[talaniman]

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...28#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

You mean folks like this should get off their duffs and get a job? I think they had one until they didn't.

Jobless claims: Another 712,000 Americans filed new unemployment claims last week (yahoo.com)

[tomder55]

The 25 points of the Nazi charter ;cowritten by Hitler is chock full of socialism .
It calls for equality of rights for Germans . It calls for the subjugation of the people to the state ;confiscation of wealth ,and land ,the nationalization of industry ,profit sharing for the worker , extension of old age welfare ,duty of the individual to the state ,the communalization of the great warehouses and those being leased at low costs to small firms, nationalizing education; regulation of the press,

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia

For oddball reasons, the modern-day right has seized on the NAZI name to claim Hitler was a socialist. I can expect that of illiterates, but not you, tom. The name of the party preceded Hitler by several years. You really should know better.

Actually I first read that when I read Hayek's 1944 book 'The Road to Serfdom' . So no it is not some alternate history . It is a fact . Hayek described Nazism as a “genuine socialist movement” . National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement .The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, (volk) and invoked state based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation based socialism.

Yeah I get it ,European Socialists of the 1940s were embarrassed about what their movement had wrought .Not surprisingly they were not so embarrassed by Stalin's version even though Stalin exterminated many more people than Hitler ever dreamed of . So they concocted this false narrative that Nazis were some off shoot of capitalism . That is the narrative that is ridiculous .

[jlisenbe]

This is an unusual situation, especially considering that much of the economic damage being done is at the direction of brainless pols who really believe that we can just shut down vast areas of businesses and leave these people with no jobs. It's insane.

[paraclete]

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...28#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

perfect liberty doesn't exist, if you want to defend it it comes at a cost. If you don't support those without support society will degenerate into anarchy. Unfortunately the only way to make sure everyone contributes short of robbery is taxation and while I consider taxation is theft it is a necessary evil to ensure an ordered society particularly in these times when people are unemployed or destitute through no fault of their own but never the less those like you will cling to their money in the name of liberty just as they cling to their guns

[jlisenbe]

perfect liberty doesn't exist,

Nothing perfect exists on this earth. That's no excuse to ignore liberty.

Unfortunately the only way to make sure everyone contributes short of robbery is taxation and while I consider taxation is theft it is a necessary evil to ensure an ordered society particularly in these times when people are unemployed or destitute through no fault of their own but never the less those like you will cling to their money in the name of liberty just as they cling to their guns

But everyone does not contribute, and there is no desire whatsoever amongst liberals for everyone to contribute. The battle cry is always for the wealthy to pay their fair share, which is absolute nonsense. Tax the rich! How does that ensure that "everyone" pays?

For those who are sound of mind and body, you usually do them no favors by passing out money. That's how we find ourselves in the insane situation of having college students who expect the taxpayers to pay off their loans. And if you really want everyone to contribute, then why did you limit your suggestion to only those making more than 2.5 mil?

[Wondergirl]

But everyone does not contribute, and there is no desire whatsoever amongst liberals for everyone to contribute. The battle cry is always for the wealthy to pay their fair share, which is absolute nonsense. Tax the rich! How does that ensure that "everyone" pays?

Illinois struggled with this -- a flat income tax or a graduated income tax.

[talaniman]

Which state in America hands out welfare benefits or free money without work requirements? Which state does that for life?

More hardcore right wing BS!

[paraclete]

from those who can to those who can't, I know you don't like the concept but who but the rich have the ability to contribute to support the society that made them rich. You rail against the taxation of the rich but the poor are made poorer by taxation

[jlisenbe]

I know you don't like the concept but who but the rich have the ability to contribute to support the society that made them rich. You rail against the taxation of the rich but the poor are made poorer by taxation

All taxation makes everyone poorer. I don't rail against the taxation of the rich. I oppose the forced charity imposed upon others by people like you who say you want everyone to contribute until the truth finally comes out. I find that people like you are all in favor of raised taxes so long as it is do ne to someone else. It is why I say repeatedly that I never meet the person who is in favor of raising taxes on him/her self in order to help the poor. It always comes down to, "Vote for So and So, because he will raise taxes on the rich to give goodies to you!" It is sickening to me.

Plainly you are free to believe what you will, and I don't intend to sound harsh. You want to tax the wealthy to pay for the poor, and do so against their will. You feel that is justifiable. I question it greatly. I guess that's where it stands. I do have some sympathy for the idea of using some tax revenues to help those who genuinely need it, but at present it is being used to encourage out of wedlock births by basically making husbands/fathers nothing more than a option, and to encourage people not to work.

