 |
There is no answer for one who is stuck on the belief that they take YOUR money and give it to someone else against your will. Fact remains it's the LAW. The real question is what you do about it. It would seem if you can hold your nose and vote for Trump, you should hold your nose and obey the law.
It's amazing to me that you can so nonchalantly say such a thing. "They" take your money and give it to someone else against your will. Most people regard that as theft. Do you find it interesting that you have no answer as to why that would be OK other than "it's the LAW". It used to be the law that owning slaves was legal. So I will not accept your position since, essentially, you don't have one other than it must be OK since it is the law. But you would still need to justify why having such as law saying that it is fine that "they" take your money and give it to another person against your will is in any way what should be happening in a supposedly free country.Quote:
There is no answer for one who is stuck on the belief that they take YOUR money and give it to someone else against your will.
I am convinced that it is a morally correct thing to do for me to take some of my money and help the poor, but it is a moral travesty for me, or my elected representatives, to force you or anyone else to abide by my personal morality. It sure seems that is what you are advocating for.
I advocate a strong social safety net for citizens who find themselves in bad positions. I have nothing to do with your selective charity church work. The law was changed on slavery, maybe the law will change on stealing your money and giving it to the needy. Or maybe we eliminate the poverty, and you keep your freakin' money. You ready to move to a living wage or not?
I find it fascinating you and your ilk see the poor get poorer, and have nothing but bad words for them, and selective charity which obviously falls well short. While I agree with you 100% about getting the gamers, I also disagree strongly that they all are gamers, or takers.
Tal you have my agreement that there is a responsibility to look after everyone. If those who have the money are too mean to help then government has been appointed to get involved. I also think that funds should be diverted from military expenditure to ensure that the emphasis is on those who are in need.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I do not agree that taxation should be ramped up to meet every need without the individual also taking responsibility for their circumstance where it is possible to do so.
To suggest that the government should leave the field to church and charities is niaive and unrealistic.
Quick answer: Why taxes? Citizens have made a contract with federal, state, and local government. In exchange for taxes the citizens pay, they receive e.g., police and fire protection, public education, welfare programs, transportation infrastructure, defense funds, and public libraries.
I just don't like this idea of wanting to spend someone else's money to help the poor.Quote:
I advocate a strong social safety net for citizens who find themselves in bad positions. I have nothing to do with your selective charity church work. The law was changed on slavery, maybe the law will change on stealing your money and giving it to the needy. Or maybe we eliminate the poverty, and you keep your freakin' money. You ready to move to a living wage or not?
I find it fascinating you and your ilk see the poor get poorer, and have nothing but bad words for them, and selective charity which obviously falls well short. While I agree with you 100% about getting the gamers, I also disagree strongly that they all are gamers, or takers.
Watched a video recently about a young woman who was riding two buses and a ferry for 2 1/2 hours to get to work, and then the same time to get back home. That's pretty inspiring, but then you find out she is blind and uses a guide dog. So do I feel sorry for those who are mentally and physically healthy and don't work? No, I don't. If she can do it, then they can do it.
Want to impress us? Tell us how you are working a part-time job just to take care of your moral conviction to help poor people, rather than requiring other people to spend their money. That doesn't count. No American has a right to another American's income.
For one thing levying taxes are no longer your money, it's OUR money. Even the working poor kick in through a payroll deduction of taxes like everyone else (And immigrants legal or otherwise.). Some states like yours collect less than they get back from our government for things like Medicare, Medicaid, and public assistance, and some states like mine pay in more than they get back for federal programs and social services.
Sorry I cannot impress you with working a part time job to assuage my moral convictions, but I did volunteer time and efforts because it was the right thing to do, and I feel a good thing to do just as you do, I pay taxes just as you do. I am also subject to the same laws as you are, so I respectfully submit your grievance in this matter is misdirected and have suggested you look to your elected officials to resolve your grievances.
I can't do nothing for you!
Now that's a valid point. It was always thought in our history that when people pay taxes into a single "pot", then that money should be spent on those things that benefit everyone. Roads, bridges, schools, courts, police, military forces, and so forth benefit everyone. But now we have come to taking money and giving it to individuals. That is a different matter. It is compulsory charity.Quote:
For one thing levying taxes are no longer your money, it's OUR money.
BTW, I was not trying to be offensive with my reference to a part time job. I was trying to illustrate what I would respect from anyone who truly wanted to help the poor, but I realize that not everyone can take that particular route.
Taxes are compulsory. So are seatbelts. I have a few grievances where my tax dollars go to. I can understand being pissed about who gets what myself.
Just a matter of freedom to me. We should all contribute in taxes to what benefits everyone. But to take one person's money and give it to another person is compulsory charity. It's bad for the person whose money gets taken, and it's generally bad for the person who receives the money if that person is healthy. Over a long period of time, it robs them of initiative.
Yes by all means know who you are dealing with
I don't think (could be wrong as I've not followed this religiously) that the Russkies are accused of manipulating voting machines or of having non-citizens voting. It is more that they engaged in a propaganda campaign, and if that's the case, then voter ID would not stop them. However, I'm all in favor of voter ID, just not because of Putin.
