Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:32pm PT
|
And I loved how in that other movie when everyone was well fed, safe, content and got their dream job. Sorry, Larry, but that's just more propaganda. Most welfare recipients still do not want to be on welfare.
Which is exactly why wealth re-distribution is hidden under various euphemistic names, hidden budget line items and feel-good labeled government programs.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
|
So Escopeta
who did you vote for President in 08 and 2012
appreciate your answer as i am having a hard time figuring out just what is your bias?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
|
No, no Ayn Rand titsucking going on here...
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 12, 2016 - 12:38pm PT
|
Escopeta: First you say that "90% of the federal budget is wealth redistribution." Now you're saying that it's "hidden." Which is it? Is Medicare wealth redistribution or is it a liberal shell program to funnel money to undocumented immigrants? Is the defense budget mostly a handout to "welfare queens" who turn around and sell hellfire missiles to Cuba?
This must be one of those bits of conservative magic like when Obama is both a total pussy and an oppressive tyrant at the same time. Or like how he's both a socialist and a crony capitalist.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:38pm PT
|
I suppose that I'm asking because you threw out the 10 percent 90 percent number and since we have a current budget of 3.3 trillion dollars. That leaves just 330 billion to spend if that is your true number. So lets start with.. is 330 billion dollars you real total budget for America?
Back to the question. Is $330B enough? Is $500B enough? Its hard to say but I can tell you I would be comfortable with it.
But honestly if people think a 90% haircut is too much, lets do less. How about 50%? Or even 25% reduction.
To me, its a start and I would love to see us rip off the band-aid until it starts taking skin and work backwards from there.
Of course it won't happen, the country grows and government expands to fill the void....
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:48pm PT
|
So basically you throw out numbers like 10 percent okay.. 90 percent bad.. so that you get a response. The problem is that this causes intelligent people to wonder how delusional you are.
and I stand by my statement. there is no difference between "government" and" people getting together". because it all comes down to people. The power hungry often take control because the average person doesn't want to spend the resources that are required to overcome the power hungry, so no matter what size of .. we the people.. that you are talking about.. its still people. I lived in a tiny community for 25 years. The power hungry still controlled things, because most people don't have that much wisdom and will follow the person who screams the loudest and the longest. Then there is a small core of people who have enough wisdom to realize the false path, but they rarely have enough power to counter the power hungry. Is it easier among a few people to affect change? Certainly can be. And it can also be harder.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:51pm PT
|
SNAP, TANF, Lifeline, WIC. They sound neat and cool and invigorating. What are they?
Hidden is the wrong word. Disguised is a better one.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 12:55pm PT
|
nd I stand by my statement. there is no difference between "government" and" people getting together". because it all comes down to people
I'm sorry, there is no such thing as forced charity. The thing you are talking about is called coercion.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 01:01pm PT
|
I don't think anyone who knows what they acronyms stand for is under any delusion that they aren't programs to help people. I don't have a problem with helping people. I'm sorry that you seem to. I am also sorry that so many people are still under the delusion that people on welfare are happy to be on welfare.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 01:07pm PT
|
Is that you, Ayn?
come on fess up, girl
who do you vote for, McCain, Romney, or Obama?
no need to be shy or embarrassed, let us know where you stand politically
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 01:08pm PT
|
I don't have a problem with helping people. I'm sorry that you seem to.
Can you point to something I said where I have a problem with helping people?
I simply don't like subcontracting it out to the government who doesn't do it very well.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 01:11pm PT
|
private groups aren't that great at it either.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 01:17pm PT
|
Since someone brought up the ridiculous concept of "Merit Goods", you might do well to freshen up on the definition of a "Demerit Good"
I'm that somebody, and I stand by the concept. I think most on the forum know my politics, but even conservatives have compassion. With that in mind, perhaps a "demerit good" could be something from which everyone should be free, even though they cannot afford the cost of escaping it. And that's not only a legitimate government function, its a necessary one unless you want to enable freeloaders.
And John M and HDDJ, I take issue with the idea that the highest incomes don't pay their "fair share" because they pay a much greater share of their income than I do. I'm quite firmly entrenched in the middle class since my depression ended my legal career, but I don't see what gives me the right to say that people who involuntarily devote a greater percentage, not merely amount, of their income than I, should pay more so I can pay less. While I agree that to whom much is given, much is required, I also believe that I should not impose a higher burden on others than I shoulder myself.
If you want to be Biblical, the standard was proportional giving (i.e. a flat tax), except for the temple tax, which was a poll tax. Maybe if I made it to the highest marginal rates, I would feel differently about imposing it on others, but I find it hypocritical - and therefore wrong - for me to seek to impose a higher burden on others than I pay myself.
John
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 01:50pm PT
|
While I agree that to whom much is given, much is required, I also believe that I should not impose a higher burden on others than I shoulder myself
A flat giving rate is a starting point guide. The teaching "to whom much is given, much is require" is a higher teaching. And that teaching is not restricted to giving in church. It is a universal Truth. What people who have their understanding based on biblical teachings don't seem to understand is that teachings were given as people were able to understand them. so the 10 percent tithe was a lower teaching. To whom much is given much is required is a higher teaching and requires a higher depth of understanding. It doesn't simply apply to a flat tax which means those who make more are still paying more. It just doesn't. and I don't know how to help you understand that. It goes way beyond that. Its not a flat tax with a straight line gradient, it is a curve. The top of that curve is God, to whom everything is given, thus from whom everything is given.
I have no problem with a progressive tax rate. How we spend the money is where I have serious problems.
And on that note.. I need to go get some exercise and get off the taco. Take care John.
And HDDJ.. you have been smoking hot lately. Very right on. I highly appreciate your input. You have a big heart which I appreciate very much.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 02:02pm PT
|
And on that note.. I need to go get some exercise and get off the taco. Take care John.
And HDDJ.. you have been smoking hot lately. Very right on. I highly appreciate your input. You have a big heart which I appreciate very much.
You too, John. By the way, I agree with your interpretation of what Christ requires of Christians. I just don't believe in imposing that same requirement on non-Christians, for the same reason I don't believe in using the legal system to impose Christian morality generally on non-believers.
The tithes were what the Law required of the poorest Jew. The offerings were above the tithes, for those who had more. For Christians, we are commanded to offer our whole lives. As Tony Campolo says, the hymn doesn't say "I surrender ten percent."
And I hate to admit it, HDDJ, but your posts have been excellent of late, even if your reasoning leads you to the wrong conclusions.
;-)
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 03:00pm PT
|
Thanks, dirtbag. Hillary is still at 73%, which doesn't surprise me, but the size of Cruz's apparent lead does.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 03:05pm PT
|
I had heard that Cruz has been polling well in Iowa lately. It will be interesting to see if the birthplace issue sticks.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 03:21pm PT
|
Yes, but this is a little different.
The birther issue was a proxy for racism, invoking some weird conspiracies.
This issue is more of a legal question for Cruz. From what I understand, it shouldn't block Cruz from being eligible, although an op-ed contributor for the Post disagrees. But it is interesting to see how it will play out. Trump and some establishment types apparently think it might work, not necessarily legally, but in stirring the pot a bit.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 04:35pm PT
|
no need to be shy or embarrassed, let us know where you stand politically
No offense Norton, but are you retarded? Because if you don't know where I stand politically from reading my past several posts, telling you who I cast a ballot for in the last two elections isn't going to help you.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!