Many things. Some legitimate (at least to me), and some not. However, I do not believe any American has any legal right to the income of any other American. Put another way, no American should be compelled to support another American.

Peeps you must forgive me if that's possible because I am totally PO'd

PO #1

Yesterday the Intel community collectively gave a press conference and said The Russians hacked, and are still hacking our election system, and Facebook the day before confirmed that foreign actors are still setting up fake accounts and spreading rumors and lies faster than they can take them down and this is across numerous social media platforms. The Dufus went to Pennsylvania yesterday and had the audacity to call the Russian Investigation a big hoax and it was hurting relationships between Russia and the US. The crowd went wild.

WHAAAA? What will it take to make the Dufus protect his people?



PO #2

The DOJ just told the ACLU it was their job to find and reunite children separated from their parents because of this zero tolerance policy on the southern border. Luckily the Federal judge excoriated the DOJ, and Dufus administration and ordered them to do their jobs that they screwed up royally in the first place.

Whew, that helped. For the record it's not me imposing MY morals on anyone. See your lawmakers, but don't put it on me. You held your nose and voted for this Dufus, go complain to him.

OK. I thought you were advocating for the welfare system, which would be imposing your moral values on others. I guess you were just... talking? Rambling? Waiting on dinner? Who knows.

I advocate for a STRONG SOCIAL Safety net big enough to help ALL American during Bad and hard times. Actually at the moment I am taking a break after making dinner.

Are you one of those anti government folks?

Another way of saying that you support compelling one American to support another American, which is you imposing your moral values on others. I wish you'd just admit it. You know it's true and I know it's true.

Isn't that what the UNITED States is all about? -- working together, helping each other?

What's YOUR plan?

Well you wouldn't know it from some of the comments here. What Tal just advocated is " from each according to his need from each according to their ability" which is communist just as you have advocated it.

You either have a capitalist system which is someone owns the means of production and pays someone else to do the work, or you have a system where the state owns the means of production and pays everyone to do the work, which we know to be communist. You can have hybrid systems where the state intervenes in key industries in order to ensure allocation of resources and these work much better than wholly market based systems based on profit

Sorta like in the New Testament:

Acts 2:44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Philippians 2:4 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

James 2:14-17 14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

I'm not denying that Christian values reflect the need to look after the less fortunate however is this an individual mandate? Or a government mandate? In today's society the obligation has been abdicated to government and of course there is never enough, thus the need for increased taxation of those who earn more to satisfy the needs of the less advantaged. God's economy is based on giving but man's economy is based on grabbing so the two are incompatible and thus trying to apply the values of one to the other doesn't work

And all voluntary! Just imagine that the early church did all of that without Wondergirl or the feds to enforce compliance.

I'll say it one last time. It is not charity when A wants to force B to take care of C. It's just a fake, cheap copy of the real thing carried out, frequently, by people who have no intention of troubling themselves personally to help C.

No I support being compelled to obey the law, just as I am compelled to, as we all are. See, we are in the same boat, but YOU don't like your seat. You can beetch, or you can go through the process of changing it. Those are your choices. That's the proper way of good orderly direction, so don't impose your chaos on me. That how I handle my peeves and get redress for them. I vote! Sometimes I don't win.

Okay I betch to high heaven when I lose just like you're doing. I told you we are in the same boat, just different seats didn't I? You admit that so we can move along here.

Compelled to obey the law, sounds like freedom to me, the freedom of the gun totting leftists dictator society where the government owns the guns and the peons do what they are told, the ultimate socialist dream. That boat is sinking Tal

Now that's a fair statement. I'm glad we've come to understand that you believe in enforcing your moral vision on others (we all do) and that some Americans have a legal and moral claim on the income of other Americans. I despise that idea. So we just disagree. I still think the country would change dramatically if the feds would issue poor people a voucher entitling them to some of the money of others. That would at least be an honest representation of what is happening.

Uhm... no. According to Jefferson, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Liberty would mean that Wondergirl cannot compel me to engage in her ideas of charity. She can pursue them, but cannot compel me to pursue them.

My plan is to involve myself, as I have done for many years, in the pursuit of helping those less fortunate than me. This is a weekly engagement for my wife and me. It is responding to what Jesus tells us to do, to love our neighbor. That is never presented as a government undertaking. Now I encourage you and others to do so as well, but will not even think about compelling you to do so. Are you currently involving yourself, personally, in helping to love your neighbor as yourself? Is Christ your Saviour and Lord? Have you responded to the gospel message? These are the important questions.

So you don't think your government should serve all the people, just the ones YOU deem worthy? I finally got you.

I think the government should serve all the people. I don't think the government should take money from one American to give to another individual American. I don't believe any individual American has the right to another American's money. But to serve all the people, collectively, is exactly what government is for. To establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for defense, and promote the general welfare.

I'll say it again, Tal, for you have yet to address this. Your concept of charity is to force other Americans to do what you want done with their money. And again, that is a cheap, fake imitation charity.

How does government do those things without REVENUES?

Are now there is the trick, you have heard of tariffs, it is what started your country, you tax imports rather than incomes and if you can't get enough money doing that you are not trying. Every tax is unpopular particularly in a place where they had an insurrection over taxes and you could try death duties; a tax on capital, stamp duties on property transfer; another tax on capital but don't tax incomes

Then why do we pay both state and federal income taxes by April 15th?