I think I have already shown they don't just give it to another person as you put it, and recipients MUST work if healthy, and have a plan to eventually be independent of public assistance. The money put is not given to a healthy or others either, as the costs of such a system with case workers and social services sure ain't free, and it's that infrastructure, like any other that sucks up those tax dollars as well. How can you simply ignore those important facts written in black and white?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
How do you ignore the rising costs of poverty on us all, and the failure of government, state, local and federal combined with the best efforts of groups, volunteers, and churches to address this growing problem of POVERTY. Making it about your individual freedom helps no one, not even yourself. It greatly exastrabates the problem and leaves us NO solution.
Please offer alternatives to what I admit is an underperforming system.
Goes deeper than just propaganda as they have hacked candidates and staff, as well as local vendors and governments. I'm for comprehensive ID's, not just for voting but for everything, as it's been long past time to upgrade our cyber infrastructures in more solid ways. Closing voting places and purging voter rolls though is politically dastardly and undermines the cyber deficiencies we already have and distracts us and government of the tools to properly implement solid process to achieve the security and system integrity we deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My post was satirical. What does "hacking " a candidate even mean ? Gaining access to email ? Up to the candidates to secure their systems . We had a Sec State who refused to protect her server that she used to conduct classified government business . Are we then supposed to be shocked that any hacker was able to access it ? There is so nothing there . Our system says that locals control how elections are conducted and gives wide latitude for that . So if a state wants tight voter controls ,it is within it's powers to do so . And if a loony town like San Fran want to let illegals vote it is the same deal .
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have worked for years with poor people. I have seen welfare recipients without number who could work (were healthy) but did not. And yes, the money is given to other persons. Who do you think they give it to, their dogs?? Earned income credit checks, food stamps (SNAP), which can be used in restaurants in many states, TANF checks go out to individuals (and your wonderful President Obama rescinded the work requirements of that act), and of course housing and health insurance supplements, not to mention free cell phones that your favorite president handed out. It is not uncommon for a single mom, with three kids from different fathers, to be getting all of the above while her boyfriend is living with her and also getting benefits. With all due respect, you just don't have your facts straight.Quote:
I think I have already shown they don't just give it to another person as you put it, and recipients MUST work if healthy, and have a plan to eventually be independent of public assistance. The money put is not given to a healthy or others either, as the costs of such a system with case workers and social services sure ain't free, and it's that infrastructure, like any other that sucks up those tax dollars as well. How can you simply ignore those important facts written in black and white?
Maybe it makes you feel better to imagine that the feds don't take money from some Americans to give to others, but that is exactly what is happening.
Honestly, the more you post, the more I think you have very little experience in working with the poor. Might be wrong about that, but it sure seems that way.
That's a good post. The only question I have is San Fran (a.k.a. Looneyville) allowing illegals to vote in federal elections. I would think that would be a violation of law. Still, that was a good post. The dems didn't protect their data, and now they want to whine about it.Quote:
My post was satirical. What does "hacking " a candidate even mean ? Gaining access to email ? Up to the candidates to secure their systems . We had a Sec State who refused to protect her server that she used to conduct classified government business . Are we then supposed to be shocked that any hacker was able to access it ? There is so nothing there . Our system says that locals control how elections are conducted and gives wide latitude for that . So if a state wants tight voter controls ,it is within it's powers to do so . And if a loony town like San Fran want to let illegals vote it is the same deal .
So why aren't state and local jurisdictions doing more to secure their cyber infrastructures. Didn't they learn a darn thing from Target, Sony,and others what the threat is to them? I guess not. Nice going bringing Hillary and illegals voting into this, though Hillary's emails weren't hacked, nor has illegals voting ever been proved. All the social networks are catching hell from cyber attacks, now evidently from Iran as well, and are scuffling to show they are dealing with this issue, which may be great PR to help the corporate bottom line but is it a effective as they say? Obviously not at this time, since it still is happening.
So lets not just sluff it off with justifying knee jerk half a$$ purges and closing polls and kidnapping kids and making them disappear because the illegals are invading our political system and life, and get with the foreign governments screwing with our minds in cyberspace. The Dufus seems to busy with star wars to acknowledge Cyber Wars and covering his own butt from the females turning against him and Mueller probing up his anus to do anything about the real FAKE news that's not the media.
If I have to EXPLAIN what hacking a candidate means, then no point in telling you it's only the tip of the iceberg you can see.
Re illegals voting .. the 14th amendment states voting rights "shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude." .... and the 26th sets the age limit . There is nothing constitutionally prohibiting illegals from voting . State laws have always fluctuated on that issue .It was not until 1928 that an election was held where no non-citizen voted . Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections But that is by congressional statute that could be reversed any time the right balance became the majority . But you are right that local laws about suffrage do not apply to Federal elections ....yet although I imagine there isn't much of an effort to prevent it in San Fran,
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 PM. |