying child in your arms knowing they could be saved by a simple social program that would only cost you a few dollars a year in our tax payment? To be completely honest here, you do sound like a stingy cold hearted Scrooge who values money above human life. And, how would you like to be told that your child is dying, but there is nothing you can do because you cannot afford the medicine to save him/her? This is a reality for millions of people throughout the world today......... and to them, you say WHAT? .
And to be completely honest, you sound like you are someone who attempts to rationalize right and wrong through emotions promoting government by force and defining it as charity. A few dollars a year? Why can't the left ever be honest in promoting their agenda?
Actually why can't people who want to end the programs be honest. It is in fact a few dollars. Here, it's simple for everyone, take your federal taxes and FICA, then do the percents: In fact the third way put out a graph a few days ago with some selected items: http://content.thirdway.org/publications/335/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_A_Taxpayer_Receipt.pdf
Depends on the salary. Someone paying $7,000 a year, figure a $50-55,000 salary overall to the feds is paying about $1,100 to all welfare type programs, including unemployment which takes up the largest chunk. If you figure of that $1,000, $500-600 is going to welfare, food stamps, WIC, I do not consider $600 a year to keep tens of millions of people fed to be more than a few dollars.
Okay, so now we know that when you use the word few, it can relate in terms of tens, hundreds, thousands, or more and not just a few dollars. And I and others who have little or no income should be supportive because it will not come out of our pockets, but only out of the pockets of the evil rich? Do you see such government programs to be making the rich any poorer? Or perhaps even raising the wealth of the middle class or poor? Government from the left is one in which depends on emotional tunnel vision to achieve its goals. Its more rational to take a broader view of what is going on in order to prevent undesirable side effects.
Morality begins with empathy, not payment. Which has more value to others, the 20 rich men who pass a starving child or the poor wino who shares his only meal? What force? A requirement to pay taxes? A requirement to contribute to the welfare of your country? It sounds to me as though you want a free ride; sort of an "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude. I can't understand the mind of someone who seems to have no compassion for human suffering, someone who can't spend $11.50 a week of a $1,000 paycheck to help the disadvantaged citizens of his own nation. .
Just what we need, more drunks on the street. Is the determination of morality a function of government or the governed? Morality and compassion are expressed behaviors of individuals, not behavioral mandates of government. A requirement to pay taxes is one thing, but just what all are we to be taxed to do? How in the world could I get a free ride when there is nothing I would receive, and for that matter nothing I would be paying for as I have no taxable income to speak of any longer. Okay, a 1.15% tax per $1000 earned is what you propose to be adequate to provide compassion and eliminate human suffering of the disadvantaged citizens?
The government is a manifestation of the empathy and the needs of the people; the government is made up of the wishes of individuals and more broadly, the majority of people. Through years of governing, we have gained experience and insights on what society needs to function. And as time goes by, we all get better at it. The idea is that you're already a functioning member of society. Many are struggling and are not functioning at baseline. These needs have been decided on by group effort using empathy and basic human understandings. If someone cannot afford 3 meals a day, while we can, then putting out a little bit of our income to allow these people to raise up to our level is only fair. When it is said, "you've got yours, now fuck you", it is meant that you are a stable citizen but don't care about the unstable citizens. If you faced hard times, how likely would it be that you would curse the system you're cursing now? This system has already alleviated a lot of suffering. It hasn't ended suffering, but it's better than the alternative; the alternative that I hear so far is summed up by, "sucks to be you".
I'll take the compassionate drunk over the 20 stingy rich bastards any day. I've always found that, as groups, the poor are always more compassionate and more willing to help those who need a hand than the rich. I couldn't care less how much value Dun and Bradstreet puts on a man's portfolio, he has no social value if he is not willing to help those who are less fortunate than himself; he takes from the culture and returns nothing, he is a Deadbeat Citizen. It is the expression of the majority since the Great Depression. As we saw then, and again in 2008, the wealthy have no Social Conscience," They will take from their fellow citizens until they "break the Bank," and with crumbs on their faces, deny having raided the cookie jar. Government does not exist to promote the Deadbeat Citizen, but to protect the culture from him. Government should exist to express the best of our human values, not the worst of our greed and corruption. What you receive is a fair playing field; if wealthy, also that wealth. Those who receive more from the culture are morally obligated to return more to it. If you pay no taxes, what in the hell is this argument all about. You are now getting the fruits of your input from years past, fulfilling the purpose of social programs. You have a guaranteed income for the rest of your life (and if you lived here in the homeland, top notch medical care) that you may not have had be it not for the SS system. It's really funny that you take the money each month and rail against the system that provides it. Not my figure, but the system as it is, thanks to Mad's charts, but, yes, I think it's fair. The purpose is not to eliminate suffering, which is impossible, but to provide each citizen with a minimum of the basic necessities of life. This is what separates us from the barbarians. .
The judicial branch of government determines morality and exercises compassion every day. So does the legislature. Why do we have criminal laws if we do not accept that government determines morality?
