GoVols Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kevinf12 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > “Working individuals (full-time), should not > live > > in poverty, period.” > > > > As long as they are attempting to better their > > situation and not take handouts…but when they > > become complacent, spend beyond their means, > and > > rely on others and lose ambition and drive, > they > > deserve poverty. > > Kevin, > > What’s up man? I agree with you. One of the > biggest things that bothers me about American is > the growing attitute of self entitlement that many > americans have. > > It is hard for me to understand all you people who > call for more entitlement spending. The new deal, > the great society, the war on poverty - how many > trillions of dollars have been spent in the US > over the past 80 years for the purpose of > eradicating poverty? How much more should be > spent? I have no problems with having a “safety > net” in society for those who fall on desperate > times, but the current state on entitlement > spending in the US is out of control. Just look at > how entitlement spending has increased as a > percentage of the annual national budget. There is > a huge difference between subsidizing a lifetime > of freeloading and temporarily helping those > facing homelessness. > > “I believe government’s role is to ensure fairness > and defeat persecution of different classes, > races, genders, etc.” > > mattlikesanalysis - I don’t know about Canada, but > in the US we have this document called the > Constitution that supposedly outlines the > government’s “role in society”. I don’t recall it > saying anything about “defeating the persecution > of different classes.” Who’s calling for more entitlement spending? I think you’re confusing that with social gov’t programs. The majority of the increases in entitlement spending can’t be cut (no matter what Hannity says), these include social security, medicare, and (the big one) the interest on the national debt. Entitlement spending has to be paid, so what is the best way to fund these obligations?
What is it called to give a “refund” check to someone who never paid taxes? I want to call it a tax cut or refund, but that implies there is something to start with…what would this be called?
It seems as though there are some who think I’m talking about freebies to all the poor people in America. To clarify, I thought the whole premise of this post was taxation so obviously I’m calling for taxing rich, alleviating the WORKING poor. Secondly, why can’t the role of government go beyond a document written over 225 years ago. Times change, issues change, priorities change. Its about development in all classes, not just the richest. Lastly, I believe that it is corporations’ fault for allowing these loans, mortgages to be unleashed on the world. Ordinary people do not have fiduciary duty to anyone except themselves and you can’t rely that ordinary people will have knowledge to protect themselves when their environments don’t promote knowledge and personal development. For managers and directors to not recognize the risk of deflation or reduced equity prices in any environment is extremely poor foresight. Don’t sell products you can’t explain… Don’t buy products you can’t explain…
Why are you even on this website? You should be over at the Young Socialist Forum or something.
Why is it socialist to believe in lower taxes in the living wage bracket? Everyone gets the reduction who makes a salary, which is maybe 99.99999% of working people.
Pox Americana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Substantive: possessing substance; having > practical importance, value, or effect > > I was pointing out that there has been no > principle-based discussion of taxation. So rather > than arguing about how one guy will tax you at > this rate and this guy will tax you at that rate, > it would be interesting to hear a candidate > question whether the government should be stealing > your income at all. No major candidate other than > Ron Paul had the balls or integrity to do this. I’ve heard this argument before. I also wonder if people have looking into the history of taxation. Every since the beginning of civilization taxes have been enacted inorder to service the common good. With out taxes how is all the infrastructure necessary for us to survive going to be built. Ron Paul is just the polar opposite of the spectrum of all the radical hippies living in communes.
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am concerned that Obama is writing checks, his > administration will not be able to cash. Then they > will forcefully try and cash it and that’s when > property and intellectual rights will come under > threat. > > All men (and women) are created equal but some of > us work harder and play a more responsible game to > elevate ourselves and reach our goals. bullshit the circumstances of our birth play a pivotal role in the way our life is determined. a kid born with downsyndrome or to people living in in a trailer park do not have the same opportunities as someone born into an upper middle class family of working professionals
SeanC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pox Americana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Substantive: possessing substance; having > > practical importance, value, or effect > > > > I was pointing out that there has been no > > principle-based discussion of taxation. So > rather > > than arguing about how one guy will tax you at > > this rate and this guy will tax you at that > rate, > > it would be interesting to hear a candidate > > question whether the government should be > stealing > > your income at all. No major candidate other > than > > Ron Paul had the balls or integrity to do this. > > I’ve heard this argument before. > > I also wonder if people have looking into the > history of taxation. Every since the beginning of > civilization taxes have been enacted inorder to > service the common good. With out taxes how is all > the infrastructure necessary for us to survive > going to be built. > > Ron Paul is just the polar opposite of the > spectrum of all the radical hippies living in > communes. I wonder if you’ve looked into the history of this country. We didn’t have a permanent income tax until the “progressive” era (19-teens, don’t remember the exact year), and yet somehow roads and bridges managed to get built before then. It would be much more fair to have the users pay for infrastructure through tolls than to tax someone in Florida to pay for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Of course, the gummint would much rather give $700B to banks that deserve to fail than spend it on something reasonable, like repairing this country’s crumbling infrastructure. In fact, given the pitiful state of infrastructure in this country, I think the argument could be made to privatize it and get the government out before more bridges collapse.