[Athos]

The 25 points of the Nazi charter ;cowritten by Hitler is chock full of socialism .
It calls for equality of rights for Germans . It calls for the subjugation of the people to the state ;confiscation of wealth ,and land ,the nationalization of industry ,profit sharing for the worker , extension of old age welfare ,duty of the individual to the state ,the communalization of the great warehouses and those being leased at low costs to small firms, nationalizing education; regulation of the press,

National Socialist Program - Wikipedia

Tom, you've been hoodwinked by the alt-right. The following is from the very link you provided.

Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that,

To [Hitler, the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation, for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory, against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents.

Like Hitler, Trump offers an effective, persuasive speech at his rallies to manipulate the masses. His lies are pure decoration, yet his pseudo-theory attracts nearly half the population in thrall to him. The wannabee future dictator came close to toppling this country and destroying its democracy.

Like an insane man, Trump continues his mad screed of screaming that he was robbed and that the election was rigged. The world watches in absolute astonishment.


In the end, decency and goodness won.

[paraclete]

All taxation makes everyone poorer. I don't rail against the taxation of the rich. I oppose the forced charity imposed upon others by people like you who say you want everyone to contribute until the truth finally comes out. I find that people like you are all in favor of raised taxes so long as it is do ne to someone else.

It is sickening to me.

I am not in favour of taxation per see and I have said many times I consider taxation is theft so your continual characterisation of me as a person who favours raising taxation is plainly wrong and an excuse to once again sing your favourite song and dance the dance of raining on the poor saying they are not entitled to support. Charity is plainly inadequate to provide for those who have little and if the rich and super rich are coerced to contribute more of what is a super abundance I see they are unharmed by it

[jlisenbe]

First you say you are, "not in favour of taxation per se," and that my characterization of you as a person who favors raising taxes is "plainly wrong". But you conclude by saying, " and if the rich and super rich are coerced to contribute more of what is a super abundance I see they are unharmed by it." Well, you can't have it both ways. My characterization of you seems to be exactly correct. You don't want your taxes raised, but you do want to raise taxes on others, so you're all for charity as long as it doesn't cost you anything. You are advocating for the exact kind of painless charity that others on this board advocate for. "Let the rich pay for it!" It's the song and dance of the Biden supporters. "Vote for Biden and he'll pay off your student loans." It's the same something for nothing idea that they've been selling for years now.

The problem with the idea is that it all comes down to government confiscation of another person's property, and all on the idea that someone else has decided they really don't need to have it. Well I would suggest to you that both of us likewise have property that we really don't need. Should the government come and take that as well? If they can do it to the wealthy, then why not to you? And compared to most of the rest of the world, aren't you similarly "super rich"?

[talaniman]

You do realize that you voted for the dufus for your own reason so why can't others have their own reasons for their vote like you did? Seems a bit self righteous, but the fact is whatever the reasons you seem to have been outvoted this time.

Bummer ain't it?

[Wondergirl]

The problem with the idea is that it all comes down to government confiscation of another person's property, and all on the idea that someone else has decided they really don't need to have it.

Like eminent domain at the southern border....federal government jerking ranchers' property out of their grip in order to build a useless wall.

[jlisenbe]

You do realize that you voted for the dufus for your own reason so why can't others have their own reasons for their vote like you did?

No one is questioning that.

Like eminent domain at the southern border....federal government jerking ranchers' property out of their grip in order to build a useless wall.

Are you also opposed to eminent domain being used to build highways?

[Wondergirl]

Are you also opposed to eminent domain being used to build highways?

What if it's your property they want to build an interstate through?

[jlisenbe]

You did not answer the question. That is very common for you, but I'll step up and answer yours anyway.

It does change things when it becomes personnel. To make a comparison, I am all in favor of the police arresting criminals unless, of course, I'm the criminal. Now in my case, I have actually had to deal with the state buying some of our land to build a highway on. They paid us very well, and we used a good bit of that to send our two kids through college when, before that, we had no really good idea of how we would do that. But that is not the case with everyone, and I understand that, but I don't know how you can have a modern country without eminent domain. So to be critical of Trump using eminent domain to build some of the southern wall, but then not be willing to simply express an opinion on the general use of eminent domain just strikes me as pretty lame.

[Wondergirl]

You did not answer the question.

Neither did you.

[jlisenbe]

I just answered the question. Look above.

[talaniman]

So it's okay for the government to take your land and money to build a wall, but feeding and sheltering the least is out of the question?