I'm sure you would, people tend to fraternize with those whom they share common beliefs. You appear to be one of many who have been programmed to believe that all human woes are caused by those who prosper above you, making them the enemy. The Liberal (or whatever other name you wish to call it) agenda is to create a class war between those who have less and those who have more, not really between the rich and the poor, but the perception of creating equality among those who are governed. If you are willing to give up the freedom of others to acquire the perceptions of equality and morality, at what point do you recognize that in doing so you or your children no longer have the freedom to prosper above what the government allows? I guess that's not important, is it? You obviously were not alive during the depression. Where I lived, it was the community, not the government who took most care of those in need. Although I'm not religious, it was Churches and their members who sought out those in need and provided assistance, and communication between friends and neighbors who made help available to all. Basically you subscribe to need or desire as a means of justifying theft by a democratic government. And they do, most often in the form of political contributions, in support of politicians who promote the Lefts agenda. I've been against SS all my life, but since it was forced and not an option I will take from it all I can and hope that once it becomes obvious that it is not sustainable it will be eliminated. The guaranteed income is a pittance in comparison to what I could have produced on my own with that same money. What are you saying, "top notch medical care", I thought the medical care system was broken and the government was trying to make it more like the system in Cuba, England, or Canada. Living abroad I don't use it, but get whatever care I can afford, which by paying out of pocket is inexpensive and equal in quality to that I would receive in the U.S. One reason for high drug costs in the U.S. is that the same drugs are sold at a small fraction of their cost in other countries. So why does the Left complain about high costs of health care when it should be seen as a moral requirement to help those in other countries who are poor and can't afford them. Share and redistribute the wealth huh? Perhaps instead of burning the flag you should be promoting burning the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and start over. The Communist Manifesto might be a good replacement, as it appears many find it preferable. Just ask for a vote to take place, it is a Democracy is it not?
I don't think I've ever proposed any limit on how much an entrepreneur or a business owner can make. As far as that Liberal agenda, only in your mind. Despite what you think, there are many rich who don't mind paying taxes in a higher bracket, mostly new money. Where did all of those pictures and news reels come from of people standing in soup and bread lines? How about all of the people who were employed by New Deal programs? My mother worked in a plant that made airplane parts in Cincinnati, the war created a lot of jobs in the cities. The welfare programs were started because many people did not have enough resources, as your community did, and my grandparent's community on the farm. Many people were not making it through the depression, that's why these programs were created. In case you haven't noticed, the world has changed a bit since then, too. Taxes are not theft ! Nothing stopped you from investing aside from SS. At 65 you qualify for Medicare, which, from what I've heard is a pretty good system, Government Health care. Another reason is the hundreds of billions in profits. Never burned a flag and wouldn't, you're perception of the left is a little off. The Constitution is alive and well and working fine and I happen to like it. .
I've never said that the rich are against higher taxes. In fact you will find many of the wealthiest to be where the Left gets most of its funding from. The photos and news reels promoted the agenda of the regime in power, and quite effectively for historical purposes as well it would appear. Change takes place constantly. Just a form of legalized extortion? Nothing stopped me, but government limited me, and currently has created market uncertainty that makes one very cautious of investing. Depends on who you listen to. Why not pass a law limiting profits? We have a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage? I perceive what I see, and what the left tells me. The Constitution exists, it is not a living entity, and it works only when it can be manipulated to fit the agenda upon which it is attempted to be applied, which obviously is being done in a way that you like.
If true, the Judicial branch is exercising authority not granted it. I guess it's time to check and see what the modern definition of morality has become.
] Please tell me what that limit is, there is a herd of CEOs and people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who must be exceeding it. And certainly, big oil, Pharma and other corporations have to be making too much. Sometimes you make the most ridiculous statements, and this has to be one of the them. The unstable markets that currently exist are compliments of your Republican economic policies. This one you cannot blame on the liberals without making your nose grow. And how would you know, you left your country, but still seem to have a need to rag on it's citizens and leaders. Even the TeaBaggers like their Medicare. For the most... You seem to forget one thing, you aren't the only person who gets do make the decisions. This nation makes it's decisions by voting, and what we have today is the result of past majorities. Obama and his agenda were selected by that same majority of voters. Get over it. .
Primarily taxes and government spending, which greatly alter the economy and market system. You left out George Soros, and how much is too much? You believe only what you want to believe. The two parties, Democrat and Republican, have both been governing along liberal lines for decades. The few who try to promote conservative ideals are chastised as obstructionists. I still have many friends and relatives in the U.S. and communications today is nearly instantaneous. I happen to remain a citizen and "rag" only on those who are trying to destroy rather than improve the system of government in the U.S. Like you said under Reagan and Bush, I suppose. Although don't think that I supported everything Bush did. What is needed more than ever in the U.S. today is an opposition party, one that might be able to bring people together instead of dividing them nearly in half, and one that promotes giving a hand up to promote prosperity, rather than a hand out in order to promote survival. If elections take place without fraud this November, and the Democrat power is reduced, will you be supportive of the agenda that follows or will you be "ragging" the citizens and leaders then in power?
